Tom Davis

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for his assistance in bringing this to the floor, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner); and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my colleague from Virginia, who has been a pioneer in the area of telecommuting throughout this Congress and previous Congresses. Mr. Chairman, we have seen a tremendous push for competitors to enter the marketplace. As the economy has cooled and the Federal Government appears to be ramping up on spending, vendors are now turning to the government marketplace as the first stop, not the last. Current acquisition law hampers the expansion of the government marketplace because Federal agencies may, under current law, refuse a bid proposal from a potential contractor that utilizes telecommuting in its work force. This is a hindrance to some contractors wishing to participate in the Federal marketplace. It also reduces the pool of contractors from whom the Federal Government can procure innovative services and technologies, and by so doing, of course, raises the cost to the American taxpayer and limits the number of items and the breadth of items that we can purchase that will accomplish the governmental mission. H.R. 3924 would prohibit Federal agencies from continuing this practice. An exception is made if the contracting officer certifies in writing that telecommuting would conflict with the needs of the agency. For example, this exception may apply if a contractor deals with classified or sensitive information. This will ensure that the Federal marketplace continues to be a competitive choice among contractors. The bill would also prohibit agencies from issuing solicitations that would reduce the scoring of a potential contractor's proposal if that contractor utilizes telecommuting. Technological advances make telecommuting an attractive choice for employees because it allows them to work almost anywhere at any time. Telecommuting has caught on over the last 25 years and has become an option for Federal employees just over the last decade. Today, we estimate that close to 19 million people telework, and that number is increasing. Private sector organizations and Federal agencies with telecommuting programs receive significant benefits. Telework has gained in popularity since it promotes a productive workforce and increases morale and quality of life, often resulting in higher rates of worker retention. The potential for increased productivity exists because of reduced office distractions: fewer phone calls, no water cooler chats, less commuting time going back and forth to work. Therefore, employees have increased time uninterrupted at work to do their jobs. As a Member from northern Virginia, I know what it is like to sit in the worst traffic congestion in the country. Telecommuting reduces congestion on our roads, and it helps the environment by eliminating a significant number of vehicle trips during peak hours. Telework is also a very family-friendly initiative. It offers parents the choice of providing care and supervision for their own children while continuing their careers. It also accommodates employees with health problems or elder care or day care responsibilities. The Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, which I chair, has been encouraging the development and promotion of telecommuting policies for the Federal Government. Last year, we conducted two oversight hearings to examine Federal agencies' progress in this area. We found that telecommuting is an excellent recruitment and retention tool that the Federal Government can use to address its human capital management crisis. The Federal Government should be a telecommuting leader. We should not be following industry. We should not be following our contractors. We ought to be leading the way. But, unfortunately, Federal agencies have been reluctant to embrace this concept. For example, Federal managers are resistant to the concept because they would no longer be in the position to monitor employees directly. This attitude ignores the increased employee morale and productivity that results. The testimony before our subcommittee shows that the private sector is turning to this because it increases employee morale, it increases employee retention, it helps in recruitment, and, most of all, it increases productivity. It is time for Federal managers to shift their focus from a process-oriented performance measurement to a results-driven measurement. When the Federal Government contracts with companies that embrace telework initiatives, the Federal workforce is directly exposed to this concept. Managers who have been reluctant to embrace this concept get to see it firsthand. This is one more way to help break down the managerial barriers that exist today to successful telecommunications and telecommuting in the Federal Government. Federal agencies continue to grapple with barriers to acquiring the goods and services they need in order to meet their mission objectives. Agencies require better management approaches and purchasing tools government-wide to facilitate the efforts of acquisition managers in meeting agency goals. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, I am working with our minority members in the administration to accomplish broader acquisition reform. For example, I recently introduced H.R. 3832, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, SARA, which directs the Federal Government to adopt management reform techniques modeled after those in the private sector. The current Federal services acquisition policy precludes companies with innovative human capital management models from participating fully in the Federal marketplace. And the loser is the Federal Government, which does not get the value and it does not get the competitive nature of these groups. The taxpayers also lose because they do not get the lower prices that competition brings. This sends the wrong message to Federal agencies, and it sends the wrong message to potential contractors. Federal agencies receive mixed messages about the value of telecommuting under current law. Congress has passed a variety of legislation promoting telecommuting in the Federal workplace, and yet we turn around and restrict Federal contractor employees from implementing similar policies. At the same time, we are striving to create an acquisition system for the Federal Government that is modeled after the best practices of the private sector. But our current policy prevents the private sector from utilizing a critical management initiative such as telecommuting. At the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy's two hearings on this topic, we heard from companies such as AT&T and Siemens Enterprise Networks. Both companies testified about the benefits of their telecommuting programs. They highlighted the strategic value of these programs as recruitment and retention tools. Moreover, at the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy's September 6, 2001, hearing, we heard testimony from the Information Technology Association of America, the ITAA. Harris Miller, ITAA's president, testified about the challenges his organization's member companies face in the contracting process when they offer their employees the flexibility of telework. Contracting officers are reluctant to allow contractors to telecommute. As I already mentioned, H.R. 3924 will solve this problem. As the Federal Government transforms its services' contracting processes from one that is performance-based to a results-driven process, human capital management strategies need to be adjusted accordingly. Human capital is of primary importance to private sector organizations. The Federal Government should encourage this viewpoint among its contractors and incorporate it into the agencies' management structures. We are way behind the 8 ball on this at the Federal level; and this legislation, I think, will move us a step forward. So I encourage my colleagues to help expand telecommuting opportunities for Federal contracting employees, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3924. 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, and let me just say that there is no reason jobs could not go to east Texas, or anywhere else under telecommuting, where we could get the best and the brightest to be able to perform their duties and not have to have them in the current work-structured atmosphere, an outmoded structure that the Federal Government now operates under. I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his help and assistance on this legislation. He has been a most constructive partner in our efforts to better utilize telecommunicating and acquisition reform. Hopefully, the time is not too distant when we will find thousands more parents in the Washington area and other areas able to telecommute, giving them more time to drive their kids back and forth to their piano lessons, to see their kids' practices and games or visit their schools, to adjust to appropriate medical appointments their kids may have; and, frankly, just to have more time with their families. With greater family satisfaction, I think, goes greater worker productivity. It means for the Federal Government our ability to recruit and retain good people and keep them in this business, something that over the long term for the American taxpayer lowers our costs and gets better value for our tax dollars. This is an important first step. I urge adoption of this measure.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, point of order, relevancy. I make a point of order the gentleman is not discussing the rule at hand.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the open rule for H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of 2002. I believe this is a noncontroversial bill, but I think it is one long overdue in this House. Telecommuting is something we ought to encourage. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for moving swiftly to bring this bill to the floor. Their efforts to ensure that we can vote on this important bill I think will expand opportunities for telecommuting. H.R. 3924 will prevent Federal agencies from restricting potential contractors from participating in the bidding process if they use telecommuters to fulfill the contract. Congress has passed bills over the last several years that actually direct Federal agencies to develop and promote telework programs. Unfortunately, the current acquisition policy sends the wrong message about the importance of telework in the modern workplace. Telework is a popular movement that has gained tremendous momentum over the last 25 years. Today, an estimated 19 million Americans telework. Employees are drawn to it because it offers improved quality of life. It increases morale. It generates greater productivity because there are fewer office distractions. Telecommuting is a family-friendly policy that accommodates employees with health problems or child care problems or elder care responsibilities. It also eases traffic congestion, and in this region that is very important, by getting motorists off the roads at key hours and allowing them to telecommute either from their home or from telecommuting work stations. And by easing traffic congestion, not only is it friendlier and saves motorists time, but it helps the environment due to increased vehicle emissions. Our Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy has held two hearings about telecommuting. We heard from both public and private sector witnesses about their efforts to develop and implement such programs in their organizations. Many of them have been very successful in employee retention, in employee recruitment and in productivity. The testimony revealed that telecommuting is often used as a human capital management initiative in the private sector and in a few Federal agencies. It allows employees greater flexibility in their work environment, and it enhances their quality of life. It is costly to recruit people, to hire people, to train new staff on a constant basis. If they are used strategically, telecommuting programs keep organizations competitive and are critical to maintaining continuity and efficiency in the workplace. Federal managers have been reluctant to embrace the concept because they would no longer be in a position to monitor employees directly. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is the old model. That is the work model from the industrial era. Today's workers operate quite differently. The Federal managers have to move away from such out-dated process-oriented measures. We need to encourage the government to become a results-driven organization, to learn from the efficiencies that the private sector has produced. By allowing Federal agencies to contract with companies that employ telework initiatives, they are directly exposing them to the employees. I think this helps the Federal level to encourage our managers to use more of it. It helps to reverse negative managerial attitudes toward telecommuting in the Federal Government. But among contracting officers there has been reluctance to encourage bids from companies that utilize telecommuting, again, operating under the old concepts that if we are not there watching over an employee, somehow the work is not getting done. That is most often done with security concerns in mind. H.R. 3924 provides contracting officers with the necessary guidance for encouraging telecommuting among potential Federal contractors. An exception is made if the contracting officer certifies in writing that telecommuting would conflict with the needs of the agency. For example, this exception could apply if a contractor deals with classified or sensitive information. You do not want to let out information to some foreign Web site or information. This will ensure that Federal marketplaces continue to be a competitive choice among contractors. H.R. 3924 would also prohibit agencies from issuing solicitations that would reduce the scoring of a potential contractor's proposal if that contractor utilizes telecommuting. We ought to be encouraging it, not prohibiting it. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3924.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pride that I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women who have worked so hard to rebuild the Nation's military headquarters and a national icon. Although born out of tragedy, the current reconstruction project represents an opportunity to memorialize permanently and prominently our Nation's history of resilience in the face of adversity. I congratulate the workers and contractors who are ahead of schedule in repairing the huge hole blown out of the Pentagon on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, by a terrorist-hijacked airliner. The efforts of those involved in reconstruction have enabled the Pentagon to get back to business--waging war in Central Asia and destroying those networks responsible for the terrorist attacks in Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania. The demolition of the wounded section took only 1 month and a day to complete, aided by 24-hour days, 7 days a week and landfills that stayed open all night. Weary workers celebrated the day they finished, November 19, by placing a Christmas tree on the Pentagon's roof. It marked a turning point toward the positive: they would stop tearing down and start building up. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate the crews at the Pentagon who have toiled tirelessly for more than 3 months now, trying to fix what was broken, replace what was destroyed, and put back together a meticulous, 20-year, $1.2-billion renovation effort that was already well along at the time of the attack.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Tobacco Livelihood and Economic Assistance for our Farmers Act of 2002. This bill couples my legislation, the National Youth Smoking Reduction Act--which would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco--with legislation to end the current tobacco marketing quota program. I would also like to thank my colleague Mr. McIntyre, the sponsor of this bill, for his hard work and leadership. For someone who never touched a cigarette, I now know a great deal about tobacco. It is an extremely complex issue in which the public health, the needs of farmers, and the rights of Americans must all be taken into consideration. Often, it appears an impossible task to bring the stakeholders together; nevertheless, I am convinced there is a solution. When I introduced the National Youth Smoking Reduction Act last June, it was my intent to put forward the idea that we could devise a regulatory scheme to keep tobacco products away from those too young to legally purchase them while simultaneously maintaining the rights of adults to make their own decisions regarding tobacco use. This bill expands upon that concept by demonstrating that a solution for our farmers is complementary to the other elements of this debate. For centuries, tobacco has been a cornerstone of the agricultural economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia and other tobacco growing states. American tobacco has always been regarded as the highest quality tobacco available. Despite this fact, American growers are increasingly vulnerable to lower quality--but less expensive--foreign leaf. While the quota marketing system has been a valuable tool to support and stabilize the income of the tobacco farmer, it has also created an artificial cost that has made it all the more difficult for the American grower to compete. Growers and their communities are dependent on tobacco for their economic survival; however they now find themselves trapped--forced to continue growing an increasingly unprofitable crop without the necessary resources to transition away from the current dysfunctional system. Ending the quota is something we must do in order to save the economic viability of our tobacco farmers. We must also recognize that the quota system has created an asset--the quota itself--the value of which must be compensated to those who own or use it. Farmers have been increasingly supportive of the idea of a buy-out, as was the President's Commission on Improving Economic Opportunity in Communities Dependent on Tobacco Production While Protecting Public Health in its report published last year. Until now, the question of how to fund a buy-out was always a major obstacle. This bill, however, takes an innovative approach by proposing to fund the buy-out through the imposition of user-fees. These user-fees will initially provide the resources to fund both FDA regulatory actions and the buy-out. Once the buy-out has been completed, the user-fees will be used to fund FDA actions and other tobacco-related programs. I realize it is a mistake to consider tobacco growers as a homogeneous lot. The needs and concerns of flue-cured growers differ from the needs and concerns of burley growers. The needs and concerns of Virginia growers are not the same as the needs and concerns of North Carolina growers. However, a vital concern to all growers is the question--what will the post buy-out world hold for me? We have taken steps in this bill to ensure fair compensation so that those who choose to stop growing tobacco can do so. For those that choose to continue to grow tobacco, not only will they be compensated for their quota's loss of value, but they are guaranteed that tobacco production will remain in those areas where it has been traditionally grown. I have no tobacco farmers in my district, but I am a Virginian. Tobacco is a part of our culture--it was this crop that made the Colony of Virginia economically viable almost four hundred years ago. As we transitioned from colony to commonwealth, tobacco remained a keystone to our way of life. To this very day, the golden leaf adorns our statehouse. With this in mind, I say to the small farmers and rural communities whose fortunes have been tied to tobacco for generations, I will continue to work with you to ensure tobacco can remain a viable option for you. I recognize more may be necessary to keep all production from transferring to large farms. I am confident that by working with the other members of the Virginia delegation, the Virginia Farm Bureau, and all organizations dedicated to the well being and prosperity of tobacco growers in the Commonwealth of Virginia that our small tobacco farms can survive and prosper in a post buy-our world. In closing, let me state that I am eager to start the debate on tobacco. I hope my colleagues will join in so that a constructive, beneficial solution can be crafted.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. Section 245(i) is a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, allowing eligible immigrants on the cusp of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green cards in the U.S., rather than returning to their home countries to apply. Section 245(i) is available to immigrants residing in the U.S. who are sponsored by close family members, or by employers who cannot find necessary U.S. workers, and on whose behalf petitions were submitted prior to April 1, 2001. People who apply under Section 245(i) are screened for criminal offenses, health problems, the potential of becoming a public charge, fraud, misrepresentation, and other grounds of inadmissibility. Each applicant will pay a $1,000 processing fee, thereby generating revenue for the Immigration and Naturalization Service--at no cost to taxpayers. The issue is not whether these individuals are eligible to become permanent residents--because they already are, but rather the issue is the location from which they are eligible to apply. Restoring 245(i) is pro-family, pro-business, and fiscally prudent. These individuals have jobs, pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and pay into Social Security. Section 245(i) allows business to retain valuable employees, provides INS with millions of dollars in annual revenue, and allows immigrants to remain with their families while applying for legal permanent residence. Under H.R. 1885, any immigrant petitions filed before either April 30, 2002, or four months after regulations are issued, would form the basis of Section 245(i) eligibility. However, those who file after April 30, 2001 must demonstrate that the ``familial relationship'' existed before August 15, 2001, or that the application for labor certification (which is the basis of such petition for classification) was filed before August 15, 2001. Thus, family relationships must have existed before August 15, 2001. For employment-based labor certifications, the labor certification application must have been filed by August 15, 2001. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense legislation to provide hard working individuals who are on the brink of becoming permanent residents the opportunity to apply for their residency here in the U.S.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 364, providing for the concurrence of the House with amendment in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 1499, the District of Columbia College Access Act Technical Corrections Act of 2002. In 1999, I introduced the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999, with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, which created the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program. This program allows recent high school graduates in D.C. to pay in-state tuition rates of up to $10,000 annually at public colleges and universities nationwide. Eligible D.C. residents attending private institutions in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia, or Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Maryland and Virginia may receive grants of $2,500 annually. It was always my intention that this program would have a broader application. However, financial considerations restricted the scope of the program. Therefore, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1499. It will open the eligibility requirements to those individuals who graduated from secondary school prior to 1998 and also to individuals who enroll in an institution of higher education more than 3 years after graduating from a secondary school. Additionally, this bill will permit the grants to be applied to tuition expenses at Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide. The popularity of this program among students and parents has risen steadily since its inception. The program has proven to be a successful incentive to retain and attract D.C. residents. Now, H.R. 1499 ensures that a greater number of D.C. residents are eligible to receive tuition assistance and broaden their educational opportunities at the undergraduate level. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House and Senate for their work on this bill. We have successfully worked together on this legislation to authorize $17 million for the Tuition Assistance Grant Program each year through FY 2005. The expansion of the Tuition Assistance Grant Program will increase the educational opportunities available to D.C. residents. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 364.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the American Century Theater, which is located in northern Virginia. Since 1995, this Arlington-based theater has been overwhelmingly successful in bringing different genres of theater to the stage, and in turn has greatly enhanced the quality of life for northern Virginians. When the American Century Theater realized the lack of visibility American playwrights have in the Washington DC area, it strove to encourage Americans to rediscover the extraordinary vision and wisdom of our past American playwrights. Regardless of the countless masterpieces created by our country's great writers, only a handful of classics could be found in local theaters. The American Century theater recognized the lack of family-orientated shows available, and subsequently set the theater's mission to become an experience for the whole family to enjoy. The American Century Theater focuses on plays that are at least 25 years old, under produced, and contain a variety of form and content. The plays do not contain offensive language or graphic sexual behavior, and they frequently deal with current social issues--making them suitable for the entire family. The Theater has also shown itself to be nonpartisan and apolitical. In addition to providing northern Virginia with extraordinary plays, the Theater also maintains a strong dedication to serving our community in many other ways. StageThought is a special educational program for high school students and other youth groups that provide study guides, pre- and post-show discussions, and drastically reduced group rates that enable these students to attend plays that might otherwise be outside their means. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate the American Century Theater for its continued efforts to preserve American Culture. The American Century Theater is a local treasure and should be recognized for its integrity and laudable mission. I hope all my colleagues will join me in applauding them for their hard work in bringing American heritage to the theater.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will assist in the preservation and promotion of the LST-325, a symbol of American heroism and patriotism. The LST-325 is a unique ship that needs and warrants special attention. LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks) were produced by the hundreds in the Second World War, but only a few are left today. Thousands of men served on them in the critical North Africa, Italian, and Normandy invasions. The brave young men who served on the LST-325 and its sister ships are now in the golden years of their lives, and they are spearheading this campaign to restore the LST-325 to its original glory. Many may remember that the LST-325 was brought back to the United States last year by a group of retired veterans. Against the odds, these veterans sailed the LST-325 from Greece to Mobile, Alabama, facing fierce opposition from the seas and the weather--not to mention the bureaucracies of various nations. They overcame these hardships and succeeded magnificently. I am pleased to share with you that the average age of the crew was seventy-two years old. Now the task is to restore the ship to create a living memorial and serve as a testament to our history and the bravery of the men who served on LSTs. My bill would specifically exempt the LST-325--like similar special category vessels such as the steamship John W. Brown in Baltimore, Maryland, the steamship Lane Victory in San Pedro, California, and the steamship Jeremiah O'Brian--from certain current Coast Guard technical and legal requirements (USC Title 46, Subsection 3302, subpart (l)(1)(A), (B), and (C).) These regulations apply today's laws to yesterday's ships. They only impede restoration efforts of the ship, and raise costs unnecessarily without any benefit to the ship. This is problematic because the LST-325 is to be used strictly as a not-for-profit, historical attraction. The objective is to restore the LST-325 to its original condition so that it may tour the nation as a historical vessel to educate Americans about the role these vessels played in WWII, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War. In addition, the LST-125 would serve as a monument to memorialize similar ships during the Second World War, and all those who served and died on them. Mr. Speaker, let us honor the ``Greatest Generation'' and America with the restoration and memorialization of LST-325. There is clear precedent--and we are only asking to include the LST-325 to this short list of distinguished historical ships. I believe that by adding the LST-325 to this category, we would be appropriately honoring the vessel and her crew, and preserving America's history.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, despite my deep respect for the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I have to rise today to voice my continued opposition to H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act, and my opposition to allow efforts such as the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), which claimed to resolve the concerns put forward over the past year by myself and other Members regarding the anticompetitive impact of the legislation. Both H.R. 1542 and the Buyer-Towns amendment kill competition, plain and simple. A vote for either of them is a vote against the competitive environment that we set out to create when we passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996. Litigation brought competition to the long distance market, and similarly the 1996 act marked our recognition that innovation stimulated by competition was critical to bringing advanced technologies and services to the local market and, therefore, to consumers. Remember that DSL broadband technology has been available to Bell companies since the mid-1980s. It is only with the passage of the 1996 act and the resulting threat of competition that we actually saw DSL being deployed. The act prescribed this recipe for local telecom competition through a carefully crafted dynamic that gives competitors access to the local network, an infrastructure built by nearly a century of guaranteed monopolistic profits; and in return the act deregulated the regional Bell companies by allowing them to compete in the long distance market from which they had been barred under the 1984 antitrust settlement with AT&T. The strategy was simple and should remain so: offer the Bell companies an incentive to open their local monopolies so that conditions for market competition in the local loop will flourish and prices will drop. That incentive is deregulation. At this time, the incumbent carriers possess monopolistic control over 90 percent of their markets nationwide. Clearly, competition in the local markets targeted by the 1996 act has not yet arrived. Unfortunately, H.R. 1542 and the Buyer-Towns amendment each accomplish the same objective. They irrevocably defeat the purpose of the 1996 act by destroying the efforts made since then to bring competition to the local telecommunications market. With little competition in the space that brings wire digital services into homes and businesses, there will be no competitors or forced markets to push the widespread and competitive provision of broadband markets. I urge my colleagues to vote to retain competition, ensure that competitors have a chance to compete under the same rules that have promoted competition for the last 6 years. Let us be clear: the Buyer-Towns amendment destroys that framework. The Cannon-Conyers amendment, on the other hand, keeps that competition alive. Vote ``no'' on Buyer-Towns, and ``yes'' on the Cannon-Conyers amendment.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me say just a few months ago we sat in this body and the advocates at that point said that this bill needs to be passed now, that we could not delay it, we wanted to get it ready for the next cycle. Now just a few months later, instead of being ready for the 2002 cycle and because the campaign committee on the other side of the aisle has been unable to raise hard dollars and retire their hard dollar debt and they have looked at the discrepancy between the committees, they want the rules to be delayed in implementation until the next election. Why? So they can spend their soft dollars this year. So they can trade their soft dollars this year for hard dollars under the loophole that has been discovered in the drafting. It reminds me of the old drunk who swears he is going to quit drinking tomorrow but tonight he is going to get real drunk and tie it down. That is what they are doing.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me understand the accounting. I know this as chairman of our committee, and my colleague's committee operates separately. We have several different funds that we keep at both committees. There are hard-dollar funds, Federal-dollar funds. Then there are three soft-money accounts. There is a corporate soft-dollar account, a personal soft-dollar account that could be spent differently in different States. Then there is a building-fund soft-dollar account. Those moneys are, for the most part, I mean, 90-plus percent, moneys that are earmarked from corporations, particularly Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, who have restrictions on the dollars they can give. They have given millions of dollars through the years, and I think we ought to just get to spend it. This is not a poison pill amendment. This amendment I think is a free vote for Members, but it is a special carve out; and I just call that to Members' attention.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, just to understand, building fund dollars are dollars that come for the most part from two organizations. Those monies cannot be used for ads. They can only be used for buildings. If this money does not fail, before November 5, both party committees would have to use that money to buy buildings or equipment. That is the way it would work. But they could not be used in ads; I just wanted to clarify that.

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

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I know that feelings are strong on both sides. I want to shed light on the issue about the soft-money loophole in the Shays-Meehan substitute this afternoon. We have heard about a letter from Larry Noble, who is no longer associated with the Federal Election Commission. At one point he was general counsel. He is now associated with the Center for Responsive Politics, and I think we understand where that opinion comes from. Mr. Noble has a long history of losing cases at the FEC, the list of cases he has lost being far larger than the cases he has won. In fact, one case he litigated, the Christian Action Network, which is in my home fourth district, he not only lost it, the FEC was faced with fees and sanctions that were imposed against the FEC. We believe his letter is erroneous. It has nothing to do with the current FEC, which is not addressing this. Mr. Chairman, I have a memorandum that I will include for the Record from Patton Boggs that basically says in contrast to current law, the proposed language in the Shays-Meehan substitute would allow a national party committee to pay any debt with soft non-Federal dollars in the period from November 5, 2002 to January 1, 2003. Specifically, it could be used to retire outstanding debts or obligations that were incurred with the 2002 elections. This is not consistent with the current regulations. This would be illegal under current law, which would not allow us to borrow hard dollars and pay them off with soft dollars. This would allow building- fund dollars which now are limited to building funds to basically repay hard-dollar obligations that were barred; and under the building-fund loophole that we find later in the legislation, that could be replenished later down the road with soft dollars. That is under the language. I am hard pressed to understand the arguments from the other side unless their committees can come forward and make it clear that they would not try to do this in terms of what the interpretations are. I have also looked at Trevor Potter's Web site, the Campaign Finance Institute, and although they are saying one thing to Members, their own Web site states that new transition rules in the Shays-Meehan substitute provides that through the end of 2002 the national parties may spend excess soft money to pay off any outstanding debts. Sponsors and opponents of the bill dispute whether the provisions would allow soft money to be used to pay off hard money debts. We seem to have that disagreement today. But he notes on the Web site that the text provides that soft money could be used to retire outstanding debts incurred solely in connection with an election. That means hard dollars. That is what it means under the law. It does not make any reference to contributions or expenditures, i.e. hard money, or non-Federal joint or allocated activities which include soft money. I do not question the motives of the other side, but when we come up with amendments drafted in the dead of night, submitted the evening before, drafting errors occur. I think that we have that there. I urge support of Ney-Wynn and defeat of the Shays-Meehan substitute. The memorandum previously referred to is as follows: Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC, February 13, 2002. Re Shays-Meehan Effective Date. The proposed Shays-Meehan effective date language (section 402) provides that: (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in section 308 and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect November 6, 2002. (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National Parties.--If a national committee of a political party described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including any person who is subject to such section, has received funds described in such section prior to the effective date described in subsection (a), the following rules shall apply with respect to the spending of such funds by such committee: (1) Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred prior to such effective date, so long as such debts or obligations were incurred solely in connection with an election held on or before November 5, 2002 (or any runoff election or recount resulting from such an election). (2) At any time after such effective date, the committee may spend such funds for activities which are solely to defray the costs of the construction or purchase of any office building or facility. The Federal Election Campaign Act and current Federal Election Commission regulations require federal expenses (including federal debts) to be paid out of the federal account. See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. Sec. 102.5. Moreover, the regulations also require allocations between federal and non- federal activities. 11 C.F.R. Sec. 106.5. In contrast to current law, the proposed language would allow a national party committee to pay any debt with soft, non-federal dollars in the period from November 5, 2002 to January 1, 2003. Specifically, it could be used to ``retire outstanding debts or obligations'' that were incurred in connection with the 2002 elections. It fails to differentiate between federal debt and non-federal debt. This is not consistent with the current regulations that specifically require hard debt to be paid with hard dollars. Moreover, the language explicitly references ``debts or obligations incurred . . . solely in connection with an election''--this appears to mean hard dollar debt. The lack of specificity in the language means that a portion of hard dollar debt or obligations could be paid for with soft money. Any legal test of this provision would take many years under the FEC enforcement process. (Also note that Title I of H.R. 2356, new language would be added at section 323(b)(2)(A) specifying that state parties must expend funds ``to the extent the amounts expended or disbursed for such activity are allocated (under regulations prescribed by the Commission) among amounts . . . .'') As a practical matter, the plain wording of the proposed language would allow a national party committee to borrow hard dollars, spend those dollars in the upcoming election, and then use the remaining soft dollars to repay the debt. Moreover, such a hard dollar loan could be secured with non- federal dollars as collateral, particularly the funds in the building fund. The provision also permits a flood of special interest soft money to the national party committees to finance new elaborate and fancy headquarters. This loophole continues to provide a home for large, unlimited, soft money dollars at the national party committees.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding on this side of the aisle over how this money could be used if it were not utilized for building money. The bulk of this money in both parties' campaign funds come from contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are federally chartered organizations, and the only contributions they give parties has to be used for building funds. It could never be used under existing law for campaign ads. So when we say it could be or better be used, I do not think we understand the nature of this money and the nature of the limitations that it has under the law. I just wanted to clarify that. This money has to be used for building under current law. Unless we change this on motion to recommit, we would be allowing it to pay off a soft dollar debt.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, a statement was made earlier that Trevor Potter has now disowned. For clarification, and this is the Website that I would ask be included in the Record, the Website makes it very clear that it does not make reference to contributions or expenditures; in other words, that the Federal dollars goes along with what the gentleman just said. Trevor Potter is a trustee of the organization. It may appear that he is now disowning the statement of the organization of which he is on the letterhead. There is just a lot of double-talk going on around here today. It looks to me like an honest drafting error, but it is a very serious error that changes the rule of the game that allows unlimited amounts of soft money to be spent as Federal dollars in this election cycle, and it is currently illegal.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Connecticut has made it clear this is not offered as a gutting amendment. This is in fact harmonious with a similar Senate version, but I think a much better version. This gets around the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo that basically said millionaire candidates can spend as much money as they want on behalf of their own campaigns, while the rest of us are limited in what we can raise by the Federal election law. This relaxes those laws that will allow parties to come in relaxing their contributory limits to candidates, and also the way we raise money. This evens the playing field for candidates who are challenging millionaires or who are challenged by millionaires; the individual who can go to McDonald's, have breakfast with himself, write himself a $3 million check and have the largest fund-raising breakfast in history. This would allow us the tools to be able to go and compete fairly with them. So I think I applaud the gentlewoman for her amendment in this case. I think it makes a bad bill better. I think it is a problem that is in existing law. It does not exist because of the Shays-Meehan bill; this is a problem in existing law. And I think this is an appropriate remedy, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, one could use their building fund which is specifically protected under this to collateralize a loan which is soft dollars, which can collateralize a loan and come back and pay it back. That is what we can do under this legislation. I will be happy to have further discussions with the gentleman. I hope it is his intent to say that hard dollars have to be replaced with hard dollars. And I hope that we can get additional statements on the record. But this language does not say that.

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