Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize two very special constituents of mine, Herman and Marie Anderson of Annandale, Virginia, who will be celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary on November 29, 1999. It is with great pride and personal interest that I congratulate them on this special occasion. Marie Sauer Anderson was born in Baltimore, Maryland on February 26, 1919, where she attended Baltimore City schools and graduated from the Strayer Business College. Herman C. Anderson, better known as Andy, was born in Knoxville, Tennessee on June 21, 1913. He attended Knoxville City schools and graduated from the University of Tennessee. Upon graduation, Andy became a seasoned veteran of professional baseball; however, his career was ended short due to a broken ankle sustained while sliding into second base. In 1937, Marie Anderson visited her brother George in Knoxville, Tennessee. Marie's brother was a supervisor with the Palm Beach Company at the time. Yet his real passion was baseball, so much so that George was the team manager of a semi-pro baseball team. Playing on this semi- professional team was a young ball player from the University of Tennessee, Andy Anderson. During the season, George would invite the players over to his house for dinner, and it was at one of these gatherings where Andy met Marie for the first time. Soon, George and Marie's parents moved to Knoxville to be closer to their children, allowing Andy his continued courtship of Marie. During Christmas of 1938, Andy surprised Marie with an engagement ring, and on November 29, 1939, Marie and Andy were united in marriage at the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. In 1941, their first daughter Marie Allene was born. Three years later in 1944, Sallie Juanita was born, and the youngest girl, Betty Jane, was born in 1950. Also in 1941, Andy and Marie traveled to Norfolk, Virginia where Andy accepted a field assignment with the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS). In Norfolk, Andy joined the Elks Lodge No. 38 where he became an active member and officer. In 1958, the field office of the USCGS was relocated to Washington, D.C. Moving to Arlington, Virginia, Andy continued his work with the USGCS within the United States Department of Commerce and soon became involved with the formation of the Arlington/Fairfax Elks Lodge No. 2188. To this date, Andy has coordinated the organization of nine new Elks Lodges in Virginia. In 1975, Andy, Marie and their family moved to Annandale, Virginia where they reside at this time. Two of their daughters, Marie Allene Green and Sallie Juanita live in Thibodaux, Louisiana and Melbourne Beach, Florida, respectively. Betty Jane lives at home in Annandale, Virginia with her parents. At present, Andy and Marie are blessed with six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Andy and Marie Anderson on their 60th wedding anniversary. November 29th marks a memorable occasion, and it is only fitting that we pay tribute to this wonderful couple and the contributions they have made to their community.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues from Virginia in commending the work of a group of Virginia's most innovative companies. Included in Black Enterprise Magazine's list of the 100 largest minority-owned companies are 13 information and technology firms. Nine of the 13 call Virginia home. These businesses represent the very best of the Information Age true superstars in the information technology arena that is helping to fuel the economy in my home state of Virginia and across the entire nation. These nine enterprises are fostering the emergence of an exciting new market for African American entrepreneurs. At the top of the IT industry, Universal System Technology Inc. (UNITECH); Digital Systems International Corp; SENTEL; Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc.; Advanced Resource Technologies, Inc.; Houston Associates, Inc., and Armstrong Data Service, Inc. (ADS) are transforming Northern Virginia into one of the world's leading technology hubs. It is not by chance that African-American-owned businesses are finding their success stories in Northern Virginia. Our region's concentration of fine colleges and universities provides a vast pool of potential employees. Emerging businesses may also choose from a large number of former government employees seeking high-tech jobs in the private sector. Furthermore, close proximity to our nation's political center renders opportunities for government contracting and access to key decision-makers. The area also boasts a plethora of organizations that provide resources to emerging businesses. The Northern Virginia Technology Council hosts networking sessions, helping young companies build relationships with large, established IT firms. The Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and the Center for Innovative Technology provide technical, financial and business assistance. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to send my sincere congratulations to the African-American entrepreneurs who are using Northern Virginia's existing resources well, while creating jobs and contributing to the area's supportive community and excellent quality of life. We celebrate their entrepreneurial spirit, we honor their commitment to the state of Virginia and applaud their vital role in the information and technology industry.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a neighborhood community that was founded in my district 40 years ago this Thanksgiving weekend. Sleepy Hollow Woods, home to the second oldest tree in the state of Virginia, at nearly 400 years of age, has played a significant role in the Falls Church community throughout the years. It has been a neighborhood where families can raise their children and their children can in turn raise their children. On Thanksgiving Day of 1958, the first family moved into the new neighborhood located off Columbia Pike, just across from Mason District Part. One year later, in 1959, the community of Sleepy Hollow Woods was established. In the post-World War II era, the first families were mostly young Pentagon and Capitol Hill types who were looking to start families of their own. Sleepy Hollow Woods with its affordable housing and convenient proximity to Washington, D.C., made this an ideal community for young families. Sleepy Hollow Woods, with its winding streets, shady trees and spacious private yards has received accolades in a national magazine when the neighborhood first opened. People traveled from all around the nation not only to view the community but also to reside in one of the new model homes. As with all new communities inhabited by young professionals, there has always been a feeling of hustle and bustle in Sleepy Hollow Woods. Waking up early on Saturday mornings to the sound and smell of fresh grass being cut; the laughter of children playing in the yard; and the sounds of a kick-ball game in the cul-de-sac. Not much has changed since 1959. The trees are a little larger and new faces have blossomed, but the community closeness and pride has never left the neighborhood. Currently, Sleepy Hollow Woods has 378 homes and almost fifty nationalities are represented. Everyone is community conscious and there is a high number of volunteers for neighborhood projects and neighbor support. To demonstrate how close-knit the community is, the residents of Sleepy Hollow Woods are holding a series of celebrations to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the neighborhood. All 43 original homeowners have been invited of which 39 will be in attendance. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to ask my colleagues join me today in commending Sleepy Hollow Woods for its rich history and dedication to their neighborhood and community. I also would like to wish Sleepy Hollow Woods a warm congratulations on their 40th anniversary and for being a community whose vision and character reflect the best of America.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a company that represents the very best of the Information Age, a true superstar in the information technology arena that is helping to fuel the economy in my home state of Virginia and, indeed, across the entire nation. For Vienna-based MicroStrategy, it seems that the sky is the limit. Founded in 1989 with a $100,000 contract in hand from DuPont, MicroStrategy has quickly grown into a giant in the fledgling world of Business Intelligence. The company focuses on providing technology to build ``intelligence applications''--applications that extract insight from large databases. Its software empowers organizations to understand the interactions they have with their customers, suppliers, and businesses. That insight enables MicroStrategy's impressive array of clients-- MCI, Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, AT&T, Fannie Mae, American Express, United Airlines, and Bank of America, to name but a few--to improve operations and better analyze their marketing effectiveness. As I have heard MicroStrategy officials and their clients explain, the firm's technology allows run-of-the-mill e-commerce sites to be upgraded with ``intelligence'' features. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the typical site lets the customer buy something, but provides little insight into what to buy, or security after the purchase. MicroStrategy, for ten years, has been on the leading edge of a movement away from plain ``vanilla'' e-commerce sites. The numbers alone speak volumes about the company's meteoric growth. It has been profitable since it was founded, achieving revenue growth of more than 100 percent per year annually. Analysts estimate that the company has an annual run rate of $200 million. In the second quarter of 1999, the company recorded the best growth of any Business Intelligence provider and the fastest improving market share, according to one report. Every year, the company has essentially doubled its revenue and number of employees. Today it has over 1600 employees, many headquartered in Tysons Corner. But even more impressive are the goals of the company's leaders, young, spirited entrepreneurs like cofounders Michael Saylor, CEO, and Anju Bansal, COO. Their vision of the way information technology will transform all of our lives in the very near future is the reason they have met with such astounding success. One of the company's mottos is ``Information Like Water.'' In an online interview earlier this year, Saylor explained the credo. ``The great business organizations made it their mission to provide a certain utilitarian entitlement to the masses: radios for everyone, telephones everywhere, a car in every driveway,'' Saylor said. ``Our vision is that the information you need to make better decisions will be ubiquitous, cheap, and clean. Just like water. We will be done when everybody has access to all they need, every hour of the day, everywhere.'' And all signs indicate MicroStrategy is far from done. Last June 28, for example, the firm introduced its newest venture, Strategy.Com, which links the firm with companies such as USA Today, The Washington Post, Metrocall, and EarthLink to deliver personalized information and alerts to subscribers via e-mail, telephone, mobile phone, pager and the Internet. MicroStrategy provides the software, and the other companies provide the content. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to send my sincere congratulations to MicroStrategy for its success, and thank the company for doing business out of Northern Virginia. MicroStrategy is a company that serves as a shining example of the American spirit, of the quest always to find a better, more productive, more user-friendly way of approaching challenges. In this new Information Age, MicroStrategy is helping its customers make information the most valuable source of strategic insight--insight that drives intelligent business, generates new, more profitable sales, and strengthens customer loyalty. Mike Saylor's goal of ``Putting a crystal ball on every desktop'' is a revolutionary one, and one that has allowed the company he started to rise above the competition. Mr. Speaker, my crystal ball predicts MicroStrategy will continue to lead the way for years to come.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to give my personal thanks and those of the House of Representatives to the Reverend Dr. Ronald Christian, who was our guest chaplain today and has just led us in the beautiful opening prayer. But in a sense Dr. Christian is not a guest in this Chamber, for during the last 20 years he has served as an unofficial chaplain in the House and since 1979 he has assisted Dr. Ford with the duties of the chaplaincy and participated in all the activities associated with that office. He has given the opening prayer on more than 90 occasions and has been available for pastoral counsel for Members and staff. Dr. Christian grew up on a farm in Illinois and attended a country church where his mother was the church organist. He was graduated from the Luther College in Iowa and Luther Seminary in Minnesota and in 1979 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Ministry from Luther College. He was the founding pastor of Lord of Life Church in Fairfax, Virginia, and under his leadership the church grew to be one the largest Lutheran churches in the metropolitan area. He is married to Judy Christian and they have two children, Matthew and Mary Jo. Dr. Christian is now the Director and Chaplain of Lutheran Social Services in Northern Virginia. We are honored that Dr. Christian was our chaplain today, and we thank him for the 20 years of faithful service to the House.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and also familiar with the need to provide legal certainty to electronic signatures and electronic records. That is why I eagerly cosponsored this legislation, because I think it is time for Congress to take positive, not regulatory, steps to help promote growth and development of electronic commerce. Late last week, we were surprised by the minority leadership. They must have decided that appearing to oppose high-technology legislation was not the political stance, so they decided to introduce their own electronic signature bill, H.R. 3220, which we will be considering later today as a substitute amendment. Unfortunately, that legislation falls way short of what is needed. The appearance of supporting technology legislation is not enough. There has to be substance behind that appearance. I believe that H.R. 3220 falls short. Last week on the floor, I spoke at length about the important consumer protections contained in this legislation, H.R. 1714, and tried to rebut some of the claims that this was bad for consumers. I would like to briefly touch on some of those points. First, consumers are absolutely free to choose or not to choose to enter into an electronic transaction. Nothing requires any party to use or accept electronic records or electronic signatures. The bill simply offers consumers the option to engage in electronic transactions. If a consumer does choose to conduct an on-line transaction, that consumer is protected by the underlying Federal or State laws governing that transaction. If a law requires that a notice or a disclosure be made available in writing to a consumer, then those traditional writings must continue to be delivered to the consumer. Nothing in this bill, nothing, will nullify such existing State consumer protection laws. Let me reiterate. Under H.R. 1714, consumers must be provided with important notices, disclosures, or other documents as they are entitled to receive under the current law. Before a consumer can receive an electronic copy of an important document, such as a warranty or a disclosure, a consumer must separately and affirmatively consent to receive such a document electronically. That is, a consumer must specifically approve of receiving electronic documents and that portion of a contractor agreement telling a consumer what documents he or she will receive electronically. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The companies and manufacturers that use electronic technology, along with on-line users, need this legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill which expresses the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued recognizing the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Muslims are a growing and vibrant part of our community. They are our friends, neighbors, doctors, and merchants. Ramadan occurs during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar when all Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset. Observing Ramadan is one of the ``five pillars of Islam'' and all Muslims, except children, pregnant and nursing mothers, and the sick are expected to abstain from food and drink during the day. Another pillar of the Islamic faith is the hajj, or the pilgrimage to Mecca. This period commemorates when Muslims believe the Koran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad from the Archangel Gabriel. Therefore, many Muslims try to read the entire Koran during Ramadan. During Ramadan, in addition to fasting and studying the Koran, observing Muslims recite special prayers, donate money to the poor, and seek forgiveness from those whom they may have wronged. Such practices nurture self-discipline and compassion, rejuvenate faith, and help Muslims earn merit for the afterlife. In return, Muslims believe that God will cleanse our sins at the beginning of Eid al-Fitr, a festive three-day celebration that marks the end of Ramadan. Muslims believe that Eid signifies a new beginning, a second chance to lead more righteous lives. I am proud to represent the Muslim-Americans who have chosen to live and work in Northern Virginia. Muslim-Americans have strong family values which they renew with their families and friends during Ramadan. Muslim-Americans contribute to our diverse community with their hard work, academic achievements, and entrepreneurial spirit. Their sense of discipline, obedience, and community during Ramadan is inspiring to all of us. For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution which would express the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should be issued to celebrate Ramadan.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. Shakespeare said in Henry V: ``Once more into the breach.'' The first D.C. budget was vetoed by the President on September 28. The second D.C. budget was passed by the House on October 14. This resolution today is our third attempt to enact a budget for the Nation's capital. The city, and I emphasize this is a city we are talking about, not an agency or department of the Federal Government, is still operating under a continuing resolution. This is not acceptable. The Nation's capital is caught in the middle, and many urban needs here are being adversely affected. It is my sincere hope that the flexible approach taken by the House will encourage the administration to sign this budget. This may be the city's last clear chance to get resources and reform it needs. While much progress has been made in the District, there are still enormous problems which must be addressed. A substantial number of functions remain in receivership, including foster care and offender supervision. The enhanced resources for foster care in this budget, to take just one example, are desperately needed by many children. The annual reports submitted by the Control Board to Congress just this week highlights the crisis we are facing with many of the city's receiverships. Our local courts are funded in this budget. They too very much need the added resources this bill provides. The House passed this week the legislation I sponsored and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) sponsored to enhance college access opportunities for D.C. students. That money to fund that program is in this budget. There is additional money in this budget for public education. There are 146 public schools in this city and now 29 charter schools. The money to help the children in those schools is in this budget. This budget contains the largest tax cut in the city's history, which is central to our goal of retaining and attracting economic development to the Nation's capital. There is money in this budget to clean up the Anacostia River, open more drug treatment programs, and study widening of the 14th Street Bridge. What the city needs is a stronger tax base and more taxpayers. This bill takes us another step in that direction. In the 5 years I have had the honor to serve as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, it has been my philosophy that one cannot have a healthy region without a healthy city. Working in a bipartisan manner, building consensus, I am proud of the way we have helped to turn this city around. I want the House appropriators to help us continue this process. Whatever the ultimate resolution is of the city's budget, it is important to keep the process going in order to achieve a positive result. I am very hopeful we can do this and keep this city from waiting for the funds they need.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 974) to establish a program to afford high school graduates from the District of Columbia the benefits of in-State tuition at State colleges and universities outside the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Virginia for his eloquent remarks and also his help in the appropriations process and from all aspects as we worked to improve the district. The gentleman has been a true colleague in the essential part, as that term implies, in terms of working together to make these kinds of things happen for the region, because we recognize this is not just a city issue, it is a justice issue, but it is also a regional issue of great import, and I thank him. Let me go briefly and talk about some of the changes in this bill from the Senate that were changes from the House version that passed earlier. These Senate amendments enable D.C. residents who are high school graduates the opportunity to pay in-state tuition rates upon admission to state colleges in Virginia and Maryland only. They would have to be admitted as out of state students, so they are competing in a larger pool, although the States themselves of Virginia and Maryland have the opportunity to create select pools for District residents should they choose to do that. But they will not be taking from in- state students in Virginia and taking in-state places. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition would be paid from new Federal money being authorized and appropriated, up to $10,000 per individual in any award year. This also provides tuition assistance grants of $2,500 for D.C. resident high school graduates who will be attending private colleges in D.C. and adjacent counties in Virginia and Maryland and funding of $5 million is authorized for this in FY 2000. It also includes private historically black colleges in Virginia and Maryland. This was an amendment that my colleague Senator Warner put on in the other body. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on working also for the University of the District of Columbia, that they are not lost in this. In fact, they are a beneficiary of this legislation as well. She has given them HCBU status and additional funding for the University of the District of Columbia so they can hone and I think make greater their role for education than they do today in the District. That should not be lost sight of as well. What UDC does not have and cannot be by itself, as no university can be by itself, is a state university system. It will be one component of the educational equation for D.C. residents, but it will now have assistance from other areas as well, and, with this additional money, I think its role will be strengthened in offering educational opportunities to students from the District of Columbia. There is no means test in this legislation, but if an authorized, appropriated amount is insufficient, there is a ratable reduction, and if a ratable reduction is necessary, the mayor, the local leaders there, will have the ability to prioritize based on income and need of eligible students. So we will be having the city make that, and it will not be Congressionally mandated, should we have more people use this legislation than are currently foreseen as doing so. Actually, I think that would be a good thing. We hope this is utilized, because I think the more people who are able to use this and go to college, the better off we all are. Residents in the 50 states already have a network of state supported colleges to attend. This bill levels the playing field for students in the District of Columbia. High school graduates would have to be a D.C. resident for at least one year prior to eligibility, and they would have to begin undergraduate courses within 3 years of high school graduation, excluding active military service. This applies to those receiving recognized equivalent of secondary school diplomas. It provides for an incentive for population stability in the Nation's capital. It gives graduates more choices. It does not affect admissions policies or standards. Regional companies and foundations are helping students qualify for college admission, and this legislation compliments that effort. My friend from the District of Columbia mentioned Lou Nodo at Mobil Corporation, Don Graham at the Washington Post. Steve Case at America OnLine has been another leader, and many other companies in the region I think have contributed private dollars that will compliment this effort. We have had extraordinary bipartisan Congressional and administration cooperation, as my colleague from Maryland noted. This will commence applying to students who graduated in January and June of 1998. The city will run the program with Federal oversight. Disbursements will be made directly to the eligible colleges, and UDC, as I noted before, will receive $1.5 million additional per year if it does not receive funds as a historically black college under the Higher Education Act from this legislation. Once again though, the basic concept is to give children in the District of Columbia the same educational opportunities for an affordable college education that all of our children enjoy in the 50 states, an affordable college education. This will help narrow the gap between the very rich and the very poor in an information age, and education is the key to narrowing that gap. In Fairfax County, across the river from the District, over 90 percent of those who will be graduating from high school this year or are eligible to graduate from high school, will go on to higher education. In the District of Columbia, those 18-year-olds, if they graduate on time, it will be less than 25 percent, a huge disparity. One of the reasons for this is for many of these kids there is no hope or opportunity of an affordable college education. This legislation takes an important step in giving them hope for the future. I will just note in Fairfax County today our unemployment rate is under 2 percent, it is about 1.8 percent. It is about 3\1/2\ times that in the District of Columbia. Over the last 10 years, our economy regionally has grown. Our Nation has prospered. My Congressional district has prospered. But in the bottom quarter of economic strata there has been very little movement, and in places in the District there has been little movement. The way to equalize this is through educational opportunities, and it is not by the government coming in with greater subsidies. That is a last resort. Giving people equal opportunity is the best resort. That is what this legislation does. It guarantees a quality of opportunity by allowing college and technology educations to be affordable for everyone. When the educational opportunities are equal, when college is affordable for D.C. residents, as well as Maryland and Virginia residents, we are going to see more District of Columbia students attending college, being trained for the jobs of the future, so they can start businesses, earn good salaries, support their children, return a tax base to the District of Columbia, and make our Nation's Capital the city it deserves to be and has the potential to become. This legislation is a giant step forward. It is not the whole equation, but it is a vital part of the equation, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague, I have enjoyed working with her on this legislation. I think it is landmark. I appreciate the support of the other Members, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the other sponsors, many from the region, some outside it, and the support of the administration. Without all of us working together, putting aside some of the jurisdictional issues, we would not be where we are today.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, we have traveled a long way with the D.C. College Access Act. From March 4 when we introduced it, to markup in our subcommittee, unanimous approval in the Committee on Government Reform chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton); to House passage on May 24, and then on to October 19, passage in the Senate with friendly amendments which we are pleased to accept today. I am deeply proud of our hard work. My thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the ranking member of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia and all of the original cosponsors: The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). My thanks to Speaker Hastert, Chairman Dan Burton and Majority Leader Dick Armey for their support and for permitting expeditious consideration of this. And my thanks to the Clinton administration and the Department of Education for working with us in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation to work out our differences and move this thing through for consideration. My thanks to the D.C. Appropriations Chair Ernest Istook and his Senate counterpart, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for including the money in the budget recommended by the administration. And my thanks to my own counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his patience and persistence in having such an excellent hearing and markup and for shepherding the amendments. And to Senator Fred Thompson, chairman of the Senate committee, for his support. My thanks as well to Senator Jeffords, Senator Durbin and Senator Warner for helping us to continue to keep this legislation on track and work to improve it. And my thanks to some of the staff people who worked on this landmark law: My own staff director and counsel, Howie Denis; my chief of staff, Peter Sirh; and Jon Bouker of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia's staff. I am grateful to those leading regional foundations and companies that have come together in an extraordinary and historic effort to assist District of Columbia students. The legislation we are passing today is essential to those great endeavors in the private sector. In 1995, the District of Columbia faced a crisis of epic proportions. Congress, in passing the control board legislation, with its creation of the position of chief financial officer, and then in 1997 with the passage of the D.C. Revitalization Act and its related reforms, embarked on a critically important process to address the crisis in a truly bipartisan way. The legislation before us today would not be possible but for the progress the city has achieved with the initiative of Congress and the executive branch working together, and, I might add, with the leadership of Tony Williams and the city council. The city's return to the private financial markets is solid evidence that what Congress did produced credible numbers and better performance. Key elements of our reforms include Federal assumption of certain functions performed by State governments, and incentives for economic development and private sector jobs. The economic recovery of the Nation's capital benefits the entire region and country by realizing the vision which has so often been expressed. The new MCI Center and the Convention Center project, a tax credit for first-time homebuyers, enhanced public safety and water quality are just some of the improvements we have seen. Two months ago, Speaker Hastert and I attended a moving ceremony at the Edison Friendship public charter school in the District. Majority Leader Armey, Education Chairman Bill Goodling, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Paul Coverdell were with us. The Edison school and many other charter schools represent another great success story in the District that Congress has helped us achieve. We know that many concerns remain. Many of them are addressed in the budget and others will be dealt with later. The bill before us today will enable District residents to attend public colleges and universities in Virginia and Maryland at in-State tuition rates. We have included tuition assistance grants as another option for private colleges in and adjacent to the District in those counties, including historically black colleges and universities in Virginia and Maryland. The CBO estimate fits within the money this bill authorizes and which the appropriators have included in their bill. Mayor Williams has said that this bill is very, very important not only in improving education but in bringing the city back. I believe it is the best money we can spend and is a shining example of what a bipartisan urban agenda can achieve. H.R. 974 will level the playing field for District high school graduates. It will give them the key to higher education in this region. Back on March 4 when I introduced the bill, we went to Eastern High School with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. It is not far from the Capitol. We announced the proposal to students and faculty. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and Mayor Williams were with me at the time. I was deeply moved by the reaction of the students. I will never forget how many took our hands and looked into our eyes and thanked us for introducing this measure. This gives them hope for the future, hope for an affordable college education, something that is enjoyed by students in 50 States in the United States but is not a reality in our Nation's capital. Fighting for educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life. I am proud of so much that we have been able to do in the Nation's capital for the almost 5 years that I have had the privilege of serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Economic development, public safety, the real estate market and so many other aspects of city life have changed for the better and the city is working to improve itself. This is something that I think ultimately had to happen and is happening. But nothing has given me more satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunities for the city's youth. We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington region. This bill, expanding higher educational choices, is an enormous leap forward. It is our vision for the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and original sponsor of this legislation, who helped shepherd it through the subcommittee.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 974.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1714. As an original cosponsor, I am pleased to stand here today with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of legislation that I think is the critical first step in reconciling our legal system with modern day technology. The E-SIGN bill is essential to fostering the continued growth of electronic commerce that is propelling America's economy and our prosperity in the Information Age. Electronic commerce has been growing at a tremendous pace, with the number of Americans with access to the Internet increasing nearly 900 percent since early 1993. In 1998, electronic commerce generated more than $300 billion in U.S. revenue and was responsible for over 1.2 billion jobs as of 1998. One estimate places the dollar volume of business-to-business electronic commerce in 1998 at $27.4 billion, and the projected volume for 1999 is $64.8 billion. Those numbers are expected to quadruple in the next 2 years alone. Consumer on-line sales have reached more than $7 billion this year and are expected to exceed $40 billion by 2002. If the trend continues, it is likely these predictions are conservative. The need for legal certainty and uniformity of laws is compelling if we are to encourage the continued growth of electronic commerce. One of the biggest barriers to the explosion of electronic commerce as the marketplace of the 21st century is the lack of certainty surrounding the legal acceptance of electronic signatures used in conducting on- line contracts or agreements. With the Internet as the communications network of the future, increasing its use depends on developing and retaining consumer and business confidence in this unique problem. Although 44 States have already enacted legislation that would recognize digital signatures, the differences among these States and the lack of legislation in others are an impediment to the growth of e- commerce because many parties are unwilling to risk entering into contracts on line without the certainty that those signatures are legally binding nationally. H.R. 1714 establishes a single standard for the acceptance of electronic signatures and records and will give both businesses and consumers the same confidence in the legal validity of an on-line agreement that they have today in a written, binding agreement signed by two or more contracting parties. Another critical feature of this legislation is the balance it strikes between encouraging growth in electronic commerce and minimizing the role that the Federal Government plays in the marketplace. In addition to the gap this measure fills in establishing a uniform standard, what is equally important is that this legislation does not entrench specific electronic signature technologies by dictating what methods will be used for verifying and validating digital signatures and records. Instead, the E-SIGN bill allows the parties to set their own procedures for using electronic signatures and electronic records in interstate commerce. As a result, when the future brings new technologies it will be the marketplace, not government regulations, that drives the development of those that succeed. A vote for this legislation is a vote for technology and a vote for ensuring the evolution of Internet commerce and the vitality of the American economy. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second, if I can, to respond to some of the charges coming from the other side that this legislation contains anti-consumer provisions. I have heard that this preempts existing consumer protection laws; I have heard that this legislation will force consumers into electronic transactions; I have heard this will discriminate against consumers that do not have computer access. These claims are false. First, consumers are absolutely free to choose or not choose to enter into electronic transactions. This bill clearly states that nothing requires any party to use or accept electronic records or electronic signatures. This bill simply offers consumers the option, by mutual consent, to use electronic transactions should both parties determine that to be their preference. If a consumer does choose to conduct an on-line transaction, that consumer is protected by the underlying Federal or State laws governing that transaction. If a State law requires that a notice or disclosure be made in writing, then those traditional writings must continue to be delivered from the consumer. Nothing in this bill will nullify such existing State consumer protection laws. For example, if a law requires that a consumer be provided a copy of a warranty when purchasing an appliance, that consumer has to receive a copy of that warranty, whether that consumer is at a shopping mall or on line. This bill does absolutely nothing to alter this long-established principle. However, before a consumer can receive an electronic copy of a warranty, a consumer has to separately and affirmatively consent to receive that document electronically. That is, a consumer specifically must approve of receiving electronic documents in that portion of a contract or agreement, telling the consumer that documents he or she should receive electronically may not be buried in the fine print. If the consumer wants to receive a traditional paper warranty, he is absolutely entitled to under this rule and under this bill. But if a consumer consents to receive such documents electronically, as I think many of my constituents would like to do, that does not mean that they may never return to receiving paper documents should they so wish. A consumer could withdraw the consent to electronic documents at any time. There are two main subsections in the consent portion of the bill that explicitly constitute a consumers assent in the bill. One of these critical subsections mandates that once the consumer withdrawals his consent to receive documents electronically, the materials must be delivered in the traditional paper writing. Finally, H.R. 1714 requires that electronically delivered documents must accurately reflect the information agreed to at the time of the transaction. In addition, any electronic copy of a contract or document must be able to be printed or saved for future use by a consumer. In sum, the allegations that H.R. 1714 contains anti-consumer ideas are unfounded. We have worked very hard throughout the process to reach consensus with both sides of the aisle and are confident that this bill represents a solid balance between protecting consumers and entering into agreements in the electronic arena. Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important for consumers to have safety, security and privacy in their online transactions. If consumers do not feel comfortable using this new technology, they will abandon it. I believe that the consumer provisions of H.R. 1714 will help consumers to feel comfortable when conducting online transactions. They will have the information they need to make an informed decision, and they will have the right to accept, if they so choose, important documentation in electronic format. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation that will help to promote the growth of electronic commerce and at the same time protect consumers in online transactions.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are here today in a spirit of compromise. My compliments to Chairman Istook for his patience and the statesmanlike approach he has taken in bringing this conference committee Report to the floor. The last D.C. budget was vetoed by the President on September 28. The city, and I emphasize that this is a city we are talking about--not an agency or department--is operating under a continuing resolution. This is not acceptable. The Nation's Capital is caught in the middle, and many urban needs here are being adversely affected. It is my sincere hope that the flexible approach taken by the House conferees will encourage the administration to sign the bill containing the D.C. budget. This may be the city's last clear chance to get the resources and reforms it needs. While much progress has been made in the District, there are still enormous problems which must be addressed. A substantial number of functions remain in receivership, including foster care and offender supervision. The enhanced resources for foster care in this budget, to take just one example, are desperately needed by many children. Our local courts are funded in this budget. They too very much need the added resources this bill provides. Very soon I expect the House will pass the legislation I sponsored to enhance college access opportunities for D.C. students. The money to fund that program is in this budget. There is additional money in this budget for public education. There are 146 public schools in this city, and now 29 charter schools. The money to help the children in those schools is in this budget. This budget contains the largest tax cut in the city's history, which is central to our goal of retaining and attracting economic development. There is money in this budget to clean up the Anacostia River, open more drug treatment programs, and study widening of the 14th Street Bridge. What the city needs is a stronger tax base and more taxpayers. This bill takes us another step in that direction. This D.C. budget is the one the President's strongest supporters in Congress have always insisted he would sign. Let's hope so. In the 5 years I've had the honor to serve as chairman of the District's authorizing subcommittee, it's been my philosophy that you cannot have a healthy region without a healthy city. Working in a bipartisan manner, building consensus, I'm proud of the way we have helped to turn this city around. I urge this House and then the White House to let us continue.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome our guest chaplain and my constituent, the Reverend Dr. Luke Torian, to the House of Representatives this morning. Dr. Torian is the inspirational pastor of the First Mount Zion Baptist Church in Dumfries, Virginia, located in Prince William County in my district. I have had the great pleasure of hearing this man of God deliver dynamic messages on more than one occasion at his church. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Winston-Salem State University, North Carolina, a Master's from Virginia Union University and a Doctorate from Howard University in Washington, D.C. In the past 20 years, as a dutiful shepherd in the ministry of his community, his service includes Mount Bethel Baptist Church, Roxboro, North Carolina; Gilfield Baptist Church in Charles City, Virginia, and present location, First Mount Zion Baptist Church in Dumfries, Virginia. He is married to the former Clarice Jones of Charlottesville, Virginia, and they are the proud parents of a 9-year-old daughter, Constance. No stranger to Capitol Hill, he was a congressional staffer in the mid-1980s. On behalf of the entire House of Representatives, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Doctor Luke Torian for starting our legislative day in prayer with an inspirational message.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of H. Con. Res. 190, a resolution which extends the work initiated by my colleague, Mr. Cox, last year, on extending the moratorium on Internet taxation to the international arena. This important piece of legislation urges the United States to seek a global consensus now that supports a moratorium on tariffs and on special, multiple, and discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce. It does so by calling on the World Trade Organization to enact a permanent moratorium on e- commerce tariffs at its Seattle ministerial meeting next month. With none of the WTO's 130 members currently taxing Internet commerce, it is imperative that we implement a global strategy that ensures that the Internet remains tax free before such barriers are erected. With Internet use and global electronic commerce growing at an astronomical pace, it is inarguable that the Internet is emerging as the most unique and the fastest-growing tool of communication known to mankind. The Internet facilitates not only economic growth but the easy dissemination of ideas and information from almost any spot in the world. We are at the tip of the iceberg in terms of the potential that the Internet can offer both cheaply and quickly. Yet an ever-present concern plagues many of us who--like my colleagues standing with me here today--understand the need to foster its continued growth by minimizing the amount of government regulation and taxes that will interfere with the transformation of the Internet into the repository of global communications for the 21st century. H. Con. Res. 190 is a critical component of ensuring that government does not inhibit the growth of the Internet, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Various schemes of taxation introduced by governments across the world will make the internet an unpredictable environment for even simple communications; much more so for conducting online business. Such a development would most certainly discourage the easy and efficient use that the Internet now provides for users worldwide. Last year, we enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act which codified a policy against special, multiple, discriminatory Internet taxation and urged the United States to seek international agreements that would concertize those same principles globally. With the July 1999 United Nations Report urging sovereign states to impose ``bit taxes'' on electronic transmissions, it is incumbent now more than ever for Congress and the United States to take the lead in opposing any taxation of electronic commerce globally that would inhibit the continued economic and social growth of the Internet. The resolution specifically urges the President to oppose a United Nations or any other international organization's proposal to establish a ``bit tax.'' It is also important that we utilize every available opportunity to press for an Internet tax moratorium and for this reason, H. Con. Res. 190 also calls on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to adopt the principle of ``no multiple, discriminatory, or special taxes'' on the Internet or on electronic commerce. Each of the principles expressed in this crucial measure are equally important to the future of the Internet. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Cox and Mr. Sessions, for introducing this resolution and for moving it forward quickly. I urge all Members to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 190.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 915 and I am proud to have been a co-sponsor of this important legislation. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, for introducing this important legislation. I would also like to thank the Civil Service Subcommittee and Chairman Joe Scarborough for acting on this legislation in such a timely manner. It is a fair bill and is sorely needed. With the recent passage of legislation to grant virtually all Federal civilian and military employees a 4.8 percent pay raise, this bill would finally permit a small number of administrative law judges, also career employees, the right to have their pay adjustment determined by the President on an annual basis. At the present time, ALJs are on the Executive Pay Schedule which includes Members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries, and Federal District Court Judges. As a result of this classification, ALJs have received only two cost-of-living-adjustments in the past 8 years. Unfortunately, ALJs have been caught in the middle of the controversial political debate surrounding pay raises for Members of Congress and have not received a pay increase. This is despite the fact that their salaries are commensurate with that of the Senior Executive Service (SES), or General Schedule employees. Clearly, it is appropriate to decouple ALJ pay raises from congressional pay raises and not freeze their salaries. These career employees are among the very few career Federal employees who pay is still tied to congressional salaries. H.R. 915 will place them on the same level as the Senior Executive Service. This change is supported by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and was included in the President's FY 2000 budget request. The President will make the final decision each year as to what, if any pay adjustment these employees will have. This change is critically important to encouraging qualified individuals to serve as ALJs and to begin to adequately compensate those who are currently working as ALJs. Mr. Speaker, many ALJs live in my congressional district in Northern Virginia. I am glad to see that we are taking action on this legislation before the end of the year. ALJs have had to wait too many years for the appropriate level of compensation. This bill is good public policy and will encourage the best and the brightest to serve their government. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 915 today. Again, I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas for introducing this legislation and working tirelessly to shepherd it through the legislative process.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was standing in the well of the House before the vote was announced and the machine did not work. I would have voted ``aye'' on the last vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 1180, and particularly the provisions within the bill that will help financially modernize the private student loan industry. Not only will we assure the future of the private student loan industry and protect student's interest rates, we will also be providing at least a $20 million off-set to help pay for other provisions in this very important bill. The Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), the largest source of federal student loans to college students and parents, has undergone a revolution in recent years. FFELP service providers are employing a range of new technologies, such as the Internet, to vastly improve the delivery of student loans. Intense competition among FFELP providers has generated efficiencies that have driven down cost to both education loan borrowers and to U.S. taxpayers. Regrettably, the gains in efficiency and cost-reduction are being hampered by an archaic federal financing system that does not promote the most modern, efficient practices for student loan providers. Private student loan lenders and student loan secondary markets tap global capital markets to raise the $25 billion needed annually to support new student loans. The job of raising this private capital is more difficult, because federal law ties student loan interest rates to the 91-day Treasury bill, which does not necessarily reflect supply and demand issues in private capital markets. The student loam program, and the students, families and colleges that rely on it, will benefit from a more reliable supply of funding if Congress adopts a true market- based index for determining lender yields on student loans. Importantly, the fundamental improvement to the private sector student loan program can be achieved with a savings to the U.S. taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, that bears repeating. We can vastly improve the ability of private student loan providers to more efficiently and cheaply deliver their products to student and family borrowers, while saving the America people more than $20 million over the next four years alone. In addition, this proposal would not change the index or formula used for determining interest rates paid by student loan borrowers. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of this provision was not highlighted until our economy began booming and the Federal Government began operating with a non-Social Security surplus. The Treasury bill is not a market-based index. By definition, only the U.S. government borrows at the T-bill rate. Other than the federal government and Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), virtually no organizations issue market securities that are tied to the T-bill. Unfortunately, private student loan lenders are statutorily required to raise the capital they need from private capital markets at the T- bill rate. The capital raised privately to fund student loans is typically pegged to market indices that do not necessarily move in tandem with the T-bill rate. This means that lenders and student loan secondary markets have to account for the risk that the T-bill rate and these market rates will be different. To do so, lenders partly protect themselves against this risk through hedging agreements, whereby others bear the risk. These hedging agreements inject uncertainly and add to the lenders' cost of funds. When the difference between T-bill rates and market-based rates widen, lenders incur significant additional cost to finance student loans. This scenario was realized in the last half of 1998 when the wide spreads between T-bill rates and market-based rates effectively ``dried up'' the market for student loan asset-backed securities, which represent a major source of student loan funding. In essence, the Treasury Department stopped issuing T-bills and the supply disappeared. Mr. Speaker, it is situations like these, that if allowed to continue, could drive private lenders out of the student loan business. That is why I am very grateful that this bill could include the provisions that will shift the index for determining lender yields on Federal Education Loans from the 91-day T-bill rate to the 90-day Commercial Paper rate. This is an important amendment. It will protect private student loans lenders, increase efficiency and reduce the cost of delivering the funds, save the taxpayer a minimum of $20 million, while guaranteeing the interest rate student and family borrowers pay does not increase.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, public officials are used to scrutiny and, to varying degrees, accustomed to the sometimes harsh glare of the spotlight. But none of us have had to endure what Henry Aaron had to endure as he approached number 715. The pressure, I can only assume, must have been suffocating. Everywhere he went, cameras focused on him. Every step he took was followed by an army of reporters with the same probing questions. Hank Aaron was living in a fish bowl. And it wasn't a very warm bowl at that. A vocal minority of hate- filled folks out there actually took umbrage at Aaron's success and tried, unsuccessfully, to undercut his courage. The manner in which Hank Aaron assumed the post of career home run leader speaks as much about the man as the feat itself. I am a baseball fan, and therefore I am a Hank Aaron fan. I remember the evening of April 8 with startling clarity: the first inning walk, the fourth inning shot off the first Al Downing pitch he swung at that night, the pandemonium that followed. It is a moment forever etched on my mind, and, indeed, on the American cultural landscape. Baseball fans love statistics, and when it comes to plain numbers there was none more impressive than the Hammer. 755 career home runs. 2,297 RBIs, including 11 seasons with more than 100. 6,856 total bases. 24 All-Star game appearances, two batting titles and four gold gloves. These are numbers that speak for themselves. But Hank Aaron gave us so much more, as a ballplayer and as a man. In this age of skyrocketing salaries and off-the-field soap operas, Hank Aaron provides all of us with a benchmark of professionalism and a shining example for our children of what success is all about. Later on in the evening of April 8, 1974, Aaron told reporters the record-breaking homer wouldn't have meant as much if the Braves hadn't won the game. What humility. Thanks, Hank: your feat meant so much more to the American people because of the way you accomplished it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is the glass half empty or is it half full? That is where we always seem to be on the District appropriation bill. This bill has a number of good things in it. We have taken off some of the riders from the last visit to the House floor. We have taken off the limitation on Council's salaries. We have taken off the capping of attorney's fees for special ed attorneys and the limiting of counsel on the leased property, working with the mayor. But this bill continues to have a number of good things, in fact, even some better things as a result of bringing it to the floor this second time. There are three additional million dollars for the Southwest waterfront that were not here, additional funding to the CJA attorneys for the local courts, so they can be paid for representing poor people in the district. We have money for the D.C. Scholarship Act. This is something that will allow D.C. students to pay in-State tuition to Virginia and Maryland State colleges, a right other people enjoy in all the other States of the union; money for the clean-up of the Anacostia river, dollars for a study of the widening of the 14th Street Bridge, additional money for drug treatment, and some other very good things in here. It takes and ratifies what the Mayor and the Council agreed on, and the Control Board, for their budget. So those are the very positive things. It has some riders in the bill, some additions to this bill that have some controversy. We have talked about the marijuana initiative. This is a very poor initiative, in my judgment, because it is very overly drawn. The courts would have a field day. We do not even need a doctor's prescription to use marijuana under this, and it is something that frankly, outside of the appropriations process, I cannot believe Congress would approve. If my county passed it, I know the Commonwealth of Virginia would not allow us to do that. That is an issue that I do not think under any circumstances this Congress is going to have to yield to. It has the needle exchange program. It has one particularly obnoxious rider that does not even allow the city to sue to get their voting status. I think that is wrong. I opposed it when it came up here. I would like to see this come out. The city does not get a vote on the House floor. There are 600,000 people that do not get representation in a vote on the House floor, the only place in America, and we will not even allow them to use their own funds to bring a lawsuit to get those actions clarified. Nevertheless, even with all of that, it has a number of good things. For that reason, on balance, I think this is a bill that I would urge my colleagues to support, and then say that when it goes to the Senate and when it comes back to conference, we need to continue the dialogue. We need to continue the dialogue with the delegate from the District of Columbia, continue the dialogue with Members of the other side, continue the dialogue with the District of Columbia government, and continue the dialogue with the President. Eventually, we end up, I think, with a bill that we can all support, but to get there, this is an important stage in the process. If this goes down, we are back to ground zero. So I would urge my colleagues at this point to go ahead and support it. I would just add, the budget was vetoed by the President on September 28. It is the city government that is now held hostage by not being able to move forward with this. The city has done nothing wrong in this except to ask approval of their budget. I hope we can get this resolved as expeditiously as possible.