Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

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. 1377.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1377) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``John J. Buchanan Post Office Building''.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1251) to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 8850 South 700 East, Sandy, Utah, as the ``Noal Cushing Bateman Post Office Building''.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) introduced H.R. 1251 on March 24, 1999, designating the United States Postal Service building located at 8850 South 700 East, Sandy, Utah, as the ``Noal Cushing Bateman Post Office Building''. This legislation is cosponsored by each Member of the Utah delegation to the House of Representatives pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that enactment of this measure would have no significant impact on the Federal budget and would not affect direct spending and receipts. Pay-as-you-go procedures, therefore, would not be applicable. Mr. Bateman, honored by the bill before us, served in the Sandy City council for 20 years and was mayor for 6 years. He also served as head of the local PTA chapter and led a successful school construction bond campaign. He attained leadership positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, H.R. 1251. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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, as amended.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just add one final point and that is this, if we really want to change the culture in this city where education becomes the thing to do for high school students, where it becomes matter of fact that one goes to high school and they move on to college or higher education, this is the kind of legislation that is needed because right now it is only a dream and not an achievable dream for many. To be able to go to a quality private or State university system and have an array of choices and have that affordable to someone, we think will break that cycle and will encourage more people to go in. The contrast between the surrounding suburbs where sometimes over 90 percent of the kids who graduate from high school go on to higher education and in the city is astounding. This, I think, could help change that around by making it truly achievable. Again, I commend my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her efforts in this and look forward to prompt passage.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just note, as my colleague, this does not level the playing field for District students as opposed to other States, but it goes a long way toward that. They still have to compete to get into these university systems out-of-State as out-of-State students, which in many cases is an admissions hurdle that one would not get if they lived within that State; so they are not taking in-State slots, they are taking out-of-State slots. But should they achieve that, should they overcome that obstacle, this legislation simply says they would then only have to pay in-State. At least it makes that dream affordable for them, and that is all this legislation does. We are giving to the students in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, the same affordable educational opportunities that we are finding in the other 50 States. It is a modest step forward, but it is a very important one if we are to integrate our kids in our District with the rest of the region, have them pick up jobs we need to fill in this region. The Northern Virginia Technology Council recently estimated that there were 18,000 available jobs that we could not find qualified applicants to fill. We want the District of Columbia to be part of this regional economy as well. There is no reason that they should not be given the equal opportunity and affordable educational opportunities this legislation offers. Mr. Speaker, I am just very proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all my thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for permitting the expeditious consideration of this bill. My gratitude as well to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and all the cosponsors and those who have expressed encouragement and support for our efforts. I would also like to thank some of the staff people who have worked so hard on this legislation: My former staff director Peter Sirh, staff director and counsel Howie Denis, communications directory Trey Hardin, Anne Mack Barnes, Jon Bouker the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia's staff, and Noah Woofsy of the legislative counsel's office. Today we take a giant step forward in our quest to enhance educational opportunities in the Nation's capital. My thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, the ranking member of the subcommittee I chair, and all the others who have expressed encouragement and support for our efforts. The bill we consider today, H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act, reflects the constitutional reality that Congress is the de facto State legislature for the District of Columbia. The city by its very nature lacks the capacity for a university system of higher education as that concept is understood in the 50 States. The same choices and opportunities simply do not exist for students and parents here as exist elsewhere in the United States. This has too often led to an out-migration of population in order to take advantage of the higher educational opportunities all other Americans enjoy as residents of a particular State. A strong element in all of our reform legislation since the creation of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia has been directed at stopping the bleeding of the population out of the District. This is critical for us all, as you cannot have a healthy Washington region without a healthy city. The District has lost hundreds of thousands of residents in recent decades, particularly middle-income taxpayers. The Subcommittee on the District of Columbia has helped to lead a strong bipartisan evident in Congress to change that. Our efforts have included economic development, such as facilitating the MCI Center and the new convention center project. We have encouraged home ownership with the $5,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers. We have improved personal safety, water quality and financial stability itself. Congress can be proud of its efforts to revitalize the Nation's capital. Congress, in full cooperation with the city and the Federal Government, has in fact restructured relationships so as to have the Federal Government assume many of the functions normally performed by States, such as care for felony prisoners. This has put the District on a glide path to recovery. It is now in a better position to improve delivery of municipal services. I am pleased to commend those leading local foundations and companies that have banded together in an extraordinary and historic effort to assist District students. The legislation we are voting on today is essential to those great efforts in the private sector. It is my strong belief that this is the best money the Federal Government will ever spend in this city. Mayor Williams has characterized H.R. 974 as ``very, very important legislation not only in improving education but in bringing our city back.'' This bill can be a shining example of a bipartisan urban agenda. While giving graduates more choices, subject to the caps and limits in the bill, this legislation fully respects and leaves untouched college admission policies and standards. The bill will enable District residents who are high school graduates to attend public institutions at in-State rates in other States in the union. We have included tuition assistance grants as another option for other colleges in D.C., Virginia and Maryland. This is yet another incentive to encourage local population stability through educational enhancement. This TAG program is highly successful in Virginia and many other States. H.R. 974 helps to level the playing field for District high school graduates. I was deeply moved by the reaction to this bill as I saw it in the eyes of students at Eastern High School, not far from our Capitol building. These students need and deserve a break. They need and deserve the same opportunities that students in other school systems in other States across this land have. As the students took my hand, looked into my eyes and thanked me for introducing this bill, I knew we were on the right track. Fighting for educational opportunity legislation is one of the reasons I entered public life. I look forward to working with colleagues who share this vision for the future as we move this bill to the other body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1660. I believe it was an honest mistake. I was confused with another Davis in the House on that legislation. I do not support the legislation.

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. 1251.

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. 1191.

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, the bill just passed.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I guess the administration has been at odds with itself, because just up to a month ago Mr. Koskinen, who is their Y2K guru, was saying there was no need for the legislation. So we have the Justice Department saying one thing, the Y2K guru at OMB saying something else. But we are just happy to have them engaged in this. We look forward to working with them at the conference.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. This is a deal killer. The gentleman knows that. I would ask if the administration supports this amendment. They have opposed it in the past.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Because as a signatory to the Hague Convention, the United States is bound to follow its procedure rules, and in this particular case we do not think this rule is necessary if it is already in the law. Why would we put this in if it is already in the law? The Commission of the European Communities and its member states have expressed strong objections to this in the past because it ignores the rights of defendants in countries outside the jurisdictions of business and in litigation. It ignores the sovereign rights of countries which have different procedural rules than we do; and, if it is enacted, it is likely that other countries will also ignore the provisions of the Hague Convention and begin applying their own procedural rules to American companies whose products entered the stream of commerce abroad. American businesses stand to lose, not gain, from this provision. This makes mischief of what has been, I think, a pretty good debate and bill up to this point; and I urge that we reject this motion to recommit.