Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all it does is ensures that Federal retirees will be treated the same as current Federal employees in regard to the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. Currently, they are not in some areas. The feeling is that with this other plan, that retirees could have a different benefit program and that creates some difficulty. So we are trying to even this up and give that assurance. Most Members of Congress do not opt for FEHBP. That is what the record shows after this is done. So that is kind of a misnomer. It is a small percentage that ends up in FEHBP when they retire. A few do, I grant to the gentleman; but that is not the purpose. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. Part of this bill recognizes and seeks to address one of the core concerns regarding adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare; that is, with the implementation of such a benefit, lead employers who currently offer prescription drug coverage to their employees to stop doing so. Obviously, we do not want to put a government entitlement plan into operation and drive the private plans out of existence, or the costs over the long term to the taxpayers will go off the charts. The bill addressed these concerns by providing subsidies to private employers and unions to encourage them to maintain prescription drug benefits for their retirees. With the help of the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), we were able to clarify that the Office of Personnel Management would also be eligible for these subsidies, something that I believe will lead to lower FEHBP premiums for all enrollees. However, I think it is necessary for us to go one step further. Coming from northern Virginia, I represent over 50,000 Federal employees and retirees. As chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am responsible for issues pertaining to Federal workers and retirees, along with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Thus, not only am I acutely aware of the challenges the Federal Government faces as an employer to recruit and retain quality employees, I am also very aware that Federal retirees are sometimes treated differently than current employees in ways that are not always equitable. For example, current Federal employees are allowed to deduct their health insurance premiums from pretax dollars, but Federal retirees are not. I look at this issue from an employer's perspective. Remember: In addition to the large number of retirees already in FEHBP, 50 percent of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement in the next several years. With H.R. 2631, we are telling the people that we are going to live up to our end of the bargain. We are saying that with regard to prescription drug benefits, Federal retirees will continue to be placed on par with current employees, that OPM will not reduce their benefits as opposed to the benefit offered to current employees. In crafting H.R. 2631, I thought it was important to continue to allow OPM as much flexibility as possible in negotiating future prescription drug benefits. And for the record, Senator Akaka, my colleague in the other body, has offered similar legislation on the other side of the Capitol. Thus, H.R. 2631 does not require OPM to offer a specific dollar amount of coverage that has to be maintained; they can raise or they can lower benefits as they see fit through negotiations with individual plans, but they have to do it for all FEHBP enrollees to treat them the same, regardless of their age. In essence, we are simply telling OPM to continue to do what they have always done. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe H.R. 2631 sends an important message to both Federal retirees and current Federal employees. It will be a helpful tool in our efforts to build and retain an effective Federal workforce and give these employees a career path and retirement they can depend on. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2631. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me just say in all candor that we have 1.25 million FEHBP employees covered by this, with 388 former Members of Congress. The vast majority of former Members do not even sign up for FEHBP, those who would be eligible for the plan passed by this body 2 weeks ago, and do not even use FEHBP, which is a more comprehensive option for retired Federal employees, including Members of Congress. So this really has nothing to do with Members of Congress. The other question I pose is, why, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle controlled this body for 40 years, did they not bring up any prescription drug benefit plan before this body for a vote? We have passed plans now the last 3 years, only this time has the Senate passed a plan as well, and we are giving meaningful relief to seniors who want it. It is a voluntary plan. It is not a perfect plan by any means, but it is within the budget limitations passed by this Congress. Their plan was outside the budget limitations. I think we have to get real. I think we have a good deal for Americans in the plan that we passed 2 weeks ago. As we work with the Senate, we will try to refine it and make it better. I think this legislation today makes it better as well, recognizing that as we look at our Federal workforce, trying to make sure we have the right incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest to fight for homeland security, to fight the battles for this country, to develop cures for cancer, that we are treating our employees well. So I am very proud to support this legislation. I think it enhances and goes with the underlying theme of the legislation passed 2 weeks ago, and that is we do not want to drive current prescription drug benefit plans out of existence, which, if we do not pass this, we will be setting a terrible example here at the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say two things. This vaunted Senate bill that passed a couple of weeks ago, Senator Akaka has also offered legislation in the Senate for their legislation as well. I think whatever happens under whoever's bill that passes, we want to ensure that we do not get that separation between the retired Federal employees and current employees in their health benefit premiums, and that is what this bill is about. We had a spirited debate 2 weeks ago on a health benefit plan, and I do not think we need to continue to air this today. But I think this is good legislation, it is good protection for our retired Federal employees, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank them for the bipartisan support this bill is getting today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that The New York Times chart is absolutely wrong when it says Federal employees have no deductible for their prescription drug coverage. What they get is, they get a set amount of dollars, and it is a cafeteria style. They can spend it on prescription drugs, preventive care, HMOs or whatever. So there is certainly a cost to that. But the way the system is set up, it is a total health care program. So when the gentleman gets up and quotes this New York Times article, it is entirely misleading. Of course there is a cost to Federal employees opting for that over something else. The other underlying part of the bill that this body passed 2 weeks ago is the fact that we did not want to drive private programs out of existence. Should we drive the 60 percent of seniors that are currently satisfied with their prescription drug program out of existence, then the Federal Government ends up picking up the total tab, and the cost rises significantly. We are setting an example with this legislation that we are, in fact, making sure that the FEHBP program is not driven out of existence; that we maintain the parity it has always had with existing Federal employees. And this program ought not be diminished. It is the same thing that we have incentivized in the program passed 2 weeks ago by the subsidies that are in that program as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2631) to provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan under the Federal employees health benefits program shall be at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered by such plan to its enrollees generally.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a co-sponsor of this legislation and a leader in the fight for Federal employees' rights.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to help the gentleman solve the puzzle. The fact of the matter is there are 1.25 million Medicare-eligible Federal employees and annuitants. Only 388 retired Members of Congress are in FEHBP. The majority of retired Members of Congress do not even take FEHBP. They are in other plans or have opted out of this. The fact is they are eligible for that by virtue of their service here. This legislation was not crafted by Members looking after themselves. It was crafted with the help of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. It was difficult to write out the 388 retired Members who happen to use this, which is a minority of the retired Members. Most Members do not use FEHBP. I want to clarify for the gentleman that in no way, shape or form was this for Members. In fact, this was called to our attention by the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. I do not know any other way to get at the problem.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say I commend my colleague for bringing this legislation to the floor. In our usual order of things, it is individuals with power, prestige, and notoriety that get postal namings, but it is the Francisco Floreses of this world, many of them immigrants, who built this country, who make it run every day, and who fight to keep it free. He is in a larger sense, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) says, an American hero, and I urge adoption of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2396.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2396) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office. All 53 members of the California delegation have signed on to this bill as cosponsors. The story of Lance Corporal Flores is one of remarkable courage. Born in Guadalajara, Mexico, Francisco came to the United States with his family at the age of 3. His family settled in the community of Duarte, California, east of Los Angeles. He grew up in Duarte, attended Duarte High School where he was a standout in the jazz band and on the football team. When Francisco graduated from high school in the spring of 2000, he bravely enlisted in the Marine Corps despite not yet being an American citizen. He was assigned to the First Marine Division and sent north to Twenty-nine Palms, California, the home of the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center. After 2\1/2\ years of active duty in California, Lance Corporal Flores courageously journeyed with many of his fellow Marines across the globe to Iraq in January of this year for the military buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 25, 6 days into the war of liberation of Iraq, Lance Corporal Flores was killed in action outside of Nasiriyah in southeastern Iraq. Sadly, he was less than 2 weeks from earning his United States citizenship, something that was his lifelong dream. Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Francisco A. Martinez Flores lived an extraordinary life, albeit a tragically short one. He represents the best of what American immigrants bring to this country. I commend the gentlewoman from California for introducing this bill, that it will appropriately honor his sacrifices to our Nation. I want to let all Members know that Lance Corporal Flores was deservingly granted his U.S. citizenship posthumously on April 6, right on schedule. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the passage of this bill that will name this post office after Lance Corporal Flores in his hometown. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1761, introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building. All members of the Kansas congressional delegation have cosponsored this legislation. Garner Shriver represented the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas in this House for 8 terms, from 1961 to 1977. He was a lifelong resident of the Sunflower State; he spent nearly his entire adult life working for other Kansas residents, first as the State legislator and later as a U.S. Representative. This legislation is a fitting commemoration of his service to his home State and to the entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, Garner Shriver was born in Towanda, Kansas, July 6, 1912. He and his family moved to Wichita in 1925, and he graduated from the University of Wichita in 1934. Following his college graduation, he enrolled in the Washburn School of Law and received a law degree in February, 1940. After he was admitted to the bar, he entered into public service for the first time by enlisting in the U.S. Navy. He spent 3 years as an officer in the Navy; and after being honorably discharged, he chose to run for public office. He was elected to the Kansas State House where he served 2 terms. In 1951, he left the State House to run successfully for the Kansas Senate, which he served from 1953 to 1960. Finally, in the fall of 1960, the voters of the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas sent Garner E. Shriver to Washington for the first of 8 distinguished terms in the House of Representatives. In Congress, he was an influential member of the Committee on Appropriations. He accomplished much during his 16 years in the House, but he fought extra hard for his fellow veterans, particularly working to secure health and education benefits for his peers when they completed their duties with the U.S. Armed Forces. Moreover, even when he left the House in 1977, he stayed in Washington to fight for veterans by moving a few blocks north and becoming the staff director for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He worked in the Senate for 5 years before returning home to Kansas in 1982 to practice law. Garner E. Shriver passed away on March 1, 1998, at the age of 85. He was a remarkable American who succeeded at everything he tried in life, and I know the citizens of Kansas still feel very grateful to him for his years of dedication. Congressman Shriver preceded the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) as the representative of the fourth district, and I congratulate my colleague for his work on this measure. I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1761 that honors the life and service of Congressman Garner E. Shriver. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1761.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1761) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building''.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the author of this legislation.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Thomas' willingness to clarify that FEHBP plans will be able to take advantage of the subsidies in H.R. 1. However, I have another concern that Federal employees are often treated differently from current Federal employees in ways that are not always equitable. For example, current employees are allowed to pay their health insurance premiums from pre- tax dollars; retirees are not. I know this concern is shared by a number of my colleagues, but specifically Jo Ann Davis, Chair of the Civil Service Subcommittee. I am pleased Mrs. Davis will soon be taking up that specific issue in her subcommittee. FEHBP currently does not provide different benefits for retirees and current employees--one simply is a member of FEHBP. I believe it is important this dynamic remain, once a Medicare prescription drug benefit is put in place. As Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I look at this from an employer's perspective. We do not want private employers to drop the prescription drug coverage they provide for their retirees. H.R. 1 includes incentives so they will not do so. However, we as the Federal Government must lead by example. Along with Chairwoman Davis, Frank Wolf, and Jim Moran, I have introduced legislation that simply states that Federal retirees will remain on par with current employees when it comes to prescription drug benefits. I regret we were unable to include this language in H.R. 1, but am grateful to have the commitment of Speaker Hastert and Leader Delay to bring this bill to the floor as soon as we return from recess.