Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud we have brought this resolution to the floor today. it is sadly fitting, as today marks the 1-year anniversary of the fatal shootings of Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino and Detective Vicky O. Armel of the Fairfax County Police Department--the first two officers shot and killed in the line of duty in the department's long, distinguished history. These local officers were shining examples of the courage and selflessness found in our law enforcement community. Their stories also illustrate the fact that personal sacrifice and danger have always been synonymous with law enforcement service, beginning with New York City's Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith, who on May 17, 1792, became the first recorded police officer to be killed in the line of duty. Today, there are 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States who continue the ``quest to preserve both democracy and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream,'' a quote by President George Bush engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Each one of these officers and their families carry with them the knowledge their efforts put them in harm's way. Today, more than 56,000 are assaulted each year and every 53 hours, an officer is killed while serving the American people. September 11, 2001, was the deadliest day for police officers in all of American history when 72 officers were killed while responding to terrorist attacks. May 15 is Peace Officers Memorial Day, a holiday created in 1961 by Congress to honor fallen law enforcement officers who dedicated their lives to protecting this country and its citizens. The flag is flown at half-staff and thousands of people visit the Memorial, which was authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and built in 1989 and currently has 17,912 names etched into the wall. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution to honor the memories of Master Police Officer Garbarino and Detective Armel, and all the fallen heroes from the law enforcement ranks for their service and their willingness to expose themselves to danger in their pursuit of a safe community.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I've traveled a long road with the District of Columbia Access Act--from March 1, 1999, when it was introduced, until the present day. That road took us through the predecessor subcommittee I chaired at the time, to the full Government Reform Committee, to the House and Senate floor, and then to the White House, where then-President Clinton signed the measure on November 12, 1999. In all of its legislative approvals the College Access Act--also known as the Tuition Assistance Grant Program--was passed unanimously, by voice vote. President Clinton had included sufficient money in his budget submission that year, and a statement of administration policy endorsed the approach we had taken in authorizing use of those funds. I am deeply proud of our hard, bipartisan effort in enacting this measure and in reauthorizing it 2 years ago. My thanks to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was ranking member of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1999, and who has worked tirelessly to enhance this legislation ever since. I would also like to thank my then-counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his continuing support, and Senators Warner and Durbin for working with us to improve this legislation. I'm also grateful to my namesake Chairman Danny Davis, chairman of the subcommittee, for holding a hearing on this bill March 22, ranking subcommittee member Kenny Marchant for his support, and Chairman Waxman for marking this bill up so expeditiously. The 5-year reauthorizing legislation before us today will enable District residents to continue to attend colleges and universities at in-State rates. President Bush, in his budget submission for fiscal year 2008, has included sufficient funds to make this happen. Then-Mayor Anthony Williams and now D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty have both strongly supported this law as being very important for District high school graduates. The Tuition Assistance Program has doubled the total number of District students attending college since 1999-2000, the school year before the program started. We have incentivized getting a college education. This law is a classic ``leveling of the playing field.'' No city or county in the country is required to supplement in-State rates with local funds, and neither should the taxpayers in the Nation's capital be saddled with this burden. Neither should the city be penalized for its own success in administering this program. Back on March 4, 1999, when I first introduced this bill, I went to nearby Eastern High School with Ms. Norton. I was deeply moved by the reaction of the students. I will never forget how so many took our hands, looked into our eyes, and thanked us for introducing the original bill. I'm proud of all we have been able to do in the Nation's capital since 1995, when the city was literally bankrupt. Economic development, public safety, the real estate market, and so many other aspects of city life have changed for the better. But nothing has given me more satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunity. Fighting for equal educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life. We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington region. Reauthorizing this law, which has expanded higher educational choices, is a strong part of our vision for the future.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. In the manager's amendment adopted by the rule, the majority stripped out a number of commonsense amendments, mostly offered by Republicans, which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority Members. I guess the good news here is that we know this bill may pass the House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate, and in this form, it is unsignable by the President. But the rule also disallowed a critical amendment to help ensure that the Washington area would receive the necessary senior-level attention from the Department of Homeland Security so that Federal, State, and local governments are properly coordinating their homeland security activities. In 2002, when we established the Department of Homeland Security in a bipartisan manner, it created an Office of National Capital Region Coordination. To demonstrate the importance of this, we put it in the Office of the Secretary. Unfortunately, the administration decided in their reorganization to put this deep inside of FEMA. My amendment, which was not allowed, was pretty straightforward. It was to restore the office to its original and rightful place in the Office of the Secretary. This amendment would have passed with a large bipartisan majority, but it was not allowed by the other side. Now, why is this important? The events of 9/11 made it all too important that better coordination of first responders is needed in the D.C. region, with two States and the District of Columbia, 12 local jurisdictions, three branches of the Federal Government, 2,100 nonprofit organizations, thousands of businesses and nonprofit organizations, 4 million Americans. They want to put that responsibility into FEMA. It belongs in the Office of the Secretary. We have been through ``tractor man.'' We have been through disruptions at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We have been through the snipers. This needs the highest Federal attention for coordination among all these different organizations in the region. And they wouldn't allow this amendment. We are going to introduce this as a commonsense stand-alone bill. I hope it will receive the attention of this House. But in disallowing this amendment, now the other side takes ownership of this provision by putting their confidence in FEMA instead of the Office of the Secretary.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove from this legislation a very dangerous and costly restriction on the government's ability to obtain protective gear, apparel and other materials that are critical to those charged with protecting our Nation. Is 9/11 already such a distant memory that we are willing to sacrifice the safety of those protecting our country in order to delude ourselves into believing we are saving jobs? Are there Members of this House who believe we should not be doing everything we can to make sure that our Customs Officers, our Border Patrol agents, our Air Marshals have the best protective gear, the best bulletproof vest, the best body armor available in the world when we go out and purchase this for them? Wherever it is made, we want them to have the best. Make no mistake about it, a vote against my amendment is a vote to jeopardize the safety and security of the agents and officers protecting our country by restricting the sourcing and our ability to buy the best available around the globe. What is more, section 407 limits competition, which ends up driving up taxpayer costs, and it limits the Homeland Security Department's ability to obtain the best products to protect our homeland. Members should not be conned into thinking that domestic source restrictions, ``Buy America,'' save jobs. Time and time again, these shortsighted restrictions have ended up costing us more American jobs than they save, as our trading partners then take retaliatory action against American-made goods and services that we sell abroad. We should remember that we are only 4 percent of the world's consumers here in the United States. Pretty soon, with these kind of source restrictions on what America can buy and sell, we are going to be selling only to ourselves. Restrictions such as these jeopardize national security; do not make available to us the most modern technologies, the best body armor, the best bulletproof vests in the world. The highest technology available in the world for ID cards could be eliminated under this amendment. It hamstrings market competition by eliminating who can bid on these contracts, it leads to higher prices and lower quality goods and services, and it wastes precious taxpayer dollars. I think by supporting homeland security, you should support our amendment to strike section 407. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties in our procurement system today in government is that we try to reach too many competing policy goals in the way that we buy goods and services. When we use taxpayer dollars, when we take hard-earned money from our taxpayers and the government needs a good or a service, our purpose ought to be to buy the best good and the best service and get the best value for our tax dollars, period. That is what we do when we buy our cars. That is what we do when we add additions to our home. The government should be subject to the same rules and regulations. In this particular case, there is no safety issue over where these materials may be made. That is a subterfuge. What this is is an attempt to try to protect American jobs in some ways, and of course, the end result is you lose them in others. But by reaching these competing goals in procurement through set- asides, where we exclude parts of the economic system from bidding, this ``Buy America'' language is another effort another effort to restrict competition. We end up driving up costs for the taxpayers. We don't make use, many times, of the best technology. Although there is catch-all language in this and other ``Buy America'' language that allows the Secretary to certify certain things, in point of fact, they don't work. They are reluctant to do that, and you end up many times with higher-costing goods of the same order. That reduces our ability to use taxpayer dollars wisely. In a global economy, American taxpayers should get the benefit of the best value when we go out and use our dollars to buy goods and services. Restrictions on competition like this means that tax dollars are limited in their choices. Fewer choices means inferior products. It means greater costs. It means less competition. Section 407 of this legislation restricts competition, and it should be restricted. My amendment is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the Information Technology Association of America as well. I think every taxpayer ought to be concerned about how their tax dollars are spent. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his position in the area that he represents, but I just don't think these restrictive source provisions over the long term are in the American taxpayers' interests. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this bill to correct a long standing historical inequity. H.R. 1294 would provide federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect, dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes. Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s, their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades. While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered, this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997, Virginia passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition. This inequity should stand no longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs, grants and other federal services. Mr. Speaker, this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniveary of the founding of Jamestown and honor the history and courage that experience entailed, let us also honor these Native Americans who have persevered through a system of exclusion, by mandating Federal recognition.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this bill to correct a long-standing historical inequity. H.R. 1294 would provide Federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect, dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes. Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s, their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades. While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered, this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997, Virginia passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition. This inequity should stand no longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs, grants and other Federal services. Mr. Speaker, this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and honor the history and courage that experience entailed, let us also honor these Native Americans who have persevered through a system of exclusion, by mandating Federal recognition.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 117. Mr. Speaker, 400 hundred years ago a group of entrepreneurs from the Virginia Company landed on Jamestown Island with the intent of establishing a colony to find gold and a water route to the Orient. This landing spot became the first permanent English colony in America and later became the capital of Virginia for 92 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask today that we take a moment to focus on the courage of those who lived there. In a strange land, yet not the land they sought, in an unhealthy place plagued by disease, fire and the elements, they banded together to make a life. And that life was not an easy one. By the end of 1607, after a particularly harsh winter, only 60 of the original 214 settlers remained alive. If Captain John Smith hadn't contrived to get food for the Indians, the American dream might well have died on those swampy shores. Suffering and hard work were not strangers to the colonists. By 1614, the settlers had a cash crop--tobacco--and they worked hard to see that it sustained the colony. To ensure order, they formed the House of Burgesses, the first representative assembly in America. Soon, every farmer in Virginia was granted 40 acres of land on which to farm tobacco. Still, they had little beyond that which they could get for themselves or the local Indians. It is hard today to fathom the courage of those who struggled against all to make the colony and their families a success. Today, 400 years later, we honor not just those brave people but the native Americans they encountered and the Africans who became indentured servants soon thereafter. I encourage all Americans to take a cue from the Queen of England and make the pilgrimage to Jamestown during this historic year. I encourage them to observe first-hand the hardships endured, the friendships forged, the commitment to something more than survival--the courage to leave behind far more comfortable lives in England and take the chance of a lifetime. These were the first Americans in many senses. They were the first to form a government, the first to be willing to push past tradition and comfort for adventure, for fairness, for democracy. That's why I am I proud to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 117.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, secure information is the lifeblood of effective government policy and management, yet federal agencies continue to hemorrhage vital data. Personal information continues to be placed at risk, and we must ask: What is being done to protect the sensitive digital identities of millions of Americans, and how can we limit the damage when personal data does go astray? As we all now know, a Department of Veterans Affairs employee reported the theft of computer equipment from his home--equipment which stored more than 26 million records containing personal information. VA leadership delayed acting on the report for almost two weeks, while millions were at risk of serious harm from identity theft and the agency struggled to determine the exact extent of the breach. But this is only one in a long string of personal information breaches in the public and private sectors, including financial institutions, data brokerage companies, and academic institutions. Last year, we found the Census Bureau could not account for over one thousand laptops containing sensitive information issued to employees. And just recently, we learned the Department of Agriculture left sensitive data on a website, putting the personal information of 150,000 individuals as risk. These breaches continue to illustrate how far we have to go to reach the goal of strong, uniform, government-wide information security policies and procedures. On the Government Reform Committee, I focused on government-wide information management and security for a long time. The Privacy Act and the E-Government Act of 2002 outline the parameters for the protection of personal information. These recent incidents highlight the importance of establishing--and following--security standards for safeguarding personal information. They also highlight the need for proactive security breach notification requirements for organizations-- including Federal agencies--dealing with sensitive personal information. Congress continues working on requirements for the private sector-- but Federal agencies present unique requirements and challenges. These incidents demonstrate the importance of strengthening the laws and rules protecting personal information held by Federal agencies--and we need to do this quickly. In order to get a more complete picture of the problem before pursuing legislation, we sent a request to all cabinet agencies seeking information about data breaches involving the loss of sensitive personal information. The results were troubling. We learned there have been a wide range of incidents involving data loss or theft, privacy breaches, and security incidents. In almost all of these cases, Congress and the public would not have learned of each event unless we had requested the information. My bill requires timely notice be provided to individuals whose sensitive personal information could be compromised by a breach of data security at a Federal agency. Despite the volume of sensitive information held by agencies, there currently is no requirement people be notified if their information is compromised. Under this legislation, the executive branch must establish practices, procedures and standards for agencies to follow if sensitive personal information is lost or stolen and there is a reasonable risk of harm to an individual. And we provide a clear definition of the type of sensitive information we're trying to protect. We also give the agency Chief Information Officers the authority, when appropriate and authorized, to ensure agency personnel comply with the information security laws already on the books. Finally, we ensure costly equipment containing potentially sensitive information is accounted for and secure. Half of the lost Census Bureau computers simply were not returned by departing or terminated employees. The agency did not track computer equipment, nor were employees held accountable for failing to return it. This is taxpayer funded equipment, containing sensitive information, and we must know what we have and who has it--at all times. Each year, I release Federal agency information security scorecards. Despite some improvement, scores for many departments remain unacceptably low. The Federal Government overall received a C minus, a slight improvement over prior years. The Federal Government has sensitive personal information on every citizen--health records, tax returns, military records. We need to ensure the public knows when its sensitive personal information has been lost or compromised in some way. The language in this bill is identical to H.R. 6163, which I introduced last Congress. Last year, with the assistance of then Chairman Steve Buyer, I incorporated this language into the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act (H.R. 5835), which passed the House on September 26. That bill, including my language, had strong bipartisan support, with 67 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including the new chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This bill is a critical first step toward limiting the loss of our sensitive personal information. I hope we can again move this important legislation through the House.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H. Res. 243. The imprisonment of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience by the Republic of Vietnam is unconscionable. I join my colleagues in urging the communist regime in Hanoi to cease with these repressive actions. Father Nguyen Van Ly and human rights attorneys Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested earlier this year for allegedly disseminating propaganda against their government. Their actions were peaceful and nonviolent, and are protected by the Vietnamese Constitution. In the 12th round of human rights talks between our government and the government of the Republic of Vietnam last week, the assistant to the Vietnamese foreign minister attempted to highlight their achievements in this arena, citing the protection and execution of basic rights and freedoms of their people. Madam Speaker, these words are not enough. We need action. The government of Vietnam needs to show us their commitment to providing basic human rights to their citizenry by releasing these Vietnamese patriots. Their alleged crimes amount to nothing more than advocating freedom of religion, speech, movement and association; these actions should be celebrated, rather than punished by their government. I support this resolution and call upon the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release these political and religious prisoners. Further, I call upon their government to embrace differing opinions, and ensure their government's vitality through the strength of its principles, rather than the strength of its police force.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Katherine Carney upon receiving the Commonwealth Academy's Recognition for Educators, CARE, Award. The CARE award honors outstanding educators from across the United States for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of their students. Kathe, a teacher at Neabsco Elementary School, is honored for her work in promoting diverse learners in the spirit of the ''No Child Left Behind Act.'' Although she began her career teaching English literature, Mrs. Carney's passion and gift lay with teaching the neediest students. In 1994, at PACE West, a self-contained special education school, she taught students with serious emotional and behavioral needs. In addition to the 8-13 subjects she taught a day, she took on roles as a mentor, advisory committee member, and the school's administrator of various special education testing regimens. Devoted to reading, Mrs. Carney noted a void of books at her school, and was shocked to find no library at PACE West. She took it upon herself to initiate, organize, and develop the PACE West library, which housed 2,000 volumes upon her departure. After 7 years at PACE, Mrs. Carney joined the staff at Swans Creek Elementary School. She taught a self-contained class for students in the 2nd-5th grade with learning disabilities, speech, language and vision impairments, and other health challenges. Again, Mrs. Carney mentored her fellow teachers and established the school's Learning Disabilities Program. In 2003, Mrs. Carney joined the faculty at Neabsco Elementary School, teaching 4th and 5th graders who are emotionally disturbed. The administration at Neabsco quickly realized her abilities and tasked her to be the case manager of the Instructional Consultant Team and a member of the Child Study Team. Mrs. Carney has received numerous commendations at Neabsco, including being named 2007 Neabsco Teacher of the Year and was nominated to be 2007 Dale City Teacher of the Year. Over her distinguished career, Mrs. Carney has demonstrated great resolve, patience, and a unique ability to make a positive difference in the lives of her students. Working with students with these needs is trying; however, every day is a new opportunity for Mrs. Carney and her students. No incident or past history is ever carried back into the classroom; this includes the time where an inadvertent swing of a baseball bat left her in a full leg cast for months. It is dark when Mrs. Carney arrives at school and dark when she leaves. Her devotion to her students is immeasurable. Whether it is tutoring for the science fair on a Saturday, meeting with a concerned parent late at night, or counseling former students on life altering decisions, Mrs. Carney always makes herself available to those in need. Through her tender approach and no-nonsense outlook, Mrs. Carney has made a difference in the lives of countless youths in Prince William County. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Mrs. Carney for being recognized as one of the 2007 CARE awardees. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Kathe on all her accomplishments and in wishing her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591. As I have said on previous occasions, Congress has every right to limit the use of appropriated funds. In this instance, I disagree with the manner in which my Democratic colleagues have chosen to do so. The Iraqi government needs to understand our patience is not unlimited. Indeed, establishing benchmarks could well have a useful purpose in the effort to have the Iraqis take more decisive steps towards autonomy. Making these benchmarks public and tying them to a specific date by which we must begin to withdraw our troops, however, is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to our troops, and it gives the enemy invaluable information. Along with many of my colleagues, I want our troops to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. Setting a public date by which this must happen, however, will ultimately create more problems than it solves.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Kyle R. Wilson and to recognize his service to our community. I come to the floor to speak of the bravery exhibited by Technician Wilson who served on the Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue since January of 2006. Technician Wilson and his unit from Occoquan-Woodbridge-Lorton (OWL) Station 12 in Woodbridge responded to a three alarm house fire early on the morning on April 16th, 2007. Tragically, he was killed in the line of duty while heroically attempting to save the lives of others. Kyle was a longtime resident of Prince William County and attended C.D. Hylton High School in Woodbridge, VA where he was a star baseball player for the Bulldogs. The bravery Kyle demonstrated Monday was typical of his personality. His former baseball coach described him to have all the qualities of a leader, specifically that he was fearless and willing to make sacrifices for others. Due to this strong character and devotion to community, it was no surprise to his coach that Kyle found his calling as a firefighter. Upon graduation from Hylton, Kyle went on to study athletic training and earned his degree from George Mason University in 2005. He joined the fire department in January 2006, graduating from the recruit academy that June. Assistant Prince William County Fire Chief Kevin McGee described Kyle as an ``outstanding young man, who was one of the best of our best.'' Kyle is survived by his father Bob, mother Sue, brother Chris, sister Kelli, and his girlfriend Kristi Silor. In my experiences with the department, I have seen its unwavering dedication to the Prince William County community. Kyle was an example of Prince William's finest. Every day firefighters selflessly put their lives on the line to save others, and Kyle made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us never forget the sacrifice he made. Madam Speaker, in honoring Kyle I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women that put their lives on the line and bravely serve on the Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Kyle's family, friends, and to his brothers and sisters on the department.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman from Michigan could yield me 2 minutes as well.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Taxation Without Representation, the phrase that sparked this Nation's revolution of independence, still fuels the aspirations of District residents, especially this week when they paid taxes to a Federal Government in which they are not fully represented. So this House once again considers a bill to correct this historical anomaly that leaves those living closest to the seat of our democracy without the same rights as their fellow citizens living everywhere else in our vast Nation. We persist because the cause is right and patience a vice against long-festering injustice. Today, there is no need to repeat everything said 3 weeks ago. The history, the case law, the constitutional analysis have all been recited. We have heard from the opponents of this legislation who rely on a single argument championed by one very liberal constitutional lawyer. We counter with the studied opinions of two former Federal judges, including Judge Kenneth Starr, and 25 legal scholars from the best law schools in the country, including Viet Dinh, who the Bush administration relied on to write the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who would have been moved by those arguments has already been persuaded. Instead, I want to focus on the moral imperative to act, even in the face of difficulty or doubt. A great man of letters once said: ``Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.'' There will always be an excuse not to try. Refute one opposing argument, another sprouts like a weed. In this case, the scales of justice cannot be moved with weightless legal theories. The balance is tipped decidedly by the solid facts and heavy effects of disenfranchisement endured every day by those who live in the Nation's Capital. The people of the District of Columbia have served in every war this country has fought. Think about that for a second. These Americans bravely risked their lives, not to defend the freedoms they had, but to protect the promise of freedoms they hoped to have restored. They dutifully pay many millions of dollars in Federal taxes year in and year out, with absolutely no say in how that money may be spent. But these are the obvious sacrifices of living in the Federal City. The small daily contributions of this city's citizens should not be overlooked. District residents truly serve this Nation every day performing thousands of Federal jobs. But when this House votes on the shape, the size and the cost of that government, they are invisible, unseen and unheard in debates that affect their lives more directly than most. As a Republican, I am not willing to bear the shame of failing to try to resolve this matter after 200 years. According to our party's own Web site, ``The Republican Party was organized as an answer to the divided politics, political turmoil, argument and internal divisions, particularly over slavery, which plagued many political parties in 1854.'' Our first Presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, ran under a slogan: ``Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.'' We exist as a party to increase representation and liberty in this country and in this world. This legislation is in the highest traditions of this party that fought for free speech, fought to abolish slavery, and fought to give women the right to vote. So I ask my Republican colleagues to see through the fog of armchair constitutional analysis and do the right thing. There is still time to cast a Republican vote, a vote to preserve our party's heritage and to vote to expand liberty. Opponents of this legislation will apologize that the Constitution won't allow them to do the good they wish they could do. I am sorry, but I can't accept that. At the end of the day, this is not an argument about what Congress can do. It is about what Congress is willing to do. Those of us who are supporting this bill are not nervous about its constitutionality. We are convinced that this Congress already has the authority we need to expand freedom and liberty in this Nation. Might we be wrong? Possibly. The Supreme Court has never decided a case like this. But even if we are proven wrong, there is nobility in attempting to do the right thing. There is honor in acting, not just talking, to end injustice. To those still shackled by doubt, I offer the words of Reverend King: ``Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase. Just take the first step.'' Take that step with me and pass this bill.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my colleague for yielding. I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we can implement what we just did. I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy. Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great compromise. The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long, but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy left by the first Congresses. I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it is. The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New Jersey. After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that there should be one, and that it should be under congressional authority. After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac. These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's inhabitants the right to vote. Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were shaped by the issues of the day. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia. The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the debate to follow. Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city. Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted all things urban. With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took over, it would never pass. Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having been superseded in the District, would still apply. We may never know why this version was passed because no records survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to deny representation to some of their fellow citizens. One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress. This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very few people. The problem affects the very reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing his relationship with China. Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today. Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to the District. Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with full voting representation. Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by statute today. This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States.'' That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes, even though it applies to people of the several States. The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District. Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of Columbia and the courts have upheld it. Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit. That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District clause, we have included the District of Columbia. Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people. Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause we have applied that by statute. This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the floor under the PAYGO legislation. It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I address this Chamber today. As the parent of four children in college, I share the horror and the rage, the grief and the sorrow of the larger Virginia community. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution expressing our sorrow and offering condolences over the tragic events that took place Monday at Virginia Tech. Our hearts, our prayers and our thoughts go out to the families of those who lost lives, the injured and their families, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy, including the family of the troubled young man who perpetrated this crime. The coming together of communities, the reaching over the fences to lend a hand of support at this hour of need has been touching. From the Washington Nationals wearing Virginia Tech caps last night, to the community groups that gathered spontaneously across the Commonwealth to share their sorrow, the picture of the Commonwealth today is one we can, as usual, take great pride in. Yesterday I traveled with my colleagues to Blacksburg for the convocation, and last evening over 500 Korean Americans assembled at the Fairfax County Government Center to express their outrage, to offer their prayers, to start the healing process that follows such tragic events. Mr. Speaker, we Virginians are known for looking out for each other and this has been no different. The outpouring of love, sympathy and caring for each other has been astonishing. The pictures of students comforting each other, of students and teachers helping each other search for answers in these dark hours has been particularly moving. All of us around the Commonwealth must come together to find the strength to move forward. We're family. We've been deeply wounded. That's what families do when they're hurt. They look to each other for strength, for inspiration and for meaning. Mr. Speaker, we hurt for the victims and we honor their lives. That's what families do. We close ranks and lend each other support in our darkest hours. Benjamin Franklin said more than 200 years ago that those things that hurt instruct. Let us learn from this. Let us hurt. It's good for the soul. It helps us to heal. It is, sadly, the only way to move forward. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the officers and members of American Legion Post 364, American Legion Auxiliary Unit 364, and all national members of the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary. The American Legion is a community-service organization, made up of patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans. The American Legion Auxiliary is a women's patriotic service organization, created to assist the American Legion. Through community service programs, both of these fine institutions have made a great impact on our community and to the veterans living in our region. This year, Mr. Jerry Howard will serve as the American Legion Department of Virginia commander. A 22 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Jerry has been a member of the American Legion for 23 years. He has previously served as Post 364 commander, 16th District commander and Department of Virginia vice commander. Ms. Marcia Wheatley will serve as the American Legion Auxiliary Department of Virginia president. A 12 year member of the American Legion Auxiliary, Marcia has served as Unit 364 president and 16th District president. Together, Jerry and Marcia will represent Virginia at state and national veteran events where they will promote programs that benefit veterans, troops, and children. Also, they will travel here, to Washington DC, to meet with members of Congress to discuss legislation needed to provide for the health and well being of troops and veterans. Other recent officer selections include Virginia Department Historian Barbara Barnes, Auxiliary National Security Chairman Dianne Cabot, Post 364 Commander William Moriarity and Unit 364 President Raye Ferrington. These individuals bring a stellar record of accomplishment to these institutions, and the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary will benefit greatly from their experience. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary. Their tireless efforts on behalf of the community, state and nation deserve our highest praise. I commend and congratulate all of these officers on their selection to these positions, and wish them further success as they continue to work for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. David Mabie on the occasion of his retirement after 40 years of dedicated public service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Mabie began his career at the Waynesboro Police Department, as one of the original officers of the newly formed Prince William County division. He served there as a detective until moving to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office in 1980. Throughout his time there, Mr. Mabie investigated major cases involving capital charges, and was successful in bringing convictions in all but one case. In 1991, Mr. Mabie was elected as Clerk of the Circuit Court in Prince William County, where he has tirelessly worked for the citizens of Northern Virginia. As Circuit Court Clerk, Mr. Mabie has been responsible for organizing regular staff meetings, assisting in the automation of land records, and instituting a dispute resolution program which strives to resolve family conflicts outside the courtroom. Mr. Mabie has been involved with numerous civic organizations such as the United Way, Regional Jail Board, and the Chamber of Commerce. He will retire on April 1, 2007, and join his wife, Copper, managing the Red Door Art Center in Louisa, Virginia. He also plans to work part- time with the Prince William County Sheriff's Office two days a week. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dave Mabie for his years of service and dedication to the Northern Virginia community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Mabie on his retirement and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. John ``Jack'' Andrew Sebolka, as he celebrates his 100th birthday. Jack was born on March 21, 1907, in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and was one of four children born to John and Anne Sebolka. Inspired by his father, Jack went to work in the local coal mines upon his graduation from St. John's University. Realizing that mining was not his calling, he began helping his grandparents with their farm. Throughout the Roaring Twenties and Great Depression, he dove into a myriad of professions including construction, selling furniture, and the gold business. In 1939, Jack became a sales representative for the United Furniture Manufactures, where he worked until his retirement in 1982. Jack married Marie Bombick on November 21, 1936, in Lake Silkworth, PA. The couple had two children, Ronald and James. The family made their home on a 15-acre farm in Jackson Township, PA, where Jack spent his ``leisure time'' growing vegetables on the farm. Tragically, Marie passed away from cancer in 1967, but Jack never left her side. In June 1972, Jack remarried to Mary Laux. After their wedding they took a honeymoon trip around the world. They stopped in Bangkok, Thailand, where they spent 5 weeks with his son, James, who was then an advisor to the Thai Government. Mary was struck by cancer in 1976. Once again, Jack helped nurse his wife through treatment, but she passed in 1977. Jack pressed on with work at United until his diagnosis with Guillian-Barre Syndrome, GBS, which is found in approximately 1 out of every 100,000 persons. Jack was faced with immediate paralysis from the neck down, and remained hospitalized for several months. Through sheer determination and the loving support of his family, Jack beat the odds and began taking small steps after just 7 months of rehabilitation. Doctors called him ``Miracle Man.'' Jack currently resides at the Goodwin House in Alexandria, VA. He enjoys weekly bingo and group crossword puzzle sessions with his friends. Jack has lived a life by the Golden Rule: Give unto others as you would have them give unto you. He demonstrates great faith, patriotism, a strong work ethic and a genuine love for other people. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my warmest wishes to Mr. Sebolka on this special occasion. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating his 100th birthday and in wishing him the very best on this day and every day that follows.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental; it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed, this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base. There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy, and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly, even embarrassing, to use pork to buy support for bad policy on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The well-being of our men and women in uniform is in the balance, as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of one's ideas, this is it. I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war, and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an open-ended, unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels, nor is it our job to baby-sit the Iraqi government. It is foolish, however, to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options. It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Who's to say the Iraqi government won't make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility, not give them a drop-dead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5-day workweeks are often 4 days long--who are we to set a deadline in statute? There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this, the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather, we have wasted time with a non-binding resolution regarding tactics--not even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a pre- determined result. Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policy--military, diplomatic, economic, and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodge-podge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments. Mr. Speaker, this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just ask my friend from California, what about the constitutional expert Ken Starr who has testified under oath that this is constitutional; or Viet Dinh, who was a chief counsel in the Justice Department under President Bush; and John Ashcroft, who wrote the PATRIOT Act and has written an opinion that this is constitutional? Aren't their views worth consideration as well?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say, a strict reading of the Constitution, if you look just at its face, if you read that, D.C. residents wouldn't have a right to a jury trial because that is only to residents of States. D.C. residents would have no right to sue non-D.C. residents in Federal courts under diversity jurisdiction, which is reserved to residents of States. The full faith and credit clause wouldn't apply to D.C. under the Constitution, because that only applies to States. But Congress, under the District clause, has allowed the District to be treated as a State for those purposes. The previous speaker says, well, if they can do this, why can't they be treated as a State for other purposes? The city argued under the gun ban that they weren't a State because Congress hadn't specifically said they were a State, but the District clause is all-inclusive and gives Congress the power to determine what the rights are. We have that right. It is not an inherent right to vote in the House of Representatives, but we have that right under the District clause. The difference between the House and the Senate in the constitutional reading is the Senate represents States. Individuals represent States, and each State gets two Senators. And the District of Columbia is clearly not a State. But the House of Representatives is of the people among the several States, a different wording. In fact, at the time the Constitution was created, the people in the District were among the several States, and, in fact, the residents of what are now the District voted for Congress the first 12 years of the Republic. But this is not a right that goes to the District of Columbia. This is a right that goes to the people of the District of Columbia, and Congress has the right to determine whether they have it or not. This was taken up in 1800 when the anti-Federalists won the Presidency by one electoral vote, if you remember, and in a lame duck session this was debated, and, as usually happens, they punted it to the succeeding Congresses. I think the constitutionality of this thing is very, very clear that, under the District clause, we have the ability in Congress to determine if they get a vote in the House or not. And I just want to set the record straight on that. All of these other rights, jury trial, right to sue, full faith and credit, even the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes in the District under a strict reading of the Constitution. But under law and under the District clause, we have expanded it to the District. I just think the record should reflect that.