Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just address some of the comments my colleagues made. Contrary to the assertion that H.R. 1875 would not take away any authority from State courts or otherwise offend well-established principles of federalism, this particular legislation, I think, recognizes that the expansion of Federal diversity jurisdiction over interstate class actions envisioned in this legislation is entirely consistent with the current concept of such jurisdiction. At present, the statutory gatekeeper for Federal diversity jurisdictions is 28 U.S.C. 1332, which essentially allows Federal courts to hear cases that are large in terms of the amounts in controversy and that have interstate implications in terms of involving citizens from multiple jurisdictions. By their nature, though, these class actions typically fulfill these requirements. Class actions normally involve so many people and so many claims, that they invariably put huge dollar sums into dispute and implicate parties from multiple jurisdictions. Yet, because section 1332 was originally enacted before the rise of the modern day class actions, it does not take account of the unique circumstances presented by class actions. As a result, as interpreted by Federal courts, that section has served to potentially exclude class actions from Federal courts while allowing Federal courts much smaller cases having few, if any, interstate ramifications. That technical problem would be corrected by this legislation. I think it was put together by former solicitor general Walter Dellinger, as he testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the bill that if Congress were to rewrite completely the Federal diversity legislation statute, there would be really little legitimate debate that interstate class actions should be the first and foremost type of case to be included within the scope of this statute. So I think the implication there is clear. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing this legislation. We have worked together on so many legal reforms and technology-related pieces and to bring it to where it is today, where I think it is on the verge of passage. This particular legislation implements procedural reforms for interstate class action lawsuits. I think it reduces costs to consumers. It solidifies the rights of plaintiffs, of plaintiffs, by ensuring that they and not their lawyers receive the majority of compensation when they have proven their claims in the court. Now, what does this bill do? It is intended to correct a technical flaw in the current Federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction which tends to prevent interstate class actions from being adjudicated in Federal courts. Federal courts will be able to handle class action lawsuits that truly involve interstate issues. This legislation makes it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to remove cases to Federal court where multiple State laws are more appropriately heard. Interstate class actions filed in State court could be removed to Federal court using existing removal procedures with three new features. Unnamed class members who are plaintiffs may remove to Federal court class actions in which their claims are being asserted within 30 days after formal notice. Any party, any party whose name can be removed, the consent of the other parties is not required. So plaintiffs' rights are protected in this case and the bar on removing cases to Federal court after one year would not apply to class actions, although removal would still be required within 30 days of the first notice. If a removed class action is found to not meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the Federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice. Plaintiffs could then refile their claims in the State court, and the statute of limitations on individual class members' claims in such a dismissed class action will not run during the period of action that it was pending in the Federal court. What could be fairer to all concerned? The act applies only to claims that are filed after the date of enactment. I think this is good legislation. I think when we look back at the history, that most interstate class actions cannot be heard in Federal court today due to the Federal diversity jurisdiction statutes that allow attorneys to literally, as my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) said, game the system, or making statements about the amounts in controversy and then reversing those statements later on. This legislation is needed. I hope my colleagues will vote to adopt it.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to welcome home the members of the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team, and to salute their heroic efforts to rescue survivors in Izmit, Turkey in the aftermath of the country's worst earthquake in history. Called Virginia Task Force One, this highly trained team of rescue specialists are a credit to our nation both as ambassadors and humanitarians. On August 17, 1999 at 3 a.m., Turkey was shook by a catastrophic earthquake recorded at a magnitude of 7.4. The ground's rumbling came in the still of the night while most people were sleeping, and sent others running out into the streets in a panic. In just 45 seconds 60,000 buildings crumbled to the ground, entombing at least 20,000 and perhaps as many as 40,000, with another 30,000 people injured, and 600,000 people left homeless. Just a few hours after this tragedy hit, the 72 operational members of the Virginia Task Force team, comprised of urban search and rescue technicians, cave-in experts, canine teams, physicians, paramedics, logistician, and command and control personnel, prepared for one of their toughest missions. They brought with them 56,000 pounds of specialized equipment and supplies, including thermal imaging cameras, listening devices, advance life support medical equipment and supplies, communications equipment, food and water. They soon joined rescue teams from France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Israel to work round the clock to uncover victims buried under the once protective walls of their home. Amid the tragedy and destruction of Turkey's massive earthquake, the Virginia Task Force courageously searched in perilous conditions for signs of life. More than 1,000 aftershocks continued to shake the earth and rain pelted against them creating muddy quagmires which complicated their efforts to clear debris and rescue survivors. Yet they demonstrated exemplary perseverence in their mission and successfully pulled four survivors from the twisted ruins. The first rescue was a frightened seven-year-old boy who had been trapped in bed for more than two days when his apartment building collapsed around him. Miraculously, he was not injured. After 4\1/2\ hours of chipping, shoveling and sawing through 15 feet of rubble, they saved the life of a vivacious 24-year-old woman in surprisingly high spirits. Another 8 hours of digging uncovered a second woman who had been entombled in the rubble. And 64 hours after the quake struck, miraculously they saved the life of Ayse Cesen, 46, whose brother had given up hope and brought a coffin to collect his body. I join the country of Turkey in offering our heartfelt thanks to each and every member of the Virginia Task Force Team who selflessly demonstrated their invaluable skills and knowledge to locate survivors and recover victims. I salute the valiant efforts of Anthony MacIntyre, James M. Strickland, Barry Anderson, William Baker, William M. Bertone, Bernard D. Bickham, Donald C. Booth, Edward M. Brinkley, Jon P. Bruley, Gary B. Bunch, Gregory A. Bunch, Carlton G. Burkhammer, John Chabal, James M. Chinn, Brian Cloyd, David P. Conrad, Dean W. Cox, Kevin R. Dabeny, Michael B. Davis, Jeffrey L. Donaldson, Robert C. Dube, Benjamin A. Dye, Garrett L. Dyer, Thomas P. Feehan, Thomas H. Galvez, Thomas J. Griffin, Dan Hafling, Sonja Heritage, Kit R. Hessel, Andrew J. Hubery, Michael A. Istvan, Gerald Jakulski, Joseph M. Kaleda, Joseph E. Knerr, Elizabeth Kreitler, Randal A. Leatherman, Evan J. Lewis, Jeffery S. Lewis, Mark F. Lucas, Ramond Lucas, Craig S. Luecke, Michael J. Marks, Christopher M. Matsos, John C. Mayers, Shawn K. McPherson, Charles Mills, Susan Mingle, Gerard Morrison, Dewey H. Perks, Mark J. Plunkett, Thomas W. Reedy, Michael P. Regan, Michael T. Reilly, Jerome A. Roussillon, Charles S. Ruble, Dean A. Scott, William E. Shugart, Dallas L. Slemp, Frank Stoda, Rex Strickland, Michael Tamillow, David L. Taylor, William E. Teal, Scott Tezak, Dean Tills, James H. Tolson, Jack Walmer, James J. Walsh, Peter West, Charles A. Williams, Kea A. Zimmerman, and Robert J. Zoldos. The Virginia Task Force Team and their families deserve the highest praise possible for the sacrifices they have made to come to the aid of the grief-stricken people of Turkey. As they have proven in the past, Fairfax County rescue workers are among the best trained in the world. The expertise they bring to such devastating scenes helps shine a ray of hope on an otherwise desperate situation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of a concurrent resolution which recognizes the critical role played by the information technology sector and electronic commerce in the United States economy. On behalf of my colleagues, Representatives Dreier, Goodlatte, Dooley, Jim Moran, Dunn, Eshoo, and Adam Smith, I am setting forth principles that we hope will shape congressional information technology and electronic commerce policies that will ensure United States' continued worldwide dominance and competitiveness in the Information Technology Revolution. The United States is the world leader in the innovation and production of information technological goods and services. Information technology was responsible for 6.1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product in 1996. In 1997, U.S. businesses took in $804 billion or 80 percent of worldwide information technology revenues. Information technology has spurred economic growth in the form of new goods, new services, new jobs, and new capital. Since 1993, the U.S. high technology industry has added over 1 million jobs to the U.S. economy, such that the industry now employs nearly 5 percent of the U.S. private sector workforce as of 1998. Similarly, Internet growth has outstripped earlier predictions. The number of Americans with access to the Internet has increased nearly 900 percent since early 1993. There were an estimated 148 million Internet users worldwide at the end of 1998, with approximately 81 million users in the U.S. alone by early 1999. One estimate places the dollar volume of business-to-business electronic commerce in 1998 at $27.4 billion. The projected volume for 1999 is $64.8 billion. Those numbers are expected to quadruple in the next two years alone. Like other pivotal moments in human history, the Information Technology Revolution is transforming the tools and ideas that affect the way individuals communicate and think both privately and commercially. The American experience alone is replete with illustrations of new technologies generating faster economic growth. As the information technology industry continues its phenomenal expansion, the Federal Government needs to ensure that it plays an enabling--and not an inhibiting--role in supporting the movement of industry and people into the Information Age. It is critical that policy makers recognize that the information technology industry and electronic commerce have become thriving forces in our economy because of the simple fact that they have largely been left alone to develop and grow according to the demands of free market processes. Our hope is that this resolution will encourage lawmakers to consider the holistic effect of individual legislative initiatives that are directly or indirectly aimed at information technology and electronic commerce. For this reason, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve passage of this legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I cannot think of another Member whose opinion on this I respect more than the delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She has worked very hard and been a great partner in helping to bring the Capitol city back, and ably represents that city. My friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), we have worked very hard on these issues together. As part of the Washington metropolitan region, I think he deeply cares and is concerned about the District. We come to a different conclusion about this bill. There are good things in this bill, as has been outlined by my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, and there are things in this bill that are in it that I do not like, as have been outlined by my friends on the other side. But at the end of the day, if I vote to reject this bill, I am basically voting for a no for $17 million additional dollars for the D.C. College Access Act. This is a first-time opportunity for children in the District of Columbia graduating from high school to pay State university costs, to attend State universities in other places in the country, similar to the right that the people in my State get to go to the University of Virginia or George Mason or the University of Maryland and pay in-State tuition, something affordable to them when otherwise they would have to pay out-of-State tuition. That is unreachable for many able students in the District of Columbia. So Members vote to reject that if they vote this down. They vote to reject more dollars for charter schools, which have gone a long way. Over 2,000 students have signed up for charter schools in the District of Columbia, and a long waiting list to get back in, people who want the opportunities for education this alternative offers within the public school system. We would be rejecting a $5 million study of the 14th Street bridge that can add an additional lane there at the interchanges where the Parkway feeds into that. If Members vote no, they are voting to reject that and sending it back and taking our chances. We are rejecting a $5 million Federal appropriation for the cleanup of the Anacostia River. This is critical for the city and for its economic redevelopment and comeback. Most of all we are rejecting, Congress, acceptance of the D.C. consensus budget, something put together by the Control Board, the mayor and the council, working in harmony. That is what the crux of the whole control board legislation was, to get everybody working and singing from the same page. There are some provisions in this bill that I find obnoxious, that I did not support. One is not allowing the city to sue over its statehood right, a suit I think they will probably lose, but I think they ought to have that right, since we do not give them the right to vote on the House floor, something I think the city deserves. That was in the bill last year. I do not think by itself that that means we should reject all of these other items in the appropriation bill. This is not new, unprecedented inroads. This in fact was in the bill last year. The needle exchange program is something I think reasonable people can disagree about. We waiver back and forth when we hear the arguments. But this was in the legislation last year and we supported it, and the President signed it. This is not a new, unprecedented inroad. Cellular telephone towers at Rock Creek Park, this obnoxious movement into home rule was put on by the Democratic leader in the other body. Members may find that an obnoxious provision, but that was something put on by the Democratic leader in the other body. That is a first-time unprecedented inroad, but I do think by itself is not grounds for rejecting this legislation. The domestic partners legislation and the prohibitions on the funding for abortion have been in this legislation for years and years and years. This body has on a consistent basis, although many of us do not like some of these provisions, has voted for that because we did not think it overcame the positive things that have come out of these appropriation bills. Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues on this, am not happy with every provision of this bill. I stood in the well of the House and spoke against some of these provisions when they came up for amendment on the House floor. But there is much good in this bill. The fact that the consensus budget has been agreed to without the kind of tampering we have seen in this body in the past, the fact that the college access program is funded for the first year and we can get that off the ground, a $5 million study for the 14th Street bridge, cleanup for the Anacostia River, money for charter schools, money for drug abuse, these items I think make this legislation worthwhile to support. On those grounds I am going to support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill contains a number of provisions of importance to the people of my district. Two National Weather Service (NWS) programs in particular are of critical importance: the funding level for the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) Build 5, and the reductions in base operations dollars. I would ask that the Members of the conference committee support these critical programs during conference. AWIPS is a key component of the National Weather Service multiyear, multi-billion dollar modernization effort. AWIPS capabilities have enabled NWS forecasters throughout the country to provide more timely, accurate forecasts and warnings to the American people. The capability of this new technology was most recently demonstrated during the May tornado outbreak in Oklahoma and Kansas. The investment of new technology, as represented by AWIPS, has saved lives. Funding AWIPS Build 5 is crucial to the continuing success of NWS modernization. Longer lead times for severe weather warnings is but one example of the many benefits of the Build 5 program. An increase of as little as 4 minutes of lead time can mean the difference between life and death for people in the path of a tornado. I hope the Conference committee Members will also support this initiative. NWS base operations funds provide the wherewithal to staff the offices, analyze the data, gather the time critical information needed to produce the warnings and forecasts on which all Americans rely. The NWS is committed to becoming a ``No Surprise'' weather service, and the key to accomplishing that goal is a combination of the latest technology coupled with sufficient personnel to operate and understand it. Cuts to base funds cut bone, not fat, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the members to the conference committee to remember that as this legislation proceeds to conference. Mr. Chairman, the NWS is a critical federal agency. The work of the men and women at offices across the country affects each and every one of use every single day, twenty-four hours a day. Let's give them the resources needed--both in terms of personnel and technology--to continue to do the tremendous job, which we have become accustomed.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 58, disapproving the extension of emigration waiver authority to Vietnam. As Members know, last year the President granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik's condition, but not much really I think has been cited or documented in that last year. Boat People SOS, an organization located in my district, has informed me that there is rampant corruption in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government and it continues to exclude thousands of former political prisoners and former U.S. Government employees from participating in the U.S. refugee programs. On average, an applicant has to pay $1,000 in bribes to gain access to these programs. In a country where the average Vietnamese's salary is $250, how can an impoverished former political prisoner or former U.S. Government employee who the government already discriminates against afford a $1,000 bribe per person just to apply for these programs? Since last year's waiver, the Vietnamese government has not deemed a single case among this group of thousands to be eligible for the refugee program. Corruption exists not only in the Vietnamese government but it also undermines U.S. exchange programs as well. Our programs offer outstanding Vietnamese students the opportunity to participate and study in the U.S.; however, the Vietnamese Government excludes those students whose parents are not members of the Communist cadre. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Goodlatte/Conyers/Davis amendment to the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act because it is essential to ensuring that this legislation does not restrict the growth of Internet commerce. This amendment clarifies first that the Act does not modify or supersede the Internet Tax Freedom Act that we worked hard to enact last year under the leadership of my colleague Representative Cox. Equally important is the clarification that an injunctive relief action may not be sought against an Internet Service Provider. Indeed, enforcement approaches such as injunctions to block Internet sites can seriously disrupt lawful Internet communications, and slow the operations of a service provider's network for all other uses. In sponsoring this clarifying amendment today with my colleagues, I want to alleviate the concern I had that in its current form, H.R. 2031 could be misinterpreted as authorizing injunctions by the states against communications companies who are not involved in the shipping or importing of liquor, but are simply used by third parties for communications purposes. I want to ensure that in enacting this legislation, we do not implement a burdensome Federal enforcement action that would hamper the growth of the Internet. Not just when it comes to the sale of alcohol over the Internet, but we must consider the message we send to business--from the small entrepreneurs to large industry--when they make commercial decisions about how they use the Internet to do business. While the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act does not specifically mention the Internet, there is no doubt that it is the inmate nature of the Internet that has spurred the call for this legislation. It is my firm belief that Federal policy must use market- driven principles as the underpinning of any enacted legislation affecting the Internet. Despite the Federal Government's initiation and financing of the Internet, its expansion and diversity has been driven mainly by the private sector. Each piece of legislation that will change people's commercial behavior must be thoroughly examined and the consequences understood, lest we unleash a federal mandate or restriction that will harm the Internet's success and growth as the primary tool for communication between people and business. The Federal Government can be the leader in developing incentives to move the Internet forward as the primary tool of businesses, educators, scholars, students, and the ordinary citizen. We must ensure the no Government can hinder that development. I ask my colleagues to support the Goodlatte/Conyers/Davis/Boucher/McCollum/Dunn amendment and guarantee the continued growth of the Internet as a tool of business.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time and I particularly thank the author of this bill the gentlewoman from New York who has worked, I think, over and beyond the usual call of duty in trying to bring consensus to something very technical but I think something very meaningful to government contractors and subcontractors and sureties. I rise today in support of H.R. 1219, the Construction Industry Payments Act of 1999. This is legislation we have been involved with since the 105th Congress when the gentlewoman from New York began working with the affected industry groups to find consensus on updating the original Miller Act of 1935. I am happy to say that this bipartisan cooperation resulted in a strong bill that industry, Congress and the Federal Government can all support. It is fiscally responsible and it offers reasonable protections to all parties involved in this type of Federal procurement. H.R. 1219 amends the 1935 Miller Act which has stood the test of time very well. It has needed relatively little legislative attention or congressional oversight since its passage. Currently, the Miller Act requires a contractor awarded a Federal contract in excess of $100,000 to furnish the government with a performance bond and a payment bond. These bonds protect the government and certain persons providing labor and material for performance of that work. H.R. 1219 prepares the Miller Act for the 21st century. It should achieve its objectives without unreasonably increasing the financial exposure or placing additional burdens on the prime contractor or the surety bond producers and corporate sureties that provide Miller Act bond payments. It modernizes the act in three areas: The legislation raises the payment bond to the value of the contract award, allows receipt of notice through any method that provides written third party verification of receipt, and it prevents any waiver of the Miller Act rights prior to the commencement of the work. These three key updates of the 1935 legislation enhance the procedures and protections of the Miller Act for the government and those with rights under the act as we continue to update our procurement procedures the next century. I am particularly impressed with H.R. 1219 and the reasonable updates of the Miller Act that allow it to be particularly effective in protecting all parties in the contracting process. Not only does it preserve the authority of the United States courts to adjudicate issues under the Miller Act but it preserves the freedom of the contractor and the subcontractor to choose within their own contract the particular dispute resolution process that will govern their dispute. This is an effective reform that focuses on everyone's goal, providing the best product to the Federal Government in a timely manner. Additionally, H.R. 1219 maintains a subcontract provision that allows for requiring arbitration or another alternative dispute resolution process. A protected person's Miller Act rights would be preserved by a timely suit in the District Court that can be stayed pending the subcontract dispute resolution process. Simply put, this legislation modernizes the procedures and protections of the Miller Act, preserves the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court to resolve issues arising under the Miller Act, and respects the freedom of the contractor and subcontractor to choose their own dispute resolution process, thereby bolstering the Federal Government's strong policy in favor of alternative dispute resolution. Finally, I want to again thank the gentlewoman from New York for her willingness to sit down and negotiate on this legislation what appeared to be differences too great to overcome in the waning days of the 105th Congress. Instead this has resulted in a strong, updated Miller Act early on in this Congress. I believe the extensive negotiations between the gentlewoman from New York, myself and others distilled the key elements of the Miller Act to address and improve future situations in Federal contracting. H.R. 1219 is legislation that both enhances and preserves the 1935 legislation. This could not have occurred without a willingness to build consensus or work together. I would also like to thank the many industry organizations that agreed to sit down and come up with reasonable compromises that helped us develop the strong bill before us today. In particular, I want to thank the Associated Builders and Contractors of America, the Surety Association of America, the American Insurance Association, and other organizations that I will insert in the Record. I urge the passage of this bill. I would also like to thank Amy Heerink and Melissa Wojciak from my staff. Additional Industry Groups Who Assisted in Drafting the Miller Act, H.R. 1219, the Construction Industry Payment Act Air Conditioning Contractors Association American Insurance Association American Subcontractors Association Mechanical Contractors Association of America National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors National Association of Surety Bond Producers National Electrical Contractors Association Painting and Decorating Contractors of America Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association Surety Association of America American Fire Sprinkler Association Architectural Woodwork Institute Association of the Wall & Ceiling Industries-International Automatic Fire Alarm Association Independent Electrical Contractors Mason Contractors Association of America National Association of Credit Management National Ground Water Association National Insulation Association World Floor Covering Association

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true leader in the Federal Employees community, Robert Tobias. Since 1983, Bob Tobias has served as the President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and he has been involved with NTEU since 1968. Bob Tobias has a proud thirty-one year legacy with NTEU and he has improved the workplace for all federal employees. Since 1995 when I first came to Congress, I have had the opportunity to work with Bob on supporting federal employees and their issues. Tonight, several members of Congress from both sides of the aisle will pay tribute to Bob and his many victories at the helm of NTEU. When my distinguished colleague, Representative Steny Hoyer, and I first sent out a request for participation in an evening of Special Orders, I was overwhelmed by the number of my colleagues who expressed an immediate interest in participating in paying tribute to Bob. It is a testament to his ability to work with members of both political parties to find a common ground that protects federal employees and continues to bring our federal government into the Twenty-First Century. Every major battle that involved federal employees over the past twenty years has included Bob Tobias. He was integral to the creation of the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) in 1983, protecting the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), restructuring the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), advocating for the closure of the pay gap for federal employees, and instrumental in reforming the Hatch Act which allows federal employees to exercise their rights to participate in political activity. Bob has not only encouraged federal employees to become more involved politically at both the national and grassroots level, but has also pursued litigation as a tool to advance and expand worker interests. Bob has not only led the fight in landmark court battles, but before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, and the Office of Personnel Management. Under his leadership, federal employees won a federal court victory giving them the right to engage in informational picketing; a Supreme Court win that overturned the ban on speaking and writing honoraria; and just earlier this year, another Supreme Court victory in a critical case that established in law the right of federal employees and their collective bargaining representatives to initiate midterm bargaining. That victory gives employees the same rights that agency managers have, and, to a very great extent, levels the negotiations playing field. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, I have worked closely with Bob Tobias on numerous federal employee issues. Bob has dual goals that he has continually achieved throughout his tenure at NTEU--protecting the rights of federal employees, and ensuring that our government effectively and efficiently accomplishes its job. It has been my great honor to work with Bob in meeting those goals. As one of the primary advocates for federal employees, Bob constantly reminded us of the necessity of hiring the best and the brightest to work in the government, and the necessity of retaining those employees who have the knowledge and expertise to get the job done. He and I have worked together to keep federal employees in the workforce by making sure that they have the same rights, benefits, and protections as do their colleagues in the private sector. Before I came to Congress, I worked as high-tech executive for a government contracting firm in Northern Virginia. We made it our top priority to treat our human capital as our most valuable asset. Unfortunately, the federal government does not do that with its federal employees who often make numerous sacrifices to be in public service. Instead, it has always been more popular to ask federal employees to sacrifice pay raises, and forego benefits, or to simply perpetuate negative stereotypes of federal employees. Bob Tobias has always known this is inaccurate and he has devoted his entire career to giving federal employees a stronger voice. For many years, Bob has sought to educate the members of NTEU and federal employees of the importance of participating in the legislative process. I have had the opportunity to speak to the Northern Virginia legislative leaders as well as those who represent their colleagues from across the country at NTEU's annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C. It is apparent to me that the legislative program is thriving because of Bob Tobias and his commitment to ensuring that the voices of federal employees are heard on Capitol Hill. NTEU was one of the main forces behind passage of a bipartisan bill, signed into law by President George Bush that would close the pay gap between the government and the private sector. Since the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) became law, Bob has fought to have the FEPCA language enforced and the pay raises provided for in the law fully funded for federal employees. During the 105th Congress, Bob and I worked closely together on efforts to restructure the IRS and to ensure that the rights of both the American taxpayer and IRS employees were protected. Bob sought to make the employee's voices heard in the discussions of how to make the IRS more customer-service oriented and more responsive to the needs of the people it serves. IRS reform continues to be on-track and successful. This is in large part because of Bob Tobias' efforts to involve the employees at the agency. I am certain that he will enjoy many new successes as he pursues writing, teaching, and educating a new generation. I am personally saddened that I will no longer be working with Bob on the numerous issues that affect the many federal employees living in the Eleventh Congressional District of Virginia but I wish Bob, his wife, and his family well as he pursues new opportunities. I will miss his leadership, his commitment, and his expertise. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring Bob Tobias on his retirement as President of NTEU. Bob has been a tireless advocate for federal employees for the past thirty-one years, and I would like to join my colleagues in saluting him this evening. His dedication to federal employees and their issues is second to none. His commitment and leadership in the federal employees community will be surely missed.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular amendment. Let me just tell my colleagues why. We have been piling on the city with some very difficult issues that I feel deeply about; as well, needle exchange programs, which I oppose. I do not believe that we ought to be giving free needles to people who are committing illegal acts. The couples' adoptions, the limitation on the medicinal use of marijuana, this is something that in other jurisdictions, in Arizona and in Colorado and other States that have had referenda, the citizens have decided they want to do that. In the District of Columbia we did not even let them count the votes. However people feel about those issues, and I am conflicted on these, along with a lot of my other colleagues, what we are talking about here is the right of the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a vote on the House floor and to pursue a final judicial decree that will set their rights at this point, which have been questioned in the courts. We ask ourselves, if we cannot use city money, who is going to do this? This is city money, it is not Federal dollars. If this were a prohibition on Federal dollars going to the city, I can understand Congress might have a reason that they would want to support this, but these are city dollars. If Members do not like this, they could run for the City Council in the District and probably take a different point view, but I doubt they would be elected successfully. What we have to remember is that the relationship between the city of Washington, D.C. and the Federal Government is unique. It is described in the Constitution. It goes back to the late 1700s, when we wanted to have a Federal enclave that would not be at the mercy of any State government. It happened when some militia who had been unpaid from the Revolutionary War fell upon the Pennsylvania militia, who were in sympathy with them, and let them chase the Continental Congress across the river from Philadelphia into New Jersey. At that point, the continental Congress went ahead and said we have to have our own Federal enclave. We cannot trust any State to look after the Federal side of things and not take sides and disputes between States. As a result of this, the District of Columbia was born. Now, a lot has changed in 200 years. The city still does not have a vote on this floor, although their residents pay taxes. They can be drafted. They have served in the military. They do the things everybody in all of our States do. It has been likened that the District of Columbia is like a city, and we are the State. But my colleagues have to remember cities across this country have representatives in State legislatures in the State Capitols and have a vote. The District of Columbia does not. All this amendment does is it says, because there have been some questions raised about the constitutionality of whether the city should have a vote on the floor, that they could pursue that judicial remedy in the court system with their own money collected by their own citizens through their duly-elected leaders. With all of the other things piled on, I think the least we can do since we do not give the city a vote on the floor is to allow them to use their own money and pursue their judicial remedies the way any jurisdiction in the country can do. For heaven's sakes, if we want democracy to work in the District of Columbia, we have to nurture it, we have to allow some decisions made to be final. We have to allow the city to make its own decisions and not have every decision they make be questioned by Congress. When we do that, they are not going to make the tough decisions because they know they are going to get overriden here, and democracy will fail. For almost 100 years, the city had no elections, and we had, over the last few years, actually some problems, and we set up a control board over that. But now we have a new mayor, a new council. They are working forward. Let us let them make their own decisions. Let us not second them on everything they do. So I support the amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I have spent a lot of time on this city over the last 4 years as chairman of the authorizing committee, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent approach that he has taken in reviewing the D.C. budget and bringing it to the floor in such good shape and in such a timely manner. I will address the substance of the amendments which I think would have been made in order under an open rule, because the wording is ``no funds shall be expended,'' but we will discuss them in detail on Thursday when they come up, and I share some of the concerns of my colleagues on some of these. Mr. Chairman, the bill is right now in good shape. I want to compliment again the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think the gentleman and his staff have kept our staff well informed. They have worked cooperatively with us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, for working so closely on this too. The appropriations bill may be the lowest in dollar amounts, but historically it has generated an extraordinary amount of interest and passion when it comes to this body. While feelings on many of the questions are as strong as ever, the lack of acrimony expressed to date is a tribute to the chairman's skill in searching out to the community and analyzing the issues. I look forward to passage of this bill and a productive conference. Let me address some of the items that are contained in this bill. The $17 million for the D.C. College Access Act, which I sponsored and which has passed the House and I think will be marked up in the other body next week, is the best money we can spend on the city. It holds out hope to those high school graduates who work hard and want to go to college and fulfill their dreams, and they will not be frustrated just because they do not happen to live in a State and cannot afford in- state tuition to a State university system. Senator Voinovich held a productive hearing on this bill a few weeks ago, and I look forward to working with him and Chairman Istook and my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and others to authorizing this legislation in advance. Likewise, I appreciate the 7.5 million for a study of the 14th Street Bridge, a matter I worked on with my colleagues, the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and (Mr. Wolf), for some period of time. This is also money well spent. I applaud the $25 million in the budget for drug treatment and testing and the $8.5 million to expand foster care, and I compliment the chairman on adding this to the legislation. The $5 million to help clean up the Anacostia River is much needed, and, of course, approval of the city's consensus for tax cuts will make the District a friendlier place to live and to work and to own and operate a business. The city needs a tax base. That is why we have taken such an interest in its revitalization. Last year, we passed legislation that permitted the new Washington Convention Center to be built downtown. Working in concert with the MCI Center, we are creating a synergy to enliven the downtown area, increase tax revenues, and create job opportunities for its residents. In the 5 years I have had the honor to serve as the chairman of the District's Authorizing Subcommittee, 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 are turning this city around. The budget that we are considering today continues these efforts. I think it is a step in the right direction, and again I compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I hope this legislation will pass.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to welcome the Reverend Richard A. Lord to the House of Representatives. We all heard the prayer from the Reverend this morning. Reverend Richard A. Lord is Rector of the Church of the Holy Comforter in Vienna, Virginia. The Church of the Holy Comforter was established in 1895 and is one of the five largest Episcopal churches in the Diocese of Virginia, with over 1,700 families. Holy Comforter is a church active in youth ministry, mission outreach programs and spiritual formation for people living active and busy Northern Virginia lives. Reverend Lord grew up in Potomac, Maryland, where his father was rector of an Episcopal church for many years. He received a masters of Divinity from Virginia Theological Seminary and a masters of Sacred Theology from Yale Divinity School. Father Lord served as associate rector and interim rector of the Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, Virginia, and as the rector of churches in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, and East Haven, Connecticut. He returned to the Washington area and accepted the call to be rector of the Church of the Holy Comforter. Reverend Lord has a strong ministry of worship, education and mission, and he is also an accomplished musician. He and his wife, Debbie, have three children, Rebecca, David, and Julia. Under Father Lord's leadership, the Church of the Holy Comforter has grown dramatically and continues to be a source of spiritual and community growth in Fairfax County. We are pleased to have him offer the opening prayer today.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that I think reasonable people can disagree on. I respect my colleagues for bringing forward this amendment, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them on this particular issue at this time. As we look through history, we look back to 1873 when the salary was $50,000; it was 36 years later that salary was moved to $75,000; in 1949 it went to $100,000; 20 years later to $200,000, and it has not been changed for 30 years. We do not run for office and people do not aspire to serve in government for the money. If we did this for the money, we would be doing something else. I took a pay cut to come here. A number of my colleagues did that. We do it for the ability to serve. But the President of the United States I think arguably has the most challenging job on this planet. We do not want that individual worried about pinching pennies, worried about their financial future, the future of their kids, worried about putting their kids through college, about maintaining their homes back in their native States. We do not want only the wealthy to be able to aspire to the presidency because they can afford the other entertainment expenses that go along with this because their expenses could be cut in any given year. To give my colleagues a global perspective, it has been mentioned that the President of Hong Kong, not even an independent country, the Chancellor there gets $400,000 a year, in excess. The President of Japan, a country smaller than ours, an economy smaller than ours, $381,000 year. The President of Singapore gets almost a half million dollars a year in annual salary. The President of Switzerland gets more than our President gets today, $230,000. The President of Taiwan gets over $300,000 a year. This is not out of line. This is a reasonable, incremental increase that is commensurate with what we have done in the past to provide for our chief elected officers. I do not want government on the cheap, but I want that person in the Oval Office, of whatever party, of whatever persuasion, to not have to worry about the financial aspects of the job. I want him to concentrate on running the country. I think the increase that is in this bill, that has gone through extensive hearings, that is supported by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) of the authorizing subcommittee and others, is the right approach at this time. I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my friend for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, obviously if we had a different President and Vice President, we would have a stronger bill here today, but I think it shows the willingness of our side of the aisle to try to get some kind of bill and some kind of protections for American industry, particularly the high technology industries that are so at risk with the Y2K bug that we are here today with the bill that the President can sign, and now that he has indicated he will sign it, he has given permission to Democrats who opposed this to vote for it. I think, as I look at this, going back to what was originally offered on the House side, their original bill, this is a much stronger bill in final than was offered on the other side of the aisle in their substitute originally. I just want to highlight some of those. The conference report, for example, grants benefits in consumer and business. They excluded consumer exceptions, cases from the protections of this bill. The original bill on the Democratic side, their substitute that they tendered, liability of defendants is joint and several subject to the court's discretion in that it should be proportional for a defendant of minimal responsibility. This mandates proportional liability unless there are insolvent defendants, in which case the injured party is made whole. This is a far more complete protection to companies than was originally offered on the other side. Had we gone in with their entry, we would not be here where we are today with the strengths of this bill. The administration was willing to come further than their colleagues were on the other side of the aisle. Or this bill has a limitation on punitive damages for small businesses and no punitive damage awards available against governmental entities. Their original provision offered no protections at all in this area, at all. So we have that as well. We were able to work with the administration. We have Federal jurisdiction over class actions now Federalizing class actions with over 100 plaintiffs who are claiming more than $10 million with special notice requirements to class members. There was nothing offered on the other side when this was offered as their substitute. And we also offer in this legislation regulatory relief for small businesses, protection for individuals who cannot make their mortgage payments because of a Y2K problem. Nothing was offered in the original tender from the other side on this issue, so I am grateful for the support that we have received from the 236 Members of this body, from both sides of the aisle, who were willing to start out and support this legislation and not support the fig leaf that was offered up on the other side in the original legislation. I also want to thank the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue and Lonnie Taylor, in particular, who worked very hard on this, National Association of Manufacturers and Jerry Jasinowski and their group, the Information Technology Industry Counsel and all of my companies out in northern Virginia, dozens of them, who supported this legislation and felt that this is an appropriate, common sense route even in its weakened state as we move forward. And I want to thank the administration for coming and meeting us halfway on this and moving on a number of issues where they appeared intransigent just 2 or 3 months ago. It takes two to tango, and at the end of the day I am glad that we are all singing from the same sheet of music. As the lead sponsor of H.R. 775, the year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, I am pleased to voice my strong support for this conference report. I want to congratulate my colleagues who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and their staffs for the long hours and late nights that they invested over the last few days and bringing the White House around to making real and significant compromises that will allow this critical legislation to become law in the very near future. And I want to thank Amy Heerink, Trey Hardin from my staff who worked very hard on this as well. More than 6 weeks ago this body passed a strong and balanced bipartisan legislation that will encourage businesses across the Nation to pursue Y2K repair and remediation efforts without fear of frivolous litigation that would otherwise threaten the competitiveness of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. economy. The President said he would veto the House bill. Following passage on May 12, the weaker bipartisan compromise crafted in the Senate faced a veto after two failed cloture votes before garnering the votes of 12 courageous Democratic senators and passed 62-37. During that time, the Senate debated and rejected an offer by Senator Kerry from Massachusetts that had the support of the President, but I liken it to the House substitute offered up on the other side. It failed to win a support of even the majority of the Senate by a fairly substantial margin. I would also note that the Kerry proposal, like the substitute offered here, was soundly rejected by the year 2000 Coalition who supported the original legislation including the vast remnants of the high technology industry. Despite modifications made to the Y2K Act by the bipartisan cosponsors in the other body responding to nearly all of the President's objections, the White House still insisted the President would veto the Senate measure. The President's statement of administration policy is that he would accept the modified version of proportionate liability in the Senate bill. He opposed liability caps on directors and officers. Those were eliminated. The punitive damage caps were severely modified to only apply to small businesses with fewer than 50 employees and individuals with a net worth of less than half a million dollars; and when the defendant is found to have intentionally injured a plaintiff, by the jury, the sky is the limit. In recognizing the need to have a bill enacted into law as soon as possible, the House conferees accepted the Senate amendments to the House bill and adopted the Y2K Act with two technical amendments. But due to the White House's failure up to that point to come forward with any substantive suggestions for a compromise, we in the House urged them to come to our conferees in good faith and provide us with specific language that we would consider in order to get a bill passed and working to encourage businesses to spend their dollars on fixing the Y2K problem, not in frivolous litigation. Understanding that, the House and Senate conferees were moving quickly to produce the conference report in this legislation. We wanted to get it passed and through before the July 4 recess; and I want to congratulate the White House on recognizing the necessity for this legislation, for a vast turnaround from their earlier testimony before one of our committees where they said no such problem exists. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report for H.R. 775, the Y2K Act. Finally, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who steered this through the Committee on the Judiciary and the House. Without the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), this would not be here; and I appreciate his good work.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say when this came up, we sent the conferees last week, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and others had said, please work with us. I know there was skepticism, but at the end of the day I think we recognized that this legislation is far better than the current status quo in terms of the protection it gives to companies and people who have acted innocently and in good faith to try to fix the Y2K problem. So we took their suggestions. They have come over and have met us halfway. I think we have the final product. I would like to rehash this because I think it is important for American industry to know where the people come from as they try to decide these things, and I went through it in that manner. But we are here today because we recognize that there is a need and because they were ready to meet us halfway on that issue. So I am glad we have this final product. I am proud to stand up here as the chief sponsor of the legislation and say we have a product that I think does, in large part, what we intended for it to do when we started out. It does not do everything we wanted, for the reasons I outlined before, but again I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, they know how to reach me. They know my interest in this.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I want desperately to work something out with the administration and that has been our goal from day one. But I am not going to surrender principles, and I am not going to surrender on issues the point that we are not passing any legislation at all that does any good to the people we are trying to help. I cannot do that in good conscience. I would rather, under those circumstances, let my constituents know I did my best to help them and the President vetoed them than to come up with nothing. But we are willing to compromise our goal. Our goal and our hope is that we can work something out in this. But time is very, very short. We have been playing a delay game now for months. It cannot go on much longer. The conference will start. I hope they will address the conference, give their input, and we can work something out. But if not, we have got to move ahead.

Ms. DAVIS of Virginia

Ms. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we could be helped by our friends on the other side if instead of representing the administration they would represent their constituents and urge the administration to work towards signing a bill instead of trying to give them cover and not voting for a bill unless they approve it. I think that is what our constituents are telling me, let us put forward that. And if the administration wants to come in, we are open to negotiate even at this late hour even though they declined to come to the hearings and testify and have declined to notify and talk to our offices.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for just a comment?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, so my colleagues would not support it because the President would not support it?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friends, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), we are talking about compromising, but from their perspective, not the administration's, are they willing to support the Senate bill, basically the outlines, the parameters of the Senate bill in terms of concept, particularly in mind with punitive damages caps, or is that too far for them?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask, what is wrong with appointing conferees today? I think we can all agree that until we get the conferees in place, we cannot negotiate with anybody. So we appoint the conferees today, and I hope we will get a unanimous vote on that, and then we can argue it in conference, and, hopefully, the administration will engage. But I might add that the substitute put up by my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), was overwhelmingly rejected by this White House when it was put up before. The members of the Year 2000 Coalition, many of the members in her own district, did not support that legislation. And if that is the basis for a compromise, that is not a compromise at all.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) yielding me this time. It is ironic that we have a Year 2000 Coalition letter referred to on the other side of the aisle, quoting it as somehow gospel. When they supported our legislation here in the House, they were not quoting it then, because they opposed what this Coalition wanted at that point. They did not give this Coalition the tools they wanted. The Coalition, I have met with them subsequent to this letter. I might add, the letter was not addressed to the gentlewoman. The letter was not addressed to anyone on the other side. It was addressed to the Republican leadership, and we have subsequently had discussions with members of this group. I think that the representation coming from the other side is not quite appropriate, I think, to where everyone is. We want a solution to this problem. The difficulty is on the other side of the aisle there is absolutely no willingness, no willingness that was put forward in their substitute to put any kind of caps on punitive damages to any companies at all. Small companies, large companies, anyone. Their proportion liability was a joke. We cannot have proportion liability if, in fact, it is under the circumstances that they have outlined. What they have outlined is that if everybody can pay their proportion, then they get proportional liability. In point of fact, someone is always missing from the table. And it is a jury question, as they have defined how we get to it. It goes to a jury. And it just, I think, does not give the protection to companies that they need. I was general counsel for an IT company out in Fairfax. It does a billion dollars a year in sales. I understand the issues that are raised here. What has been proposed by the administration to date does not advance the agendas of these companies one step. Now, if the President would reengage, if he would come and sit with us or send an emissary up to work something out, we have been waiting for this for 6 months. But it was 5 months ago that John Koskinen, who is their Y2K guru, came before our committee in the House and said, we do not need any legislation on Y2K at all. They subsequently backed off that, but they have offered nothing in the way of punitive damage caps. They have offered nothing in the way of proportion liability that makes any sense today. They have offered nothing in the way that gives anybody any kind of protection that we want. If they have some suggestions, we are happy to hear from them. We know what their, quote, bipartisan substitute was that was brought up on the House floor during the debate. It got one Republican vote. That is how bipartisan it was. We got 28 for our legislation. Now, we are willing to compromise with the Senate, and we are willing to work with the President, but we have to have something on the table, and at this point they have remained silent. As the chief author of the legislation, we have had zero contact from the White House on this, despite numerous entreaties that we engage in a dialogue. American industry wants this problem resolved. The worst thing that can happen is to pass the legislation they put before the House earlier that does absolutely nothing and to have tens of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion dollars, as the Gardener Group estimated, from these companies going into attorneys' fees, litigation, or punitive damages instead of going to putting these profits into the production of new products so they can compete in the global marketplace, and instead of hiring and training new workers so we can remain atop the world economy on these IT issues. And that is what this is about. We certainly, certainly entreat our colleagues to engage in a dialogue with us, but it has to be a real dialogue. And nothing I have heard from the other side today and, more importantly, nothing we have heard from the White House indicates any willingness at this point to come to the table at all on these issues. We have a House version that is a pretty strong and a pretty good bill, and I do not just say that because I authored it, I say it because 230 Members of this body supported it and lined up behind it. We have a much, much weaker Senate version. And we are, I think, willing, in a very short period of time, within a very limited window of time, to engage in discussions with the administration and interested Members to bring about a solution to this problem. But we are not going to let the administration string this thing out for months and let this roll, which, if we left it up to them, is exactly what would happen. We have to force the issue. If a veto is the end result, it will be regrettable. It will not have achieved the goals we had coming in, and we will do anything we can to work this out. But it takes two to talk, and to date the White House has been silent. So I think we need to move ahead and appoint the conferees. I think we need to move with the Senate. If the President wants to engage in a dialogue, now is the time. This legislation has got to be out and working and in operation before we go to the July 4 recess, and if the outcome is a veto, so be it. I just hope that the administration will engage. We can put legislation on his desk that will have the vast majority, if not veto- proof numbers from both Houses, and we can show the President that the American people as well as the titans of industry want this legislation and need it, and that they will come around and work with us.