Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be allotted 1 additional minute.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have three additional speakers of 30 seconds each, but we only have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for offering this amendment with me today. This is the Davis-Moran amendment. Last summer, the administration first proposed regulations that would significantly change our procurement process, jeopardizing the bipartisan procurement reforms of the past few years. At that time, myself and really hundreds of Members of the private sector had concerns that we expressed at that point. We felt that the administration had drafted overly broad regulations that would violate due process rights of supportive contractors and substantially affect the Federal Government's ability to acquire goods and services at the best value. We have tried through the years of this administration to work in a bipartisan manner on procurement reform. We have had several successes: The Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, where we have worked in a bipartisan way together. Unfortunately, some of the regulations that are currently presented I think are really miscast and take us backwards in terms of procurement reform. On June 30, 2000, the administration reissued the proposed regulations, portraying them as a clarification of the non- responsibility criteria a contracting officer may use to disqualify a contractor from competing for a Federal contract. Specifically, their stated intention is to clarify what constitutes a satisfactory record of business ethics and integrity. But the proposed regulations constitute a substantial change to procurement law. They run counter to the existing procurement standards. For that reason, we feel at this point, pending a GAO audit which will show exactly the depth of the problems the administration is trying to correct, pending that audit coming back here, we believe we should put these on hold. For that reason, we are offering this amendment. For the first time under the proposed regulations, the contracting officers would be required to consider certain nonprocurement laws when reviewing bids without a minimum standard. This would signify when a contractor has met the existing requirement of a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. In trying to clarify this, they are taking a number of nonjudicial decisions, decisions in some cases that have unilaterally come forward from the Federal government in terms of charges which the contractors had no opportunity to rebut. They have taken this, and could be debarred from that and a series of contracts with simply allegations. Mr. Chairman, I would say that in many of these cases where we get allegations and charges coming from the government, many of these cases, over half of them, are dismissed later, not prosecuted because they are not well-founded. But under this procedure, contracting officers would have to pay attention to this. This with respect to Federal contractors I think would seriously harm our ability to get the best value for goods and services. This amendment would stop these regulations from moving forward until we have an opportunity to review the GAO audit. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague from Virginia, Congressman Moran for offering this amendment with me today. Last summer, the Administration first proposed regulations that would significantly change our procurement process, jeopardizing the bipartisan procurement reforms of the past few years. At that time, I had grave concerns that the Administration had drafted overly-broad regulations that would violate the due process rights of prospective contractors and substantially affect the Federal Government's ability to acquire goods and services at the best value. Last year, I worked through the comment process and met on a number of occasions with the Administration to express my concerns. I was hopeful that the Administration would carefully consider the numerous comments it received on this proposal from Members of Congress, including the bipartisan comments expressed by the Small Business Committee at its hearing in September 1999, and the over 1500 comment letters it received. Unfortunately, the Administration did not. On June 30, 2000, the Administration reissued the proposed regulations, portraying them as a clarification of the nonresponsibility criteria a contracting officer may use to disqualify a contractor from competing for a Federal contract. Specifically, their stated intention is to clarify what constitutes a satisfactory record of business ethics and integrity. However, the proposed regulations constitute a substantial change to Federal procurement law and run counter to existing procurement standards. While there is no question that the Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that it does not do business with bad actors, the Administration has not been able to offer any evidence that there is a problem with Federal contracts being awarded to unscrupulous contractors, specifically because they have no mechanism for tracking that type of information. For these reasons, I am offering--with Mr. Moran--this amendment which will not allow any funds available under the Treasury, Postal appropriations bill to be used to implement the regulations until the results of a GAO audit are available. The GAO audit was requested in June and will track the extent to which the Federal Government is contracting with those that are violating the standards put forth in the proposed regulations. I believe there are a number of flaws with these regulations that run counter to the bipartisan procurement reform efforts that we have enacted since 1993. Although they are intended to clarify existing standards, they actually inject an extraordinary amount of uncertainty into the procurement process. As a result, they most certainly would constitute an arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. For the first time, contracting officers will be required to consider non-procurement laws when reviewing bids without a common standard that would signify when a contractor has met the existing requirement that it have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. This will create a high level of subjectivity in the review process. This means contractors will not know when violations, or alleged violations of the law, reach a degree of seriousness that will result in contract suspension or how that standard will apply from contract to contract and agency to agency. This regulation will only serve to further complicate the well-intentioned efforts of contracting officers to comply with existing Federal Acquisition Regulations. Moreover, contracting officers and their departmental counsels will now be expected to understand a significant body of law that is now under the jurisdiction of many different federal agencies. I would also ask, if this regulation is supposed to clarify an existing standard shouldn't it be consistent with past applications of the standard? The proposed regulation must be considered substantial rulemaking because it is putting in place an entirely new standard of law without any direction from Congress on this issue. In fact, what makes up a record of good business ethics and integrity is currently contained in the FAR. There is a list of seven items that are automatically used by a contracting officer in making the responsibility determination currently required for every contract award. As well, suspension of a contract is already available to the Federal government if there are criminal violations are serious civil violations related to the honesty of statements made to the government. This regulation also runs counter to the long-standing procurement case law and practices currently utilized by contracting officers. When a contracting officer makes a nonresponsibility determination, he or she will do so on the basis that there is a nexus between the contractor's past violation of the law and the contract on which they are bidding. This is clearly the case in the often-cited and misinterpreted bid challenge asserted by Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation on a United States Navy contract. The Navy contracting officer eliminated the bidder from consideration because the contractor had a number of state environmental citations that indicated an inability to effectively perform a contract for hazardous waste removal and disposal. It was found that the company lacked the integrity to perform the contract. None of us would disagree with this standard: an environmental polluter ought not work for the government to clean up the environment. The regulation also has no due process provisions, contrary to Administration statements on this issue. A contractor may be suspended from receiving a contract based on ``credible information'' or ``complaints, violations, or findings by Administrative Law Judges, or any federal agency, board, or commission.'' Neither of those standards mean that company has gone through a hearing process or had the decision adjudicated. They would largely be denied the opportunity to explain the circumstances related to a nonresponsibility determination. Moreover, the ``credible information'' standard is nothing short of a mystery to me. I have yet to find an explanation of credible information that a contracting officer may use to guide them in making a nonresponsibility determination. Again, this clearly constitutes arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. Last year, the Administration included the terminology ``alleged violation'' in the original proposed regulations. After assuring me on a number of occasions that they understood the regulations were too vague on this point and violated due process, the Administration just switched words around and came up with ``credible information.'' Who may offer a contracting officer credible information during the bid process: a competing contractor, a disgruntled employee, or an organization pursuing an independent agenda? This standard invites third party mischief into the procurement process. How does a responsible contractor defend himself against this type of misinformation campaign? Especially important to note is the impact these changes will have on the technology sector, small businesses--many of whom are technology companies--and university research programs. These parties, in particular, will be unable to survive a subjective scrutiny that will result in a delayed federal procurement process, increased litigation, and the proliferation of bid protests. The length of the process alone will jeopardize the viability of many small businesses and our nation's research priorities. In turn, the Federal Government will undermine the benefits it realizes through technological innovation and university- sponsored federal research. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that the Information Technology Industry Council letter in support of the Davis- Moran amendment and key vote notice, a letter from my distinguished colleague, Congressman Talent, Chairman of the Small Business Committee, that lists the affect this regulation could have on small businesses, and a letter of support for the amendment from the American Council on Education that is signed by ten higher education organizations, all be inserted into the Record. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a reasonable response to flawed attempts to legislate through regulation. I urge all of my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letters in support of the amendment:

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this has been a good team effort. I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is here, as well and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has also been very active in this. Some Members oppose this because they think this is going to costs the Treasury $1.2 billion over 3 years. But I would remind my colleagues that this money is not the Government's money. It really belongs to Federal employees who worked and earned this money under a contract with the Government and then gave it up to help us balance the budget. We are simply returning to them their own money to allow them to spend it, the same thing that we are doing to American citizens when we give them tax cuts. This was promised to them to be restored at the time that we balanced the budget, and now we have done that. As I said before, this was originally slated to expire in 2003 because that was the year it was assumed that the Federal budget would be balanced. But our goals we have arrived at 3 years early. So let us return this money to the people from whom it was taken. Federal employees sacrificed over $180 billion in benefits to get us to our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Now it is time that we return to them what we roll back from them. This is our first opportunity to do that. This will help us recruit and retain the best and the brightest for Federal service. This is very important for the Federal Government to fulfill their mission. I appreciate the efforts of everyone who has been involved with this, and I urge support for the bill.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the bill as it is currently drawn. It certainly has some shortcomings; but it has got I think some great dividends for the Federal workers, for the Federal complex at Lorton, which will soon be returned back to the Commonwealth of Virginia, several million dollars there for environmental cleanup of that site. But particularly, I want to address the rollback in the Federal retirement contributions. This was something that was put into operation at the time of the Balanced Budget Act. Federal employees were asked to give up one-half of one percent of their salaries to help the Federal deficit. We thought at that time it would take several years to balance the Federal budget, and these rollbacks were to come out of effect into the year 2003. As we have seen, the budget has been balanced earlier than it was originally forecast. As a result of this, we think the Federal employees ought to have their money returned to them in a more timely manner. And this legislation does that. It mirrors legislation that I have introduced and have over a hundred cosponsors in the House. It was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury, Postal and General Government Subcommittee, in supporting funding for an Automated U.S. Customs Environment or ACE. The points in favor of prompt, and sufficient, funding for a modern Customs processing system are numerous: The Customs Service's existing computer system is nearly two decades old and operating at more than 95% capacity. The system can no longer handle either the volume of trade coming through the borders, nor can it adequately collect the $22 billion in tariffs and user fees generated by the record volume of trade we are experiencing. Despite its critical functions, Customs' present system has been experiencing crashes or ``Brown Outs'' for several years, the most recent occurring only a few weeks ago. These failures put our nation and our economy at risk. On a typical day, Customs processes over $8.8 billion in exports and imports, 1.3 million passengers and nearly 350,000 vehicles at U.S. ports of entries. Delays in processing this volume of traffic costs the nation untold billions of dollars in lost revenues as just-in-time delivery systems at manufacturing plants across this country are stalled. Customs has prepared to modernize its old systems for several years, and is now ready to move forward expeditiously. Customs has met all the General Accounting Office's requirements for proceeding with a major information technology procurement. And today, the leading IT companies in the world are poised to help the government transform these old systems and processes, providing needed improvements for the way we bill companies for trade and tariffs and detect illegal contraband. The business community is clamoring for our support. The presidents of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the International Mass Retailers Association, and the Coalition for Customs Automation Funding wrote all of Congress in urging funding of ACE: ``Trade volume is expected to double over the next six years. This will place further pressures on the current system. When you consider the benefits derived by both industry and the government from this system, there is no question that we must fund the development of a 21st century automated customs system.'' The investment will be hefty--approximately $1.5 to $2 billion to fully complete modernization. But that investment will more than repay itself. Failure to modernize could result in untold consequences. I agree with Chairman Kolbe--this investment is vital to protecting our nation's borders. It is vital to ensuring the smooth processing of trade. We need ACE now--not next year. Chairman Kolbe, I salute your commitment to modernizing our U.S. Customs Environment. As a nation, we must have both the will and the commitment to ensure that this vital government function does not break down.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support, but with great sadness, for H.R. 894, also known as Aimee's Law. The conflicting emotions I feel for this bill are borne out of the tragedy that lead to it's introduction. If I can take a moment now to relate to all the Members listening to this debate, the tragedy that beset Aimee Willard in June of 1996. At the age of 22, Aimee had already established herself as one of the most well-liked and successful students at George Mason University. Not only was Aimee a superb athlete, excelling at both Soccer and Lacrosse, but she had also distinguished herself in the academic arena. Therefore, there can be no doubt that Aimee was returning to her home in Brookhaven, Pennsylvania with nothing but the highest expectations for her future. In June, 1996, Arthur Bomar made sure Aimee would never have the opportunity to enjoy the future she had worked so hard to prepare for. Bomar, who had been released in 1990 from a Nevada State Prison after serving only 12 years of a Life sentence for murder, spent late May and early June looking for another victim. This predator identified, stalked, kidnaped, raped, and finally murdered Aimee Willard; exacting on her his horrific blood-lust in a manner no human being should ever have to endure. It is my sincere belief that when he brutally attacked Aimee, Arthur Bomar divested himself of any shred of humanity he had left. The real tragedy of what happened to Aimee in June of 1996, is that the terrible circumstances of her murder are by no means unique. When H.R. 894 passes the House today, we will be one step closer to preventing more than 800 murders, 3,500 rapes, and 9,600 sexual assaults annually. I would like to thank Representative Salmon and Senator Santorum for leading the congressional effort to enact the ``No Second Chances'' law. I would also like to personally recognize the efforts of president Alan Merten, and the entire George Mason University, faculty, staff and students, for their tireless efforts to see that no other community has to endure the pain and loss they have suffered. With that, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of Aimee's law.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), says this makes no sense. I think this is the ultimate common sense. In fact, if we went further and tried to tell these States what their sentencing procedures could be, we would be screaming bloody murder and the States would be really making an outcry. Mr. Speaker, but this does hold somebody accountable for some of these prison systems that treat their prisoners like a Motel 6, they run them in and out of this. In the case of Aimee Willard, it was a life sentence and they let the guy out after 12 years and he comes back and murders again. To hold those States financially accountable to me makes ultimate sense, and that is all we are doing. We are doing it with Federal funds, we are not doing it with State taxes. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing it to the attention of the House. Once again, I am happy to support it. This was a great tragedy. If we can avert this, just one tragedy like this, I think it would be well worth it. I would just say to my friends more than 800 murders, 3,500 rapes, 9,600 sexual assaults annually from individuals who are let go early and released early. Somebody ought to be accountable; that is what this legislation does. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the sacrifices of individuals who served in the Armed Forces of the former Republic of Vietnam. I introduced this resolution several months ago to honor the brave Vietnamese men and women who fought alongside American forces during the Vietnam conflict, and yet were never given the proper recognition. It is my strong belief that the individuals who served in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam should be commended for their bravery and courage in the face of severe adversity and hardship. This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Fall of Saigon to Communist forces. The Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam suffered enormous casualties during the Vietnam Conflict. From 1961 to 1975, over 750,000 Vietnamese men were wounded and over 250,000 Vietnamese men were killed in action. These brave men made the ultimate sacrifice: they died fighting for freedom and democracy in their homeland. Although their homeland was lost to Communist forces, their sacrifices must never be forgotten. After the war, the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam forcibly rounded up intellectuals, political leaders, teachers, poets, artists, religious leaders, and former officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam and sent them to re- education camps--a more appropriate term would be ``Vietnamese Gulag.'' These camps evoke images akin to the Nazi death camps during World War II. The prisoners, deemed security risks by the Communist regime, were regularly beaten, starved, tortured, and forced to endure inhumane conditions. Unfortunately, many, if not most, did not survive. As one former prisoner told the Seattle Times, ``The Communist did not need reasons to kill. Prisoners were expendable, worked to death . . .'' Or told through the eyes of another former prisoner, ``They [the Communists] don't kill everyone all at once, but slowly, slowly.'' I would like to mention some remarkable individuals who survived the Vietnamese Gulag and have personally shared their stories with me. These stories speak of courage, spirit, and the human will to live. These individuals now live in Northern Virginia. Mr. Nguyen Cao Quyen, Mr. Nguyen Van Thanh, Mr. Tran Nhat Kim, Mr. Dinh Anh Thai are all former prisoners of the Vietnamese Gulag. Their crime: they were officers of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam or worked for the South Vietnamese government. Mr. Vu Hoi--an artist, Mr. Nguyen Chi Thien--a poet, and Professor Doan Viet Hoat, all were intellectuals who were imprisoned by the Communist government for expressing their beliefs about democracy. In total, these three men spent over 50 years in the Vietnamese Gulag. Finally, I would like to mention Father Nguyen Huu Le and Father Tran Qui Thien who were also imprisoned for many years because they would not use their influence with their parishioners to propagandize Communist ideology. I am proud to represent these courageous individuals and others like them in Virginia's Eleventh District. Although the current government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a signatory to eight international covenants on human rights, it continues to treat members of the former Armed Forces of Vietnam and their families as second-class citizens. The government of Vietnam has established a two-tiered socioeconomic system, reminiscent of the apartheid regime used in South Africa and implemented by the Nazis to isolate Jews in the 1930's. A good example is education, which is highly valued in Vietnamese culture and society. Yet relatives of the men who suffered in the Vietnamese Gulag cannot enroll in schools because of an official government-endorsed policy of exclusion. Likewise, many relatives of these former prisoners find it difficult to obtain employment for the same reason. The government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is adding insult to injury to these principled men who The end of the Vietnam conflict produced an exodus of over 2 million Vietnamese who fled the country, many in rickety boats that were over- crowded and dangerous. They suffered treacherous seas, pirate attacks, dehydration, lack of food and medicine, and risked death rather than live under a Communist regime. Many of these refugees came to the United States where they have resettled, and are now proud Americans. While the Vietnamese-American Community has been successful in rebuilding their lives here in the United States, they have not forgotten those who fought in the name of freedom. Traditionally, the former Republic of South Vietnam and presently in Vietnamese-American communities all across America, June 19th represents a day to commemorate and honor both fallen and living heros who have dedicated or are continuing to dedicate their lives to bringing international attention to freedom and the human rights situation in Vietnam. It is a day on which the community memorializes those who gave their lives and recognizes former prisoners of conscience for their commitment and sacrifice in the struggle for democracy and freedom. This is why on Vietnam Human Rights Day, I introduced, H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution honoring the sacrifices of individuals who served in the Armed Forces of the former Republic of Vietnam. As an original sponsor of the Congressional Dialogue on Vietnam and the Adopt-A-Voice- of-Conscience program, it is not only my honor, but my privilege to have introduced this resolution on behalf of all Vietnamese-Americans and especially, the tens of thousands living in Northern Virginia. It is imperative that we never forget the sacrifices that the members of Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam made so that future generations may live in freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution because it reaffirms Congress' commitment to Vietnamese-Americans and others whose work helps to keep the spirit of freedom alive for those still living in Vietnam. It is my strongest hope that the citizens of Vietnam will one day be free: free to elect their own leaders and government, free to worship as they please, free to speak and print their own opinions without fear of persecution or harassment, and simply free to live their lives without government intrusion. This is the will of democracy and the Vietnamese people.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I also compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this forward. The American health care system has many players, but doctors and health care providers are essential. They are the essential players. They are on the frontline making life and death decisions every day, and they are being picked apart. Fees are cut unilaterally. Their medical advice that they are giving to patients is being countermanded by nondoctors, and they have no say in this situation the way it has come today. We have come to this that if we do not make these changes today, we are jeopardizing the best health care system in the world. People who want to enter and stay in the medical profession are looking outward at other options because, frankly, not only is the remuneration not there, and the respect is not there, but they are not able to carry out their advice to patients because they are being countermanded. Mr. Chairman, that is what makes this legislation essential. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this to the floor tonight. I hope we will give it a resounding ``yes'' for American health care, for doctors, the providers, and the patients.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act. I believe that this important piece of legislation is the best way to address the dire impact the run-away costs of prescription drugs are having on our nation's senior citizens and disabled Americans. The Medicare program provides significant health insurance coverage for its 39 million aged and disabled beneficiaries. However, the program fails to offer protection against the costs of most outpatient prescription drugs. Even though 65% of beneficiaries have some private or public coverage for these costs, many do not have adequate supplemental coverage for their drug costs. The absence of a significant drug benefit has concerned me and many of my colleagues for quite a long time. However, the potential cost of adding prescription drug coverage has been the primary impediment to its implementation. This year, Congress has made a serious commitment to providing prescription drugs for seniors by specifically setting aside $40 billion dollars of the budget surplus to create a prescription drug plan and to strengthen the Medicare program. I commend the Speaker's Task Force on Prescription Drugs, which has worked diligently to create a voluntary prescription drug plan that is accessible, affordable, and will not encroach on seniors who are currently satisfied by their supplemental plan. This private-public sector approach to providing prescription drugs to every interested senior is modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which combines the advantages of a ``defined benefits'' plan and a ``defined contribution'' plan. To those who choose to participate in this plan, the premiums are affordable, averaging just $37 a month. And by allowing seniors to participate in an insurance-based plan at a reduced cost, it will give seniors the benefit of group bargaining power, which will reduce the price tag for prescription drugs. Studies show that Americans with insurance coverage pay 15 to 39 percent less for prescription drugs than those without insurance. Most importantly, the Medicare Rx plan creates choices for seniors. H.R. 4680 will mandate that at least two prescription drug plans will be available in every area of the United States. A choice of plans will give Medicare beneficiaries the power to determine which high-quality private insurance plan would best serve their individual healthcare needs. Having more than one plan in every district also spurs competition between plans, creating incentives for plans to create better products. H.R. 4680 also reaches out to those individuals who are not financially able to afford their prescription medicine needs due to their income level or their escalating drug needs. This bill provides a full subsidy to low-income beneficiaries up to 135% of the poverty level and phases out that subsidy on a sliding scale to 150% of the poverty level. Furthermore, H.R. 4680 caps exorbitant drug costs with catastrophic drug coverage, meaning that Medicare will pay 100% of every seniors' drug costs beyond a certain level. Mr. Speaker, seniors deserve access to the best medicines available to lead healthy and independent lives and, in many cases, to avoid more expensive treatments such as surgery or hospitalization. We need to expand seniors' access to the same kind of private-sector plans that millions of working Americans benefit from. I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the Medicare Rx Act of 2000, a fair and responsible prescription drug plan for all of America's seniors.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honor to rise today to pay tribute to Bobby Mitchell's ten years of service to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Before contributing to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Bobby starred for the Cleveland Browns and Washington Redskins of the National Football League (NFL) from 1958-1968. His prolific football career earned him election to the Hall of Fame in 1983. Today, Bobby Mitchell serves as the Assistant General Manager for the Washington Redskins. In addition to his managerial duties, Bobby has made defeating leukemia a goal of his since his pro-football days. Bobby's motivation to beat leukemia, is linked to the death of a friend, Ernie Davis, a leukemia victim. Ironically, former Heisman trophy winner, Davis, was traded from the Washington Redskins to the Cleveland Browns in 1961 for Bobby Mitchell. To prevent leukemia from seizing other gifted citizens lives, Bobby joined forces with David Timko, Executive Director of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in 1990. Their mission was to raise money for leukemia research to help find a cure for this dreadful disease. As a solution, Bobby proposed hosting a golf and tennis tournament featuring members of the football and basketball Hall of Fame. Through Bobby's dedication, the event has become the nation's largest annual gathering of Hall of Famers. Since the Hall of Fame Golf & Tennis Classic's inception a decade ago, the tournament has drawn such legendary names as Joe Namath, Bill Russell, and Oscar Robertson. Their presence has assisted in raising over $1.5 million for leukemia research. Thanks to these philanthropic contributions, we can now generate public awareness, provide support programs for patients and their families, and educate health professionals about the latest advances in leukemia diagnosis and treatment. I am confident that Bobby and his fellow Hall of Famers have brought us one step closer to a cure. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the 10th anniversary of the Bobby Mitchell Chrysler Plymouth Hall of Fame Golf & Tennis Classic will take place on the weekend of July 8th and 9th at the Lansdowne Resort in Lansdowne, Virginia. Players and fans alike will join in remembering Tom Landry, legendary coach of the Dallas Cowboys and winner of two super bowls, himself a leukemia victim. Seeing a celebrated citizen in Tom Landry pass away, highlights the need for more Bobby Mitchell's who are willing to help find a cure for leukemia. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to thank Bobby Mitchell for his ten years of service to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. In hosting the Hall of Fame Golf & Tennis Classc for the last ten years, Bobby has led a revolution of football and basketball Hall of Famers against the dreadful disease of leukemia. With his leadership and selfless dedication to the cause, valuable funds have been raised for leukemia research. I know my colleagues join me in honoring Bobby Mitchell for this ten years of service to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to the Commerce, State, Justice appropriation. This would allow the judicial process to move forward for a number of attorneys at the Justice Department. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members to know that the Department of Justice has violated, in my judgment, and continues to violate title 5 of the Federal Employee Pay Act, FEPA, by deliberately refusing to pay overtime to its attorney personnel. Now, DOJ knows that this policy of not paying overtime is contrary to the law, as its own Office of Legal Counsel officially advised years ago and there is a pending lawsuit on this. The current legislation strikes down paying this year's overtime and would not be able to pay it out of this year's appropriation which would be about $50 million, but this does not score under the CBO rulings. Rather than coming to compliance with the law in response to a class action that has been filed against it, DOJ has now run to Congress pleading for immunity from the statutory requirement. The proposal that DOJ inserted in last year's appropriation bill and seeks again this year would make its attorney personnel the only employees within the Department of Justice who are not entitled to overtime and the only attorneys employed by the Federal Government who are not entitled to overtime. Because DOJ attorneys already are statutorily entitled to this compensation, the appropriations language DOJ seeks constitutes what is, in effect, a 20 percent to 25 percent pay cut for our Nation's prosecutors. I think this proposal is grossly unfair. We need to remember that first-year associate salaries at the Nation's leading law firms now exceed $120,000 a year; but new attorneys at the Department of Justice with similar credentials make approximately $40,000 a year. While the most seasoned prosecutors at DOJ, people who have put their career to working for the Justice Department, are capped at just over $100,000 a year. Many of our seasoned attorneys, the best people we are counting on in these lawsuits that we are defending and bringing across the country, U.S. attorneys offices, are making less money than first-year associates at some of the leading law firms in the country. This legislation is a pay cut, because, in effect, it is a salary reduction, because if this lawsuit is settled or is won this year, we could not pay the money from this year. In fairness to my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, this language which I said before was placed in last year's omnibus appropriations package was done so at the requests of the Department of Justice. The Department obviously fearing that the court will find for the attorneys has asked the Congress to let them off the hook again this year. We delayed Justice for long enough. Every year, the Department of Justice attracts the best and the brightest attorneys from all the top law schools, but this is not going to continue if we are not allowed to pay these people what they are worth and what they are entitled to under the law. These young attorneys knowing they could make hundreds of thousands of dollars more in the private sector choose to still serve the public interest. Assistant U.S. Attorneys work long hours of overtime, they have sued under existing labor laws to be compensated for that overtime; and if they win, no dollars now could be paid out this year for this year's overtime that they are paying out. If my colleagues are worried about the potential costs, no this is not a budget issue, not a budget issue. The Congressional Budget Office has informed us that striking section 111 will have no impact on the FY2001 Federal budget, but what it will do is restore some semblance of responsibility to the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember the last time that an agency in the executive branch so blatantly and callously asked this House to exempt them from their responsibilities. We have just been fighting over this, Justice Department going on, not paying their own employees, attorney personnel. Once again, all the other attorneys in the other agencies are compensated; in Justice Department they are not, and they are the only Justice Department attorneys that are not. I hope that we can adopt this amendment or give some assurance that we can address this downstream from the committee chairman at this point.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately unable to be here earlier today, and should I have been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on Roll No. 296 for H.R. 4601, the Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act. I would have also voted in strong favor of Roll No. 297 for H.R. 3859, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the faculty of Forestville Elementary School, particularly its sixth grade teachers, Assistant Principal Dr. Judith Isaacson, and Principal Dave Kulp. I join the sixth grade class of 2000 in saluting the wonderful job they have done and their tireless dedication to their students. Forestville Elementary has flourished in the twenty years since opening its doors in 1980. It is currently in the top six percent of elementary schools, statewide, with regard to Standards of Learning passage. But is greatest accomplishment by far is the education and values that Forestville instills into each and every student that walks through its halls and studies in its classrooms. This elementary school is leaping into the 21st century by taking full advantage of today's technology and using it to its full potential in the classroom. It has a fully equipped information center which includes CD-ROM, laser disc, and telecommunications stations. Each day, students use classroom computers to accomplish tasks that integrate technology use into all curriculum areas. Forestville Elementary does not only educate its students in the use of the latest technology, but also emphasizes some of the most important life lessons a child can learn--the joy of helping others and a commitment to the community in which he or she lives. There is a school wide ``buddy'' program where younger children are paired with older ones who listen to them read aloud, help them complete special projects, and accompany them on field trips. Also, an active outreach program provides school supplies, food, clothing, gifts, and other needed materials to the school's adopted ``sister'' school, a local homeless shelter, and victims of natural disasters. Forestville also encourages children to learn by example--their parents'. The parents in this community work closely with the school on activities such as Project HUG, a reading program for first and second grade students which gives trained parent volunteers the opportunity to work with students who need reinforcement of skills. Over 100 percent regularly volunteer to help children in the computer labs. And, of course, none of this would be possible without the loving dedication of faculty and staff like Dr. Judith Isaacson and Principal Dave Kulp. These individuals help to create an enthusiastic environment that not only encourages the students to pursue their studies with vigor, but also helps them develop a love of learning that will stay with them throughout their lives. The faculty and staff are the people who bring Forestville's Core Knowledge Sequence to life in the classroom, ensuring that each student has a solid, coherent foundation in history, geography, mathematics, science, language arts, and the fine arts. They are the people who are teaching these children to have a sharp mind, an honest heart, and a strong sense of duty to both their community and their country. I am glad to see that the education of the future leaders of the 21st century are in these very capable hands. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to commend Forestville Elementary and all its faculty and staff for the outstanding job they have done with these students. On behalf of the sixth grade class, thank you for your hard work, dedication, and endless support.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. This legislation marks a critical positive step towards promoting the growth and development of electronic commerce which has emerged as the driving force in our Nation's economy. Today there are approximately 17 million households on-line and that number is expected to almost triple by 2004. Revenue generated from the Internet increased by 62 percent and totaled $524 billion in 1999. That figure is likely to reach $850 billion by the end of 2000 and a staggering $1.6 trillion by 2003. Now what these figures demonstrate is the seemingly boundless potential that electronic commerce has to offer our economy in terms of both economic prosperity and ease of communication. Our computers are windows to a diverse and limitless electronic venue that mimics the traditional free market but which is still developing in terms of the parameters under which consumers and businesses interact with each other. The E-Sign bill adopts one of the most critical components of any successful market economy to the digital environment: The existence of the rule of law and the enforcement of written agreements and transactions that follow predetermined rules of notice, disclosure rights and obligations. All other things being equal, when parties know that the signatures guarantee accountability, that they gain benefits, and at the same time undertake certain obligations in return, their behavior is necessarily shaped by the certainty which results when parties are contractually bound. Of course, this paradigm which has been rooted in common law for centuries and dominates contracts course work during the first year of law school, is the essence of paper-based contracts and transactions. Now, as we enter the digital age and the dynamic electronic marketplace expands, the absence of a uniform legal mechanism for digital signatures and records threatens to restrain the booming commerce that is taking place over the Internet. With the Internet as the marketplace of the 21st century, increasing its use depends on developing and retaining consumer and business confidence in the legal enforcement of digital signatures. S. 761 creates this necessary legal certainty. By allowing American businesses and individuals the ability to engage in commerce, knowing that their transactions are full and legal and valid, I believe we will see enormous savings to business, greater efficiency in the market, and faster paperless transactions that will translate into lower costs for consumers. Another important objective in passing this legislation is the assurance that American principles on the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and records will be emulated overseas, ensuring that American businesses will not be put at a competitive disadvantage by restrictive foreign laws. Let me finish by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who has worked very hard to bring this well thought-out and critical measure to the floor today. S. 761 is an important step in reconciling our legal system with modern-day technology. It is essential to fostering the continued growth of electronic commerce that is propelling America's economic prosperity in the Information Age. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report.