Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the passage of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, as included in title II of H.R. 4940, legislation which designates the museum operated by the Secretary of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of Science and Energy. As an original sponsor of the Networking and IT Research and Development Act, I want to congratulate my colleague Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Science Committee for his diligent and persistent efforts in achieving passage of this legislation. Let me also lend my thanks to Congressman Wamp, the chief sponsor of H.R. 4940, for facilitating passage with his measure of this important technology basic research bill. The Networking and IT Research and Development Act recognizes the central role that information technology now plays in the U.S. economy, our education system, and our culture. From the growth of the Internet to our exports of computer hardware, software, and services, the IT sector has secured the United States' position as the worldwide dominant force in the Information Technology Revolution. The U.S. high tech industry employed 5 million people in 1999, a 32% increase over a 6-year period, and the industry employed nearly 5 percent of the U.S. private sector workforce in 1999. And this growth is being felt everywhere as high tech employment grew in every state between 1997 and 1998. This tremendous growth and productivity is a result of the innovations and new ideas that flow from private sector short-term R&D efforts for targeted product and services. However, research and development in long-term, basic, and high-risk research now lags as the competitiveness of the industry necessarily drives companies to focus on faster returns on their research investments. It is in this role that the Federal Government has a crucial role to play if we are to sustain our Nation's long-term ability to compete in the IT industry and generate the continued growth of our economy. For these reasons, the Networking and IT Research and Development Act implements this fundamental federal investment in IT by authorizing appropriations for 5 years for long-term basic research for networking and information technology. This legislation provides a total of $7.4 billion--nearly double the current amount--for IT funding for High-Performance Computing and Communications, Next Generation Internet, and new IT research programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act passed he House unanimously in February and is now being included in H.R. 4940 with some additions requested by the Senate. It is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Software Alliance, TechNet, the Information Technology Association of America, and the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4940 and ensure America's role as the global leader in high-end computing and technological innovation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize to a constituent of mine, Michael F. Rodgers, for his many years of service to older Americans, particularly those in need of housing or various forms of long-term care. For the last fourteen years, Mr. Rodgers has served as the Senior Vice President of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA). AAHSA is a national nonprofit organization representing 6,000 nursing homes, continuing care retirement communities, senior housing, assisted living facilities, and community service organizations for seniors. AAHSA is a leader in the development of an integrated continuum of care for frail elderly people and individuals with disabilities. I am familiar with AAHSA through the membership of three excellent retirement communities within my district, Goodwin House West in Falls Church, The Virginian in Fairfax, and Westminister at Lake Ridge. Throughout his tenure at AAHSA, Mr. Rodgers has devoted talent, skill, dedication and commitment to advocating for mission-driven, non- profit senior services across the spectrum of need. He has developed and implemented a public policy and advocacy program whose goal is a more rational and integrated system of long-term care that will serve seniors in the most appropriate and least restrictive environment possible. He has fought for effective solutions to issues raised by increasing longevity and the emergence of a growing ``old old'' population whose needs no longer can be met by the informal care network of the past. In addition to his work at AAHSA, Mr. Rodgers is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Society on Aging and also belongs to the Gerontological Society of America. He teaches at John Hopkins University as a member of the adjunct faculty in the Center on Aging Programs and Studies. Mr. Rodgers was chosen as a delegate to the most recent White House Conference on Aging in 1995. Prior to joining AAHSA, Mr. Rodgers worked on Capitol Hill for several years. For two years, he was the staff director of the House Select Committee on Aging's Subcommittee on Housing and Consumer Interests. Previously, he spent six years on the senior professional staff of the Senate Special Committee on Aging under the chairmanship of the late Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz. His work with these committees focused on health, long-term care, assisted housing and other aging-related legislation. Before coming to the Hill, Mr. Rodgers was the Director of the Bureau of Policy, Planning and Evaluation at the Pennsylvania Department of Aging. Previously, he served as the Executive Director of the Lackawanna County Area on Aging in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Mr. Rodgers received a master's degree in rehabilitation counseling and psychology from the University of Scranton, where he subsequently was on the adjunct faculty as a professional lecturer. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to wish Mr. Rodgers the very best as he prepares to depart from the AAHSA to join the Catholic Health Association, where he will become the new Director of Government Relations. In this capacity, he will have the opportunity to continue to work on behalf of faith-based, mission driven providers of high- quality health and long-term care. I know his colleagues join me in recognizing his many years of service to America's seniors and in wishing him continued success in his new role.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay honor to the community of Lake Barcroft, in Falls Church, Virginia, which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary this coming Wednesday, October 18, 2000, Driving or walking through the community, the natural beauty of Lake Barcroft may be taken for granted. It is easy to overlook the obvious and never think to question why or how the present evolved. Trees and bushes planted 35 years ago turned mud flats into gardens. Street signs unique to Lake Barcroft grace the landscape. Curbs and gutters prevent flooding and erosion, and the lake itself is a glittering gem. The Barcroft community was named in memory of Dr. John Barcroft, who built both a home and a mill on a tract of land that came to be known as Barcroft Hill. The surrounding land, known as Munson Hill Farm, was a large tract of land between what is now Bailey's Crossroads and Seven Corners. During the Civil War, both Munson Hill Farm and Bailey's Crossroads were scenes of military action. Dr. Barcroft's home and mill were overrun by the retreating Union Army after the Battle of Bull Run. Bailey's Crossroads became a Union encampment while the Confederates occupied positions in both Annandale and Fairfax County. Later, the Federals constructed Fort Buffalo at the present site of Seven Corners. Fort Buffalo become one of the ring of forts protecting the District of Columbia during the war. Almost 90 years later, on February 23, 1954, the residents of Lake Barcroft officially launched the Lake Barcroft Community Association (LABARCA). The residents had come together informally over the prior 18 months to build a new life in a new community and, most importantly, to save the lake. Like most Washingtonians, they came from other places. This created a common bond and a reliance on each other. Their varied backgrounds and individual talents resolved numerous problems from water sedimentation to litigation. Much was accomplished by the few people who first formed the community association. In the summer of 1952, almost two years after the start of development, 15 families had completed homes in Lake Barcroft. Of these, eleven families present at the first meeting of the homeowners association formed the Executive Committee. The Committee took a strong stand against mass, speculative housing development in the area. Other civic actions provided voter information concerning registration and local elections. The association coordinated mail delivery to roadside mailboxes with the U.S. Post Office. Unique, wooden road signs were designed and installed. Landscaping and a sign with lighting enhanced ``Entrance One.'' Beautification and the installation of storm drains at the beach commenced. Lake Barcroft achieved up-scale status at the beginning of the sixties. Over just a few years, the number of families living at Lake Barcroft increased substantially: from 368 in 1956, to 650 in 1958, 783 in 1960. By mid-1960, Lake Barcroft Community Association membership reached a record high; of the 783 families in Lake Barcroft, 78 percent were members. The first competitive race for president in LABARCA history took place in late 1959. The election featured two candidates, each highly qualified and dedicated to the community. Ralph Spencer, an official at the Department of Agriculture, had been asked to run in recognition of his work as Chairman of the Planning Committee. Ralph promoted the community center despite pessimistic arguments against a ``dance hall'' on the lake. A faction in favor of dredging the lake convinced Stuart Finley to enter the election based on his knowledge of sediment and erosion; he had produced a fifty-part television series, Our Beautiful Potomac. Funding for slit removal had been approved by Fairfax County, so association pressure mounted to resolve a festering sore, the gradual decay of the lake. Stuart won the low-key and friendly election. Ralph Spencer pitched right in and volunteered to take on the task of procuring and maintaining street signs, a responsibility he has held to this day. Mr. Speaker, today Lake Barcroft is a thriving community of approximately 1,025 homes. The families of Lake Barcroft have formed a tight-knit community featuring annual civic affairs meetings, beach parties, Easter egg hunts, annual Labor Day games, and golf outings. I am proud to represent this tremendous group of citizens, and I am honored today to recognize their rich and storied history.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate South Korean President Kim Dae Jung for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee announced the decision to award President Kim based on his ``moral strength'' to pursue democratic goals despite repeated threats on his life and long periods in exile. The Committee awarded President Kim with the Nobel Prize not only for his work in bringing democracy to South Korea, but for his efforts to reconcile South Korea with North Korea. To facilitate that goal, President Kim established the ``Sunshine Policy'' in an attempt to overcome more than fifty years of war and hostility between the two Korean nations. President Kim has said that his struggle against dictatorship was the greater achievement in his life. ``Democracy is most important. Only when we uphold human rights and freedom, is our struggle against communism meaningful,'' said President Kim. Born on December 3, 1925, President Kim was the second son of four. His father was a farmer on an island in the southwestern province of Cholla. President Kim was a good student and elected a leader of his high school class. However, he learned an early lesson about democracy when he was stripped of his position, after he published an essay condemning the Japanese colonial government that controlled Korea at that time. It would be the first of many sacrifices President Kim would make before being elected to lead South Korea. Prior to being elected, President Kim was jailed repeatedly by the government of South Korea. He has been placed under house arrest more than 55 times, and has survived many assassination attempts. He has been kidnapped by South Korean agents, sentenced to death by a military court for alleged treason following prodemocracy demonstrations, lived in exile in the United States, and returned to South Korea, before winning the Presidency in 1997. President Kim was credited with bringing South Korea back from the verge of financial collapse just a few years ago. He committed the country to strict reforms requested by the International Monetary Fund and by doing so, the South Korean economy has made significant strides in less than two years. President Kim's Sunshine Policy to engage North Korea has produced dramatic, historical results. On June 13 of this year, President Kim traveled to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean President Kim Jon Il. The summit opened the way for the first reunion between Korean family members, who had been separated by the Korean war and had not seen one another in 50 years. President Kim's personal courage and moral character are his foundation in times of adversity; and they have inspired generations of Koreans to keep their faith in freedom. As the Washington Post put it, ``He helped prove that freedom is a universal value and democracy a universal desire, not limited by race, continent, or culture.'' I join my Korean-American constituents in congratulating President Kim on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2000.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205 and I would like to thank my good friends, Chairman Floyd Spence and Senate Chairman John Warner. Section 813 of this bill includes legislation that I introduced, H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act of 2000. H.R. 3582 passed the House on May 2 of this year and my good friend, Senator Warner attached to the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate. H.R. 3582, now Section 813, will provide northern Virginia with important relief for its continued information technology worker shortage and continue the important procurement reforms this Congress began in 1995. H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act of 2000, will address an ongoing problem in federal IT contracts. Section 813 of this bill is necessary because federal contracting officers frequently write into IT contracts minimum personnel requirements that hamper the ability of contractors to find qualified personnel to perform the contract. Oftentimes this means government contractors can not hire personnel who they believe could successfully perform the work but instead search for qualified resumes. This is a burden on the IT industry and contributes to the chronic worker shortage faced by the technology industry because the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of IT products in the world--spending about $32 billion on goods and services each year. The Fed-Flex Act requires Federal agencies to justify the minimum personnel requirements frequently written into government contracts. Federal agencies have been experiencing ``credential creep'' in the way they write contracts. The problem has become so significant that the Virginia Secretary of Technology, Don Upson, found in a report issued by his office this past September that these minimum personnel requirements are the second largest contributor to the IT worker shortage in my home state. This report, titled ``A Study of Virginia's Information Technology Workforce,'' strongly recommended that both the government and private sector companies objectively evaluate alternative forms of training, and focus on investments in training rather than degrees or resumes. The nationwide shortage of IT workers is estimated at 364,000, and it is estimated at over 24,000 for the Northern Virginia region alone. What these minimum personnel requirements mean for the government is that Bill Gates or Michael Dell cannot contract with the federal government. Since neither one of them holds a college degree, many federal agencies would not allow them to perform IT work for the government. When federal agencies write credential creep into contracts, they hinder the ability of federal contractors to hire qualified personnel who get the job done, and increase the total cost of the contract to the government. In this era of serious labor shortages in nearly every sector of our economy, this practice drives up prices and limits the flexibility of offers. The government will get better results if it issues performance-based statements of work and leaves it up to the offeror to propose how they will satisfy the requirement. The government should hold the winning offeror accountable for the quality of the cake, not dictate the ingredients that go into the recipe. Another recent workforce study released by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) found that US companies anticipate a demand for 1.6 million IT workers in the next year. According to that study, about 50% of applicants for those jobs will not have the skills required to perform the jobs meaning that up to 850,000 of those slots could go unfilled. The private sector knows it must adapt to address this shortage and invest in training that will allow them to get the job done--let's make sure the federal government is not the stumbling block. The Fed Flex Act requires agencies to realize that key skills are what matters most to mission accomplishment within agencies not how those skills are acquired. Recently, there has been ongoing debate about solving the labor shortage in the United States and lifting the cap on H1-B visas. I am a strong supporter of lifting the visa cap and an original cosponsor of my colleague, Representative Dreier's H.R. 3982, the HI-TECH Act, which raises the cap to 200,000 for H1-Bs. But we all know this is a short- term solution. We need to recognize the new types of training employees receive and encourage American businesses to hire employees who have received less traditional methods of training. We also need to encourage our federal government to be a leader in solving the worker shortage and not remain behind the curve as is so often the case. The Fed-Flex bill I authored recognizes the investment that firms make in their employees today. Many IT firms spend a significant amount of time and dollars training their employees to be up to speed on the latest products and services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies to justify the use of such minimum mandatory personnel requirements before imposing such requirements in a particular solicitation for IT services. Where the contracting officer determines that the agency's need cannot be met without such requirements, the legislation would not preclude such requirements. Moreover, the legislation would not preclude agencies from evaluating the advantages that may be associated with a particular employee's experience or education, including participation in an in-house training and certification program. This bill continues the many successes of recent procurement reforms and redirects government to focus on products, not process. Earlier this year, a study released by the American Association of Community Colleges indicated that twenty percent of Community College attendees are pursuing degrees to work on technology issues. With the worker shortage we face across the nation, it is of great concern to me that the federal government could prevent these highly-motivated young people from pursuing a technology career. Credential creep is a federal government-wide problem. We have fallen behind in recruiting IT workers for the federal workforce and training federal workers to take part in the information technology revolution. Yet, the government often demands college degrees for entry level positions that might be filled by individuals who have received another form of job training. I believe that Fed-Flex bill is important to address an immediate need within the government but I am also committed to working closely with my friends in the federal workforce community to look at their credential creep problems. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out the many organizations that have supported the inclusion of FED-FLEX in section 813 of H.R. 4205. It is supported by ITAA, AEA, the Contract Services Association, the Professional Services Council, and CapNet. I would like to quote from a letter sent over by Harris Miller, the President of ITAA, ``The Federal Contractor Flexibility Act is a homerun for practical, efficient, and effective government contracting.'' I would also like to submit a copy of the ITAA letter for the Record. Section 813 of this bill will ensure that contracts are performance- based rather than process-driven. In my conversations with local Chambers of Commerce in northern Virginia, and national procurement organizations, I have heard many instances where these personnel requirements have hampered companies' ability to work with government. I have also been presented with evidence that these minimum personnel requirements have been used at various government agencies to favor incumbent contractors rather than promote open competition. I have even heard of an instance where the contract employees who unpack computers at some agencies are required to hold a college degree. Mr. Speaker, I have also received contract examples from the Departments of Defense and Treasury, and the General Services Administration that include minimum personnel requirements. The Defense Department includes these cumbersome requirements for entry-level IT positions that include such basic tasks as data-entry, and they do not give contractors any opportunity to apply for a waiver. The Treasury contract includes these requirements but then says a company may apply for a waiver after contract award although the waiver requires a significant amount of paperwork to get approved. The GSA requirement is on an IDIQ contract that would effect several companies that the same time and drive-up costs of all of the competing kids. Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. The inclusion of H.R. 3582 in this conference report will provide important relief to Virginia and government contractors across the nation. It will also provide a tremendous cost-savings to the government. Mr. Speaker, in addition, the conference report for H.R. 4205 authorizes $309.9 billion for the nation's defense activities for FY2001, $4.6 billion more than the President's request. The conference report provides significant improvements to the quality of life of military personnel, retirees, and their families, military readiness, and modernization programs. In particular, the conference report provides a much needed 3.7% military pay raise and other important bonuses, as well as retention and quality-of-life programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. In addition, the conference report establishes a targeted subsistence payment, up to $500 per month, to assist the most economically challenged personnel. I believe this report includes provisions that are critical to maintaining and sustaining our military readiness by focusing on the most important feature of our military; the men and women in uniform. More importantly, the conference report includes substantial improvements in TRICARE benefits for all beneficiaries of the military health care system. The conference report authorizes a restructuring of the military health care program and provides permanent lifetime TRICARE eligibility to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their family members beginning in FY2002. The report also provides a comprehensive pharmacy benefit to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, reduces the maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for all retirees form $7,500 to $3,000, eliminates co-payments and deductibles for active duty families and their beneficiaries, and eliminates TRICARE enrollment fees or premiums for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Additionally, the report authorizes an expansion of the Department of Defense's (DOD mail order and network retail pharmacy programs, the ``TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program'' to allow all beneficiaries to participate, including those over the age of 64, without enrollment fees. Military retirees over the age of 64 will be able to choose out- of-network pharmacies, and pay a deductible of $150 per year. In addition to these important provisions, the conference report also authorizes the development of the United States Marine Corps Heritage Center at Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. This report permits the Department of the Navy to accept, without compensation, a land transfer from the Park Authority of Prince William County. The Marine Corps Heritage Center will be developed by a joint venture between the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation. It is my strong belief that the Heritage Center represents the kind of partnership between federal and local government and the private sector which should be encouraged more often. The Marine Corps Heritage Center will be situated on 135 acres in Locus Shade Park, presently a county-owned site adjacent to the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. The 460,000-square-foot Heritage Center will be used for historical displays for public viewing, curation and storage of artifacts, research facilities, classrooms, offices, and associated activities consistent with the Marine Corps University. In addition, the main building will include a museum, visitor center, gift shop, restaurant, exhibits, and possibly a movie theater. Funding for the Heritage Center will be provided almost entirely by private sources. I believe the Heritage Center will provide visitors with valuable information and insight about the Marine Corps and its long tradition of service to America. Given Virginia's rich history and the Marine Corps' legacy, it is only fitting that Virginia will be host to the U.S. Marine Corps Heritage Center. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 4205, as this important legislation will fulfill America's vital military needs for FY2001. In addition, I would also like to commend the conferees and their staffs, whose hard work and diligence brought this conference report to the floor.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to honor our colleague, Owen Pickett of Virginia's 2d Congressional District. After 29 years of serving the citizens of Virginia Beach and Norfolk, as well as the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Pickett has decided to retire from the United States House of Representatives. My colleague, Mr. Pickett, is a member of the Armed Services Committee and is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development and serves on the Readiness Subcommittee and the MWR Panel. The 2d congressional district is heavily dependent on the massive concentration of naval installations, shipbuilders and shipping firms in the Hampton Roads harbor area, which ranks first in export tonnage among the nation's Atlantic ports. The U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet berthed in its home port of Norfolk is one of the greatest awe-inspiring sights in America, or anywhere. The aggregation of destructive power in the line of towering gray ships is probably greater than that of any single port in history. Over 100 ships are based here, with some 100,000 sailors and Marines, some $2 billion in annual spending. For these reasons, Congressman Pickett has been an outspoken advocate for a strong, technologically superior military and has been tenacious in supporting military bases in his district. Mr. Pickett, together with Senator John Warner and the late Congressman Herbert H. Bateman, have provided tremendous leadership on behalf of Virginia. Other issues on which he has taken a strong position are the U.S.-flag merchant fleet, private property rights, public education, veterans programs and a balanced Federal budget. Mr. Pickett was born in Hanover County, VA, outside Richmond on August 31, 1930 and was the youngest of three children. He attended the public school system and is a graduate of Virginia Tech and the University of Richmond School of Law. He was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 1986. With old Virginia roots, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1971, at the age of 41, where he was known as a fiscal conservative and for his hard work restructuring the State retirement system. By the time Mr. Pickett won the congressional seat vacated by retiring Republican G. William Whitehurst in 1986, Mr. Pickett had already served as chairman of the state Democratic Party, headed a Democratic presidential campaign in Virginia and served long enough in the state House of Delegates to be a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. In the House, Mr. Pickett showed his political acumen by getting a new seat created for him on the National Security Committee and getting a seat on the old Merchant Marine Committee as well--two crucial spots for any Norfolk Congressman. Much of Mr. Pickett's work has been in supporting Hampton Roads military bases and defense contractors, and revitalizing the shipbuilding industry and merchant marine. That work has been successful. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock has been building three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in the 1990s, and has effectively ensured that there is no industry monopoly on building nuclear submarines. The Norfolk Navy Shipyard under Mr. Pickett's guidance has survived four rounds of base-closings and calls for privatization. Madam Speaker, I join with my fellow Virginian colleagues in thanking Congressman Owen Pickett for his service to the Commonwealth and to our Nation. Madam Speaker, it is also my privilege to rise today to honor our colleague, Tom Bliley, of Virginia's 7th Congressional District. After 32 years of serving the citizens of Richmond, as well as the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, Chairman Bliley has decided to retire from the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Bliley has been chairman of the House Committee on Commerce for his last three terms. He was handpicked by Speaker Newt Gingrich over more senior members. He has declared himself a friend of big business and his agenda for the past 6 years has been, quit simply to promote commerce. As chairman, Mr. Bliley has been a pragmatist, willing to broker deals behind closed doors with ideologic foes and friends alike. The result of the Chairman's reign the committee has become one of the most constructive in Congress: Promoting free and fair markets, standing for consumer choice and common sense safeguards for our health and the environment, and keeping a watchful eye on the Federal bureaucracy. As chairman, Mr. Bliley is an ex officio member of the five Commerce Committee subcommittees: Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection; Finance and Hazardous Materials; Health and Environment; Energy and Power; and Oversight and Investigation. A pleasant, soft spoken mortician, the chairman started his political career in 1968 when civil leaders sought him out to run for the Richmond City Council. He served the city for almost a decade, not only on the city council, but also as vice mayor and then becoming mayor until 1977, when he retired to devote more time to his funeral home. However, the Chairman was not out of politics for long. He enthusiastically re-entered when Democrat David Satterfield announced his retirement from Congress in 1980. Since his first election to Congress, the Chairman has been recognized by many organizations for his work. He has served in various roles with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. From November 1994 to October 1998, he was chairman of the Economic Committee. In November 1998, he became one of the four Vice-Presidents; and, with the resignation of its President in May 2000, the Chairman became Acting President. His commitment to balancing the Federal budget has earned him the National Watchdog of the Treasury's ``Golden bulldog Award'' every year since 1981. He has been named a ``Guardian of Small Business'' by the National Federation of Independent Business. He has been called the ``Most powerful Virginian since Harry Byrd'' and the National Journal called him ``Mr. Smooth.'' Born in Chesterfield County, VA, the Chairman is a lifelong resident of the Richmond area. He earned his B.A. in history from Georgetown University and immediately following served three years in the U.S. Navy, rising to the rank of lieutenant. Madam Speaker, I join with my fellow Virginian colleagues in thanking Chairman Tom Bliley for his service to the Commonwealth and to our Nation. He has been a friend and a mentor to me, and he most certainly will be missed.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 762, the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation to expand and intensify the research efforts of the National Institute of Health to diagnose, treat, and eventually cure lupus. Lupus is a very serious illness that causes the body's immune system to attack its own cells. More people suffer from this little-known illness than from cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS combined. Although lupus may occur at any age and in either sex, 90 percent of those affected are women. During the childbearing years, lupus strikes women 10 to 15 times more often than men. More than 1.5 million Americans have been diagnosed with this terrible disease. Many more cases go undiagnosed, since the symptoms of this disease tend to wax and wane with passing time. H.R. 762 would require the Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to expand its research activities on the disease lupus, especially with regard to its increasing prevalence among women. The bill expands lupus-related activities at the Institute into the areas of basic research, epidemiology, treatment, diagnosis, and public and health care provider education. H.R. 762 also authorizes project grants to improve health delivery services through local governments and to community hospitals. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 762 would provide the needed support to NIH in their works towards making medical breakthroughs in the fight against lupus. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in support of the lupus research and care amendments.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman, and I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) as well.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for shepherding a very, very complex bill through a very complicated legislative process. Most of all, I also want to thank the regional delegation for working together in a bipartisan manner, and the administration and my House leadership for the inclusion of the $600 million for the Woodrow Wilson bridge. This is a major artery along the North-South expressway. It is in danger of falling into the Potomac River if a new bridge is not completed. This will complete the $1.5 billion Federal obligation and just my thanks to all concerned. Finally, to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I thank him for his leadership in the last 6 years of this subcommittee. It has meant a lot to this region. It has meant a lot to this country, and it has been just a pleasure to serve with the gentleman in this capacity and the value the gentleman has added to our region, I think is second to anything anybody has ever done. The gentleman has made a huge difference.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4475, the FY 2001 Transportation and Related Agencies Conference Report. This bill includes significant funding for projects that will ease traffic congestion in Northern Virginia which was the dubious distinction of the second worst traffic congestion in the nation. Most importantly, I would like to applaud the inclusion of $600 million for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This is money that is desperately needed to fund a vital East Coast Interstate link. Additionally, this bill contains important funding for other Northern Virginia projects including $50 million for rail out the Dulles Corridor, $3 million for bus funding in Prince William County, $500,000 to complete the Fairfax County trail system, $500,000 for the Fair Lakes League Shuttle, $500,000 for Potomac River Jet ferry boat funding for ferry service from Prince William County to the Navy Yard and Washington Harbour, and $5 million for 14th Street Bridge improvements. Since I first came to Congress in 1995, finding the appropriate solution for replacing and paying for a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge has been one of my top priorities. We face a critical time frame to follow in replacing the old bridge structure in order to avoid regional and eastern seaboard gridlock. The replacement of this rapidly aging structure is urgent and desperately needed. The $600 million we secured today brings the total federal commitment to $1.5 billion. This will fulfill our obligation to this project. For quite some time, the federal government and Virginia and Maryland have known that the bridge needed to be replaced, or truck traffic would have to be rerouted throughout the entire Washington Metropolitan area. However, there has been ongoing debate about the level of commitment the federal government needed to provide to the project. That is because the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is truly a unique circumstance. It is the only federally-owned bridge in the United States, it is the midpoint between Maine and Florida on Interstate 95, it is technically located in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and it links the Capital Beltway at its southern crossing point between Maryland and Virginia. These factors have all combined to significantly shorten the life of the current bridge and create the dire circumstance that our region and the east coast faces. As the midpoint between Maine and Florida in the Interstate system, it carries an unusually large amount of interstate commerce up and down the east coast. In 1993, it was estimated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that 1.3 percent of gross domestic product carried by truck crossed the Wilson Bridge. That is $58 billion, a figure that I am certain has only increased in the past seven years. Four hundred and fifty miles is the average distance traveled by truck shipments once they have crossed the bridge. It is important to note the many cities that fall within that 450 mile travel shed: Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Norfolk, New York City, Richmond, Raleigh, Newark, Savannah, Hartford, and Trenton. Forty-nine percent of heavy trucks, or 7,000 trucks crossing the bridge go beyond the immediate area. That means that consumers up and down the east coast would face higher prices for products and services if truck traffic had to be rerouted and delivery of products was slowed. As the southern crossing point for the Capital Beltway, it has carried more traffic and heavy trucks than it was designed to hold. When the bridge was opened in 1961, it was designed as a lightweight, flexible structure to serve a 4-lane beltway without heavy truck traffic. As early as 1969, the bridge began carrying more traffic than its designed capacity of 75,000 vehicles. In 1975, the decision was made that Interstate 95 should not be routed through Washington, D.C. as originally planned, and the bridge is now the default southern crossing for I-95. To accommodate that change, the beltway was widened to eight lanes but the structural limitations of the bridge meant that it could not be widened. While we may all now agree with the 1975 decision, it had serious implications for the life span of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In 1988, the bridge begins to carry 150,000 vehicles daily. This history doomed the original bridge structure to fail much earlier than anticipated and put us in the situation we face today. In TEA-21, this Committee and the 105th Congress recognized the federal responsibility for the bridge and funded the construction of the bridge at $900 million. As I have said, now we have come up with the additional $600 million federal commitment to allow this project to go forward. Virginia and Maryland must now make their funding commitment available so this urgent project goes forward on time. While the Wilson Bridge project will receive a large amount of federal funding, without this commitment for the Bridge, the entire Washington Metropolitan area could face potential gridlock. One of the nation's strongest regional economies and the seat of our federal government could face a grave threat should this bridge project not move forward in a timely manner. As we have seen in the past, a shutdown Wilson Bridge can shut down this region and our Nation's Capital. I am also proud that we have been able to include an additional $50 million for rail out the Dulles Corridor. This follows on the $86 million I was able to secure in the TEA-21 legislation in the 105th Congress and the $25 million we were able to secure in last year's transportation appropriations bill. This is a critically needed project that will serve the ongoing growth out the Dulles Corridor. Rail to Dulles will significantly ease congestion in the Tysons Corner region and through Reston and Herndon in my Congressional District. I would also like to note the inclusion of three projects that will help ease congestion in the I-95 corridor and for my constituents in Prince William County. H.R. 4475 provides funding for necessary improvements on the 14th Street Bridge. These improvements will significantly relieve the bottleneck that occurs during the morning and evening rush hours. This bill includes $3 million for bus funding for Prince William County to replace an aging fleet. Also, it includes $500,000 for funding for ferry service from Prince William County to the Washington Navy Yard and Washington Harbour. These two items will provide alternatives to those who otherwise face long commutes through the Springfield Interchange replacement project. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge serves the people who serve our government in all three branches of government. Gridlock in the Nation's Capital is one of the gravest threats facing the daily operation of our Republic. I would also like to thank my good friend, Mr. Wolf for his leadership on this important bill and his leadership chairing the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations. His commitment to providing the necessary transportation funding for this nation's vital projects is enabling all our communities address the tremendous growth we are undergoing nationwide and ensuring that our families are able to spend less time in traffic and more time at home.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000. In the summer of 1999, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held hearings to investigate the workforce shortage affecting America's high-tech industry. The high-tech industry's explosion in the U.S. has created over 1 million jobs since 1993 and has produced an industry unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. As a result, our nation's economy has soared and the American people are enjoying the highest standard of living in history. However, the United States' computer and information technology industry does not have access to growing numbers of highly skilled personnel. Lack of skilled workers threatens our nation's ability to maintain robust economic growth and expanding opportunities. The H-1B visa program allows foreign professionals to enter and work ``temporarily'' in the U.S. There are currently over 364,000 unfilled positions in the high-tech industry. In Northern Virginia alone, there are 28,000 openings. The Department of Labor projects that this deficit will increase by 1 million workers in the next decade. At the present time, the annual limit for granting H-1B visas is 115,000, which was reached in March, 2000. America needs to sustain its position as the world leader in the information technology industry. The critical need for highly-skilled information technology workers demands that we take action now to ensure our continued strength in light of today's global economy. There is no question that we need to educate our children and retrain our current workers to fulfill the demands of an IT workplace. But these are long-term challenges that we are attempting to address in this legislation and through education programs and IT training tax incentives, among others. We must ease the short-term skilled worker shortage that is a function of a booming industry that has increased employment and contributed to a growing budget surplus. And we need to do so by increasing American companies' access to the best-educated and best- trained minds if we are to maintain our position as the leader of the Information Age. Indeed, many of these workers are trained in American universities. Yet we send them back home to use those skills on behalf of our competitors. Let us keep these minds within America's borders for the benefit of American citizens. There have been concerns expressed that companies want foreign skilled workers in order to avoid paying American citizens' higher wages to do the same job. However, temporary employees are not paid any less than their counterparts. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that a company would endure the time-consuming process and cost of attracting a foreign worker instead of hiring home-grown talent. As an original sponsor of the Dreier-Lofgren HI-TECH Act, I am very pleased that we are moving quickly to pass the H-1B legislation approved by the other body. I am a firm believer in the market system. Here, the information technology industry is experiencing a shortage of highly-trained and skilled workers, forcing them to look abroad for such trained professionals. With this legislation, we can be certain that as we shift the focus of our early educational efforts to fulfilling the demands of an Information Economy, that in the meantime, the best and brightest minds will guide America into the new millennium. For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 2045.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4049, the Privacy Commission Act. I am proud to be an original sponsor of this bill, which would be a significant step forward toward creating a comprehensive framework for the protection of personal privacy. The Privacy Commission would be unique in Congress because of its comprehensive approach to dealing with the growing concern Americans have regarding the protection of their personal privacy--whether that be online privacy, identity theft, or the protection of health, medical, financial, and governmental records. The Commission would be charged with investigating the problem of protecting personal privacy in a broad-based fashion, across-the-industry spectrum. After an extensive 18 month investigation, the commission will then be required to recommend whether additional legislation is necessary, what specific proposals would be effective, and proposals for non-governmental privacy protection efforts as well. This bipartisan commission would be comprised of 17 members representing experts of various industries and organizations whose work impacts individual's personal privacy. Specifically, the commission would be representing federal, state, and local governments; business and industry groups; academics; consumer groups; financial services groups; public policy and advocacy groups; medical groups; civil liberties experts; and the media, though it is not limited to just these areas. Mr. Speaker, in these times of rapidly changing technology, people are uncertain and fearful about who has access to their personal information and how that information is being used. The Privacy Commission would examine the entire spectrum of privacy issues and find solutions that will aggressively protect these growing concerns. I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the Privacy Commission Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to honor our colleague, Owen Pickett of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District. After 29 years of serving the citizens of Virginia Beach and Norfolk, as well as the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Pickett has decided to retire from the United States House of Representatives. My colleague, Mr. Pickett, is a member of the Armed Services Committee and is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development and serves on the Readiness Subcommittee and the MWR Panel. The 2nd Congressional District is heavily dependent on the massive concentration of naval installations, shipbuilders and shipping firms in the Hampton Roads harbor area, which ranks first in export tonnage among the nation's Atlantic ports. The United States Navy Atlantic Fleet berthed in its home port of Norfolk is one of the greatest awe-inspiring sights in America, or anywhere. The aggregation of destructive power in the line of towering gray ships is probably greater than that of any single port in history. Over 100 ships are based here, with some 100,000 sailors and Marines, some $2 billion in annual spending. For these reasons, Congressman Pickett has been an outspoken advocate for a strong, technologically superior military and has been tenacious in supporting military bases in his district. Mr. Pickett, together with Senator John Warner and the late Congressman Herbert H. Bateman, have provided tremendous leadership on behalf of Virginia. Other issues on which he has taken a strong position are the U.S.-flag merchant fleet, private property rights, public education, veterans programs and a balanced Federal budget. Mr. Pickett was born in Hanover County, Virginia, outside Richmond on August 31, 1930 and was the youngest of three children. He attended the public school system and is a graduate of Virginia Tech and the University of Richmond School of Law. He was first elected to the United States Congress in 1986. With old Virginia roots, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1971, at the age of 41, where he was known as a fiscal conservative and for his hard work restructuring the state retirement system. By the time Mr. Pickett won the Congressional seat vacated by retiring Republican G. William Whitehurst in 1986, Mr. Pickett had already served as chairman of the state Democratic Party, headed a Democratic presidential campaign in Virginia and served long enough in the state House of Delegates to be a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. In the House, Mr. Pickett showed his political acumen by getting a new seat created for him on the National Security Committee and getting a seat on the old Merchant Marine Committee as well--two crucial spots for any Norfolk congressman. Much of Mr. Pickett's work has been in supporting Hampton Roads military bases and defense contractors, and revitalizing the shipbuilding industry and merchant marine. That work has been successful. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock has been building three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in the 1990s, and has effectively ensured that there is no industry monopoly on building nuclear submarines. The Norfolk Navy Shipyard under Mr. Pickett's guidance has survived four rounds of base-closings and calls for privatization. Mr. Speaker, I join with my fellow Virginian colleagues in thanking Congressman Owen Pickett for his service to the Commonwealth and to our nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding citizen of the Eleventh District of Virginia, a patriotic and loyal staff member of both the House and the Senate, a devoted father, and my loyal friend, Fred Ward, who passed away Tuesday, September 12th at the age of 59. Fred served his community in many ways, most recently as an elected member of the Fairfax County School Board. His interest in education and in children was reflected in his devotion to his own children, Jesse Lee and Emily Lou, his stepson Joe McAlear and the hundreds of other kids he helped and mentored as a volunteer Little League, soccer and swimming coach. He had a long and distinguished professional career here in the House and the Senate, where he was the court reporter for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In fact he was the first court reporter for both the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees when they were established in 1976. In that capacity, Fred held the highest security clearance a member or a staffer can have, and he was a key participant in our great nation's struggle with and victory over communism. Prior to his career in the Congress, Fred served in the Army and remained a true friend to those who served in the military all of his life. But it was in his own home and his community that Fred really devoted his talents and energies, and that is where I had the privilege of getting to know and to work with him long before I came to serve in the Congress. He loved deeply and was very proud of his two children, Jesse and Emily. He was a full participant in their school and extracurricular activities, and his face would light up at the mere mention of their names and accomplishments. He was a friend and mentor to his stepson Joe. Even though they were divorced, he and his wife Sandra remained friends, and it was together that they managed his healthcare and comfort. In memorials to Fred Ward, history will record November 20, 1940- September 12, 2000. Those almost 60 years were filled with many great moments and spawned many great memories, and I join all of his friends in extending my deepest sympathy to his family on his passing.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend, statesman, and colleague from Virginia, Herb Bateman, who served this body with dignity, honor, and dedication since his election in 1982. I first met Herb Bateman in the 1970s when he was a Democratic State Senator from Newport News and I was a young legislative aide in Richmond. I met him at a meeting where I was on staff and we were revising the Juvenile Code of Virginia. I will never forget the first meeting. He said, ``I don't know anything about this subject. They put me on it.'' Everybody else was instant experts in the room. At the end of the study, Herb Bateman wrote most of the revisions of the Code. He was a doer. He was a detailed legislator. He wanted to understand all the ramifications of what happened. Many times when we would have tough votes here on the floor and we would go to Herb, he would talk about how things were being implemented, how the bill would affect different people, how it would play out, how it would work. Never did I hear him say, what are the politics of this? This was a man who rose above the politics of the moment. This body could use a few more people like him, who never engaged in the harsh partisanship that sometimes characterizes this body, particularly now that it is so closely divided. Herb was a gentleman always, a great patriot. I will never forget his kind and valuable tutelage when I first came here to the House, his leadership on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and of course, his leadership on military affairs, something many of my colleagues have spoken about here, and his undying support for the Newport News shipyard, where he was just a staunch defender here in the House of Representatives, and the teamwork with Senator Warner I think has saved that institution and made it much of what it is today, through some very trying times. On a political and ideological level there was much to learn from Herb: his fiscal conservatism, his commitment to restraining big government and protecting the taxpayers' interests. I will never forget, one year the national taxpayer groups came out with a rating of what Member of Congress, not just in their votes but in the bills that they cosponsored, what was the total cost, and Herb Bateman was the frugalest of all of the Members. Never one for fanfare, to put his name on a bill to get him votes here and there, he was always conscious this was the people's money, not his own money to spend. His record bore that out. It did in subtle ways, never with a big press release, but the groups that came in and examined this could confirm Herb's commitment to the taxpayer. His unwavering support of a strong military and the men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our Nation seemed to be a part of everything he did here. He was very concerned about what has happened to our military over the last decade. Always first and foremost in his mind is what can we do for defense. There was his dedication to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, his leadership on these issues, and so much more. I mourn his loss as a friend and colleague, but in truth, the loss of Herb Bateman is a loss to the national landscape. This body could use more legislators like Herb Bateman. More than just a Member of Congress, he will be remembered as a father, a husband, a teacher, an attorney, an Air Force lieutenant, defender of freedom around the world. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Laura, and their children. One of his sons is a Newport News city councilman today. I cannot tell the Members how very much I will miss this great man.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Deacon Sid Holland, a long-time friend and colleague of mine, who departed this life on July 5, at the age of 92 after sustaining injuries in an automobile accident. He was a Mason and served as past Master of King Tyree Lodge No. 292 and was a Charter member of the Fairfax County Democratic Party. Sid was a small business owner of the J. S. Holland Sand and Gravel Hauling Co. He was a hard worker and a dedicated family man. Born on August 13, 1907, in Palmyra, VA, Sid was one of 10 children born to the late John and Mary Odie Holland. As a young man, Sid came to Fairfax County seeking employment and subsequently joined the Mount Pleasant Baptist Church. He also became involved in a number of civic and social organizations. Sid was a natural leader transition Fairfax County through the Civil Rights revolution. Sid always was respected for his ability and friendly demeanor. As a dedicated member of the Mount Pleasant Baptist Church for over 65 years, Sid served as Sunday School Superintendent, Chairman of the Deacon Board, Trustee and member of the Senior Choir, Usher Board, Pinkett and Chairman Emeritus of the Deacon Board. He was also active in the Northern Virginia Baptist Association and the Mount Vernon Baptist Association. Sid knew God and the work of the church and he translated this into his daily life. In addition to his church activities, Sid was an officer and member of the Mount Pleasant Lincolnia Association, Harelco Land Developments, Higher Horizon Day Care Center, Fairfax County-Wide Black Citizen Association, Fairfax Human Rights Commission and the Manassas Educational Foundation. He also served on a special commission of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors charged with writing County Housing Hygiene Code and on a Citizen's Advisory Committee to establish a Housing Authority. His efforts to promote desegregation in Fairfax County are recognized in the recorded history of the county and won him plaudits from leaders of both parties. In addition, he was the longest serving member of the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission, where he continued to advocate for the minority rights amid a growing and diverse minority population. In closing Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and honor to speak of Deacon Sid Holland on the House floor today. He will be greatly missed but remembered for his service to his community and dedication to his family. Sid is survived by his wife of 17 years, Constance; his two children, J. Sidney, Jr. of Washington, DC and Dr. Dorothy Mann Mazzola of Seattle, WA; two stepchildren, Solomon Lee of Lakeridge, VA, and Bernice Lee of Falls Church, VA; three sisters, Vera Marshall and Mamie Bruce of Palmyra, VA, and Bertha Payne of Washington, DC; a host of nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. His first wife, Susie C. Holland, passed away in 1982. He leaves a legacy of racial progress that will long be remembered in Fairfax.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will endow the Federal Government with the ability to better coordinate and manage information technology policies governmentwide and transform the Federal Government into a national model for information resources management and information security practices. The Federal Information Policy Act [FIPA] of 2000 establishes an Office of Information Policy with a Chief Information Officer [CIO] for the United States and creates within that body, an Office of Information Security and Technical Protection [IN STEP]. This legislation harmonizes existing information resources management responsibilities now held by OMB and provides IN STEP with the responsibility for facilitating the development of a comprehensive, federal framework for devising and implementing effective, mandatory controls over government information security. In this latter respect, the Act is the logical complement to legislation I introduced in April, the Cyber Security Information Act of 2000, which seeks to encourage private sector information sharing with government in order to protect our national critical infrastructure. The Federal Information Policy Act will force the Federal Government to put its house in order and become a reliable public partner for protecting America's information highways. For nearly four decades, information technology has been an integral component of information resources management [IRM] by the Federal Government. The Government's role as the single largest procurer of IT products and services in the 1960s and 1970s spurred the development of the U.S. computer industries that now form the backbone of our nation's New Economy. A decade ago, technology stood as one of many factors important to the mission and performance objectives of the Federal Government. Now both our economy and our society have become information-driven, such that IT plays the critical role in facilitating the Federal Government's ability to be effective and efficient in managing federal programs and spending, communicating with and providing services to citizens, and protecting America's critical infrastructure. Five years ago, Congress recognized the crucial role played by technology when we called on the Administration to appoint a top-level officer to focus exclusively on the Year 2000 computer problem that threatened to undermine national commerce and government. This determination--that a single individual was needed to coordinate national and local cooperation to remediate computer systems and develop contingency plans--was based in part on an understanding of the interconnectivity of information systems within government, between government and the private sector, and within the private sector. The President heeded our Moreover, the Year 2000 computer problem highlighted two important deficiencies in the current Federal IRM structure. First, the Y2K scenario presented an important reminder that technology does not fill some amorphous role within the Federal Government. It is the ubiquitous thread that binds the operations of the Federal Government, and its efficient or inefficient use will make or break the ability of government to perform everything from the most mundane of governmental functions to the most critical national security measures. Second, the high degree of interdepence between information systems, both internally and externally, exposes the vulnerability of the Federal Government's computer networks to both benign and destructive disruptions. This factor is tremendously important to understanding how we devise a comprehensive and flexible strategy for coordinating, implementing and maintaining federal information security practices throughout the Federal Government as the rising threat of electronic terrorism emerges. In following the lessons learned from the Y2K problem as well as the recent Love Bug viruses that affected many federal computer systems, the Federal Information Policy Act accomplishes four main purposes: (1) to revise chapter 35 of title 44 of the U.S. Code to establish a Federal Chief Information Officer to head the Office of Information Policy (OIP) within the Executive Office of the President; (2) to consolidate and centralize IRM powers currently allotted to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] within the OIP; (3) to establish within the OIP the Office of Information Security and Technical Protection [IN STEP]; and (4) to establish a comprehensive framework implementing mandatory information security standards, and annual independent evaluations of agency practices in order to provide effective controls over Federal information resources. The Act creates a new chapter 36 to retain OMB's paperwork clearance functions that are currently contained in chapter 35 and are performed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This past May, at the Center for Innovative Technology in my congressional district, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology held a hearing in which we explored the strategies and challenges facing government in implementing electronic government initiatives. We learned that while electronic government initiatives promise to provide faster, more efficient, and convenient services, the Internet sets forth a wide array of challenges that must be addressed in order for the lower costs and improved customer service associated with electronic government to be realized. These include theft, fraud, consumer privacy protection, and the destruction of assets. To meet those challenges, the General Accounting Office [GAO] testified that ``effective top management leadership, involvement, and ownership are a cornerstone of any information technology investment strategy.'' The Paperwork Reduction Act [PRA] established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] within OMB and gave the Office the authority to reduce unnecessary I am deeply concerned that current federal IRM policies are suffering from the lack of a focused, coordinating body. The Clinger-Cohen Act, passed in the 104th Congress, made an important contribution to Federal IT policy by mandating that federal agencies appoint Chief Information Officers and by recognizing the need to coordinate and facilitate interagency IT communication and policies, a role given to OMB. But having each agency develop IT policies independently of one another poses the potential risk of having a government unable to communicate and function and function amongst its own parts. A central IT management process is essential if government is going to be able to successfully achieve cost benefits similar to those experienced in the private sector and improve its responsiveness to the public through e- government initiatives and better-performing Federal operations. And that coordinating entity must be capable of deploying comprehensive policies that reflect the interdependence of federal information systems. With its many management responsibilities, OMB is simply unable to devote the attention need for effective IRM. FIPA creates a CIO of the United States to fulfill that coordinating role, acting as the principal adviser to the President on the development, application and management of information technology government-wide. He or she will be able to encourage innovation in technology uses, coordinate inter- agency IRM initiatives and communication, and promote cost-effective investments in information technologies. The Act also formalizes the establishment of the Chief Information Officers Council, which currently exists by virtue of a 1996 Executive Order. Made up of the CIOs from the major Federal agencies, the CIO Council provides an important forum for interagency communication and for improving IT management policies, procedures, and standards. The Federal CIO will chair the Council, a position now held by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB, and must submit an annual report to the President and Congress on its achievements and recommendations for future initiatives. A Federal CIO will allow OIRA to concentrate and improve on the critical function of paperwork reduction that is so important to our continued efforts to minimize bureaucratic burdens on individuals, small businesses, and others resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government. It is for this reason that the paperwork clearance functions are maintained in FIPA. Equally critical is the ability of the Federal Government to anticipate, monitor, and recover from intrusions into Federal computer networks. This important objective was detailed in the President's National Plan for Information Systems Protection, Version 1.0, issued in January 2000. Many sectors of the government have experienced, at one time or another, cyber security breaches. Under current law, rules and regulations governing the security of federal computer Certainly, each Federal agency must bear the responsibility for assessing risk, detecting and responding to security incidents, and protecting its own operations and assets. It is for this reason that this legislation also adapts many of the provisions contained in the Government Information Security Act championed by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson. It requires every Federal agency to develop and implement security policies that include risk assessment, risk-based policies, security awareness training, and periodic reviews. However, in a March 2000 Senate hearing on the Government Information Security Act, the GAO pointed to compelling reasons for establishing strong central leadership for coordinating information security-related activities across government. Foremost is the inadequacy of information-sharing among agencies regarding vulnerabilities and solutions to those weaknesses, as well as the lack of a clear mandate for handling and reporting security incidents affecting federal information systems. For instance, in a March 29, 2000 hearing, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology examined the state of information security practices throughout the Federal Government. GAO shared its most recent review at that time of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. Its tests found ``numerous security weaknesses associated with the computer operating systems and the agencywide computer network that support most of EPA's mission-related and financial operations.'' Indeed, the EPA had recorded several serious computer incidents within the last two years but the GAO indicated that EPA's subsequent methods for strengthening its security procedures were inadequate. In an earlier report, the GAO stated that ``resolving EPA's information security problems will require substantial ongoing management attention since security program planning and management to date have largely been a paper exercise doing little to substantively identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks to the agency's data and systems.'' As part of its testimony, the GAO referred to earlier findings that 22 of the largest federal agencies were providing inadequate protection for critical federal operations and assets from computer-based attacks. GAO reported that within the past year, it was able to identify systemic weaknesses in the information security practices of the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of State, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In each instance, sensitive data and/or mission-critical systems were penetrable by unauthorized users. These results reflect government-wide systemic weaknesses and follow numerous GAO audits which have repeatedly identified serious failures in the most basic access controls for Federal information systems. In its May 1999 tests of NASA's computer-based controls, GAO was able to successfully gain access to several mission-critical systems, and could have easily disrupted command and control operations conducted through orbiting spacecraft. An independent auditor found last August that the State Department's mainframe computer was extremely vulnerable to unauthorized access that could expose, in turn, other computer operations connected to those mainframe computers. These are just a few examples of the many troubling indicators that currently plague Federal agency information security practices. Another key challenge to making the Federal Government more secure lies in the mind set of many federal agencies vis-a-vis the importance of information security to their operations and assets. For many, implementing best practices for controlling and protecting information resources is a low priority. A centralized leader would be able to make information security one of the top priority missions of the Federal Government. It is this overarching responsibility that is given to the United States CIO in the Act, and is subsequently delegated to the Director of IN STEP. In establishing government-wide policies, the IN STEP Director will direct the implementation of a continuing risk management cycle within each Federal agency, implement effective controls on information to address identified risks, promote awareness of information security risks among users, and act as a continual monitor and evaluator of policy and control effectiveness of information security practices. In addition, the Federal Information Policy Act tightens the responsibilities of each Federal agency for implementing security procedures and policies that ensure the protection of its information systems. The CIO, in consultation with the Director of IN STEP, will have enforcement authority over individual agencies through his or her ability to make recommendations to the Director of OMB with respect to funding for information resources. This provision is necessary to ensuring that IN STEP can ensure accountability within each agency for information security management. And finally, two other important features are included that are vital for the long-term development of flexible and responsive information security controls. The first is investing authority in the Director of IN STEP, through the CIO, to require Federal agencies to identify and classify the security risks associated with each of their information operations, and to calculate the risk and magnitude of harm that would result from an intrusion. IN STEP will have simultaneous authority to oversee the development and implementation of mandatory minimum control standards developed by NIST, that would be required for each classification. For this purpose, final authority is given to the CIO, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to decide and officially issue the standards. And the Act requires the Inspector General or an independent evaluator to conduct an independent evaluation of the information security program and practices of each agency on an annual basis, which will subsequently be reported to the U.S. CIO. At the time when the growth and success of our competitive national economy is clearly demonstrating a correlation to the Information Revolution, the Federal Information Policy Act will secure the ability of our Federal Government to fully utilize information technology in order to better serve American citizens. And in a time when any entity- including government-that is connected to a computer needs to make information security a priority, we are finding that the Federal Government is dangerously behind the curve. We are losing time. FIPA will spur the actions needed to achieve readiness against future cyber security threats in a uniform and coordinated process. It is my hope that Congress will act on this measure as soon as possible so that the Federal Government will move forward and become a leader in the management and protection of governmental information systems.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, for yielding me the time. My compliments to the chairman and the ranking member for the time and energy they and their staffs have put forward devoted to reviewing the D.C. budget and bringing this bill to the floor in a timely manner. Just a few years ago, the District of Columbia government faced a financial crisis of epic proportions. That situation was so severe that the District could not deliver basic services, and there was a very real concern that it would run out of cash to pay its debt service or to even meet its payroll. Today, the city's population is stabilizing, the real estate market is up, suburban residents are making more leisure trips into the city, and jobs have increased dramatically. Next year, the Control Board will go in a dormant state, as anticipated in the legislation that we passed here in 1995. The city has balanced its budget for a fourth straight year; and its leaders are showing, with only a handful of exceptions, that they are focused on fostering economic growth and delivering basic services. This budget goes a long way toward continuing the tremendous strides we have made in the Nation's capital over the past 6 years. It funds a wide variety of programs. It will greatly enhance the quality of life for D.C. residents and those who visit and work in this wonderful city from enhanced resource for foster care, for drug treatment and public education, to money to clean up the Anacostia River and construct a Metro Rail Station on New York Avenue. There are funds for a number of programs to bolster opportunities for the city's youth population, including $500,000 for character education and $250,000 for youth mentoring programs. And there is much more: $1 million for the Washington Interfaith Network for affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and another $250,000 for new initiatives to battle homelessness; $6 million to cover the city's costs associated with the 2001 presidential inauguration; $250,000 for Mayor Williams to simplify personnel practices, money which will allow the city to build on the many improvements already under way in the area of management reform. But there are shortcomings to this bill as well. I am concerned, for example, that funding for the D.C. college access program, a program created by legislation I introduced in the last Congress, is cut by $3 million in this budget. I am profoundly concerned that this shortage could leave some D.C. students out in the cold, back in their old disadvantaged position and unable to become all that they can and should be. However, I am heartened by the fact that the Senate has a higher 302(b) allocation and that hopefully when this comes to conference some of this money can be restored. I urge my colleagues to restore the funding level for this historic program. The religious exemption or conscience clause that is in this legislation may be rendered moot by the fact that the Mayor has said that he will pocket veto this legislation. In my judgment, the city council made a huge mistake in not having a conscience clause attached to their contraceptive coverage legislation, but we ought to let the city and encourage the city to remedy the mistakes they make. That is the only way democracy is going to grow and nurture, is not having us try to redo everything that they do but make them accountable for their own ordinances and their own mistakes. In this case, I think the council and most importantly the Mayor have stepped up to the plate and have said that they would try to remedy this on their own. Overall, I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), though, for this forward-looking spending plan, a budget that ensures the District of Columbia's renaissance will continue in coming years. I am proud to have played a part in the city's rebirth these past years, and I want to thank the fellow members of my subcommittee on the authorizing side, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the ranking Democrat; and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my vice chairman; and other Republicans and Democrats for the work that they have done over these past years to get the District back on its feet. I wish Mayor Williams and the city council the best of luck in the future. I think the city is in pretty good hands at this point. Although this bill is not everything it can and probably should be, this is a very difficult measure to craft, as we have found every year on this floor. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 99, Disapproving the Extension of Emigration Waiver Authority to Vietnam. While the United States and Vietnam signed a trade agreement last week which requires Vietnam to overhaul its economy, by reducing tariffs on a range of goods and allowing foreign firms to participate in businesses in Vietnam; the resolution on the House floor today is whether Vietnam allows free and open emigration for its citizens. In 1999, President Clinton granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment's on this condition. Unfortunately, not much improvement can be cited nor documented. Boat People, SOS an organization in my district, informed me that there is significant corruption in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government continues to exclude thousands of former political prisoners and former U.S. government employees from participating in U.S. refugee programs. On average, an applicant must pay $1,000 in bribes to gain access to these programs. In a country where the average Vietnamese's annual salary is $250--impoverished former political prisoners and former U.S. government employees simply cannot afford these outrageous bribes to apply for these programs. Corruption exists not only in the Vietnamese government but also undermines U.S. exchange programs as well. Our programs offer outstanding Vietnamese students the opportunity to study in the U.S. However, the Vietnamese government excludes those students whose parents are not members of the Communist cadre. Thus, many qualified Vietnamese students are denied the opportunity to study in U.S. exchange programs simply because their parents are not card-carrying members of the Communist party. This discrepancy is only one example of the apartheid system that the Vietnamese government has implemented to punish those who do not agree with their ideology. On the issue of human rights, while Vietnam has released some political prisoners, many more remain imprisoned while the Communist government continues to arrest others for speaking out against the government. While the Vietnamese government may claim to make strides, I would like to share with you 2 prominent cases: Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a prominent prisoner of conscience who was released in late 1998, remains under house arrest in Saigon; while Professor Doan Viet Hoat, a former prisoner of conscience who had been imprisoned for over 20 years for promoting democratic ideals, was forced to leave Vietnam as a condition of his release. The government of Vietnam does not tolerate liberties, such as the right to free speech, the right to freely practice one's religion, and the right to peacefully assemble. Reports reveal that the Vietnamese police have forced many religious groups to renounce their beliefs or face the threat of imprisonment. Furthermore, when I visited Vietnam in 1998, a Catholic priest told me that the Communist government did not allow him to wear vestments in public. Even more egregious is the persecution of the Hmong, approximately 10,000 of them have had to flee their ancestral lands in the north, traveling 800 miles to the south central highlands in Dak Lak Province. Many have been arrested as ``illegal migrants'' or on charges of ``illegal religion'' as part of a government crackdown on Hmong Christians. Mr. Speaker, in light of these offenses, I believe H.J. Res. 99 is an important bill that deserves the support of every Member, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4807, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. Since its enactment in 1990, the Ryan White CARE program has provided comprehensive medical and social services to hundreds of thousands of individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this vitally needed legislation to reauthorize funding to continue the fight against this deadly virus. Ever 12 minutes another person in the United States is newly infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. This equates to between 800,000 and 900,000 individuals now living with HIV/AIDS. About a third of these individuals have been diagnosed and are in care; another third have been diagnosed, but may not be receiving ongoing care for their HIV disease; and the last third have not been diagnosed and, therefore are not in care. H.R. 4807 will take the Ryan White CARE program further than it ever has before to reach out and assist these infected individuals. This bill will refine the focus of the Ryan White CARE program, by not only continuing to fund programs to assist those individuals with AIDS, but by also creating programs to assist HIV-positive individuals. AIDS is the end stage of HIV disease and can occur up to 10 or 15 years after infection. By providing HIV-positive individuals with pro-active and aggressive treatment before it progresses into AIDS, we could enhance their quality of life and prevent further transmission of this deadly virus. H.R. 4807 also takes further measures focused on prevention. States with effective partner notification and HIV surveillance programs will be eligible for additional federal funds. Partner notification programs have been proven particularly effective in finding individuals from traditionally under-served communities and getting them into care. Federal resources will also be provided to assist states with efforts to reduce perinatal HIV transmission and to identify newborns at risk for infection, and individuals infected with HIV would be provided counseling to better empower them to disclose their status to potential partners. Mr. Speaker, with almost 1,000,000 people living with HIV and AIDS in America today, I am sure that many of us know someone who is suffering or has suffered from this virus. Unfortunately, my sister-in-law's life was tragically cut short by AIDS just four years ago. She had been infected by her ex-husband, and my brother and Kristin had no idea of her infection until she was near death. My entire family is committed to working towards preventing further innocent lives from being stolen away again. While I have consistently voted to support federal programs to treat and prevent AIDS, my wife, Peggy, has done her part as well. In 1997, she biked 300 long miles in the AIDS bike-a-thon to raise money for AIDS charities. My family's commitment to assisting individuals with HIV and AIDS is deep and personal. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues to do their part as well in the fight against AIDS by voting in support of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who I disagree with on this issue but I think has shown an amazing amount of integrity as he deals with the budget deficit, really taking no prisoners or favorites as he goes out, trying to make sure that that budget becomes in balance. It has been a crusade with him since he joined the House; and as he leaves the House, I think he has left his mark on that. I respect and admire what he is trying to do. On this particular amendment let me just tell the gentleman why I disagree with him. I represent 54,000 Federal employees, some of the hardest-working people we will find in America, but this money was taken from them to help balance the Federal budget. Their retirement system was actuarially sound. It was not in any jeopardy. They did not need to make a greater contribution to make it actuarially sound. The Civil Service Retirement System, the old system that is being paid out had problems, but these were people who came in under a contract; and we were trying to keep the contract with them, and yet they gave up a half of 1 percent of their salary to help balance the Federal budget. They, in addition to that, gave up about $180 billion by last calculation of other benefits they were in line to receive to help reduce the deficit over the last decade and a half. So it is not our money. It is their money. All we are doing in this particular case is restoring to them the benefits and the money that they had rightly owned and were willing to give up to help us balance the budget. Well, we have done that. We have done it 3 years early. Under the original act, this was going to be returned to them in 2003 when we thought the budget would meet the criteria that it is now meeting. So I think it is fitting that we go ahead with this now. It is for that reason that I take exception to this amendment, but I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish and again his tenacity in pursuing a goal that I think we are all trying to get to.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)