Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it is not only just a clarification, it is in the spirit. I think the most obvious example was the case of malfunctioning equipment in a hospital that injures a patient. If a defendant's doctor or hospital made a claim against a responsible third party, this amendment makes sure that that party would not be able to claim the liability protections under this legislation that are available to the doctor or the hospital. It is a good clarification. I commend the gentleman and ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I think this guts the purpose of the bill. Without a punitive damage cap, one lawsuit can bring down some of the major emerging technology companies in this country. The argument that it will be vetoed and, therefore, we have to let the White House write the bill I think is strained at best. How many times have my friends from the other side of the aisle heard this language and then heard the administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, withdraw and end up signing a bill? We overturned the administration on one tort liability issue in securities litigation. We overturned them because we had the votes here to do that as well. If we start thinking about whatever the White House says we are going to do, then I think we can pack it up and go home, and we can forget about the separation of powers. I think at the end of the day we are going to have a bill that the White House can sign. I think we will have a bill that will be good for American consumers, but we are also going to have a bill that protects American business. One lawsuit without a cap on punitive damages can bring a major company down. It can bring them down. It can throw their employees out on the street, as they would have to fold up their tent. It will drive up the cost of insurance and drive up the cost of settlements. In driving up the cost of settlements on these suits, it spurs more lawsuits. So where are we? We are where a number of groups and individuals who testified before these committees talked about. Estimates of anywhere between tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars, upwards of a trillion dollars of profits from these companies, instead of going to their employees, instead of going to get new products so we can compete in the global marketplace, can be tied up in litigation, lawsuits and attorneys fees, bringing down the fastest-growing segment of American economy. That is what this is about. This amendment just guts the purpose of this bill. We may as well pack it up without some kind of punitive damage cap. But I think the most disturbing thing about this amendment is the fact that, for small businesses, we offer the protection of a $250,000 punitive damage cap. For small businesses, they take that out as well, and small business would be subjected to very high caps. This jeopardizes every small business in America, which I think is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Chamber of Commerce representing large and small businesses, are so adamantly opposed to this amendment.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, just to set the record straight, the high-tech industry rejects the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and they support the underlying bill H.R. 775. That has been signed and put into the record by a number of representatives of the software industry and the information technology industry. In addition to that, I want to thank the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the NFIB for putting together a coalition of groups that have helped us in lobbying and getting support for this legislation and making Members aware of the consequences if we do not act in this body on this legislation in a timely manner. Now, we have heard a lot of talk today about we need to solve this on a bipartisan basis, and I agree with that. This is the beginning of a long trek. It is not the end. And we look forward to working with our colleagues that maybe could not find themselves able to support this legislation and hope we can bring them on board and the administration on board as we move forward. But we have a bipartisan bill. It is H.R. 775. There are numerous Democratic and Republican sponsors and cosponsors of this legislation. What we have before us now is a partisan substitute. If we are really going to solve this problem together, we need to work together and bring Members of both parties together. The whip from the other side talked about taking personal responsibility. Our legislation takes personal responsibility. Under the underlying bill, if they are damaged in a Y2K suit, they get their full economic damages. In fact, they can get three times their economic damages in punitive damages or $250,000, whichever is larger. We do not take that away. What we do take away is one of the three legs of this legislation, and that is unlimited damages, for whatever reason, for punitive damages that drive up insurance costs, damages that drive up the cost of settlement and encourage more lawsuits and discourage companies from trying to fix the problems right now that we are attempting to solve in Y2K. Because companies will not fix a problem if they can be held liable down the road, even if they better that product should it fail. Joint and several liability also would pick the pockets of people who are improving these because they happen to be a little wealthier and easier to reach. Our legislation keeps proportional liability. This is a key underpinning of this legislation, to reward companies for making products better, to reward companies for trying to come in and make a product better so that it will deliver on Y2K, as complex or as messed up as it might have been when they initially visited it. And finally, the third leg is notification. And this is a consumer issue. If I am going to be represented in a Y2K suit, I ought to be told by that attorney I am being represented in court before they cut a deal on my behalf and decide what kind of damages I get. Our legislation simply says that if an attorney is going to represent me in a class-action suit, I ought to be notified of that and have the opportunity to opt out of that. That is fair consumer legislation. That is not radical tort reform. That is something that every consumer ought to have. And we require that, as well. I want to commend my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for working together with this in a bipartisan way. I want to continue to invite the administration, the President, and the Vice President to work with us on this legislation to make it work for everyone, and again, thank the business groups, particularly the Chamber of Commerce, which represent small businesses and large businesses nationally that will be plaintiffs and defendants in this legislation, for helping us put this together. I ask for rejection of the fig leaf of a partisan substitute and support of bipartisan H.R. 775.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, when I hear them saying let us come to common ground, it means give us our way. There is nothing common about it. I had hoped that by the time we had passed this in the Senate we could all sit down and work with the administration, who until 2 days ago was saying publicly there was no problem. John Koskinen, the administration's guru on Y2K, said we do not need any legislation, and just in the last 24 hours they have come forward and admitted, yes, there is a problem and they are trying to find a political fig leaf to cover it. This substitute, the Conyers amendment, does not do the job. Joint and several liability is an important concept. Companies like Intel, NetScape, Oracle, companies in the Silicon Valley, this legislation, I might add, is supported by the semiconductor industry, the Software Information Industry Association, Business Software Alliance, the Technology Network, TechNet, the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Information, Information Technology Association of America. They want real legislation, not a fig leaf that does not do the job, that is feel good. What has happened in this case is the larger companies, the Intels, the Oracles, if they touch the problem, if they make it better than it is now, they can still be held liable for the full amount in a class action suit with joint and several liability, because they are held as a defendant. Proportional liability, I think, is a much better range. If someone touches a problem and makes it better, they should not be held liable for the full amount just because they happen to be the deep pockets, just because they happen to have the cash on hand. To take the money from these companies that they should be investing in new products so that they compete on a global marketplace, and instead put it into litigation, into settlement, into attorneys fees, really undermines where we have gone as a country in this new economy and where we are in the global marketplace. This guts the bill altogether, this amendment. They talk about this being a part of the Contract with America. Actually, this is a laser shot that goes after a problem that exists once every 1,000 years. The Y2K problem is unique because of the interconnectibility of computer systems, and the fact that someone can have their whole system, they can flush it, they can test it, it can be 100 percent clean and then some other group gets into it and talks to it that is not Y2K compliant, that they never could have conceived of could have used it, comes in and messes it up, and yet the group that is actually innocent can be held liable for the total amount. That is what this amendment is, it holds companies who are trying to improve it. In addition to that, this makes companies reluctant to fix the problem because if they fix the problem, if they come in and help a computer system and it is still not 100 percent functional, if they happen to be the deep pocket and they are a defendant, under joint and several liability they can be liable for the whole thing. What that means is the problem is not getting fixed or if they are getting fixed the larger companies are going to the smaller companies and having them write off indemnities and the like that just do not make any sense in the ordinary marketplace. Make no mistake about what this amendment does. It guts the bill and it is a political fig leaf. They talk too about the amendment does not impose a meaningful duty to mitigate damages. This amendment does not. This amendment provides that a plaintiff cannot obtain damages that it could have reasonably avoided in light of information that it received from the defendant. Unlike the bill, the substitute does not create a mitigation requirement if the plaintiff becomes or should have become aware of the information from other sources. That is a loophole one can drive a mack truck through. It does nothing in terms of mitigation in this case, unless there is a formal notification, which so often is many months later, even though they can go publicly and acknowledge these things over television, the media and other areas. If someone could easily avoid damage by taking a simple step which he or she should be aware, it is perverse to allow that person to avoid taking those steps and to suffer damage and then to sue a third party for compensation when they should have known, and probably knew, because they were not officially notified. This is a bad substitute.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, just to clear a couple things up, small businesses support this legislation. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is scoring this as a key vote. They represent both potential plaintiffs and defendants in these actions. Secondly, nothing here we are doing disallows a consumer or an injured party from suing for full damages. What they do not get are massive punitive damages. They can get up to $250,000 in non-economic damages and three times actual damages. But they are not barred, as some State legislatures do, from collecting damages. Some States treat this almost as an act of God where they get nothing. So I think that clarification is important.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side in trying to get together on this issue because I think they recognize, and even the White House has come to recognize just in the last couple of days, that the fastest growing segment of the American economy, our technology sector, is jeopardized by an occurrence of an infusion of litigation on Y2K liability in this. This is complicated. We can have a computer system that is Y2K compliant, but because it is so interconnected to other areas, even when we test it we will end up talking to other areas over the long term. We could not test that it could disrupt that system. A clear and convincing standard is needed, frankly. I would make that argument as opposed to the old preponderance of the evidence where somebody is hurt and somebody pays. That is what makes this so unique. That is why we are not trying to rewrite tort law in its entirety. Mr. Chairman, I just address a few of the issues that have been raised on the other side. We have heard the usual arguments about a sledgehammer approach, about extreme measures, but these are approaches that this House has voted for before, Members of both parties. We talked about a real bipartisan solution. What that means is something the President will sign, something the Trial Lawyers Association will agree to, something that they can try to please everyone. But that does not solve the problem. The problem of those solutions is it does not get to the heart of what American companies are about to face. We are in a borderless economy, worldwide economy, today. Fastest growing segment of our economy: the technology sector that is jeopardized by lawsuits; and this jeopardizes whether it is a trillion dollars or whether it is tens of billions of dollars, which is what asbestos is. These are profits that could be channeled into new products to continue to keep American companies competitive in the global market place, and instead they are going to be bogged down in protracted litigation, in attorneys' fees and settlement costs that do not need to be. Under our legislation, everybody who is injured gets their damages. They can prove it, they get their damages. They can even get three times their economic loss in punitive damages, or $250,000, whichever is the most. We are not depriving anyone of anything. The gentleman from Michigan made a comment that reasonable efforts by the defendant will bar the incurrence of damages. That does not happen at all. It just caps punitive damages. It just takes away a doctrine, joint and several liability, that in this very interconnected world where we have embedded chips and the like and it is very difficult to place, allocate, blame, will not bring down large companies because they happen to have the deep pockets and because somebody else might have messed up a problem 25 years ago and they cannot find them today. Even the administration in their letter recognizes that perhaps some use of proportional liability may be appropriate in this as long as the defendant could get full damages from the defendants that they could find. The language: We have to escape an administration veto. We are not running cover for anybody here. We are trying to pass legislation. If we have this language, we never would have gotten the securities litigation damage where this House overrode an administration veto, or just a couple of years ago. What we want is commonsense litigation against the heart of this problem, and that is we are taking the fastest growing part of our economy, we are putting it in jeopardy, and what that does on the worldwide marketplace wherein other countries, they do not face the litigious society that we do here, where they can continue to grow and prosper and produce jobs and keep the economy humming. Ironically, many of the individuals who oppose this legislation in the administration will not be here when we see the results of not enacting this legislation down the road. They will be blaming people who are then in office because of legislation that is passed today. Our job is not to necessarily escape an administration veto, particularly in a bill that goes through the House for the first time. We overrode the administration on securities' legislation. We are not going to let the trial lawyers or any single interest group write this bill. Our job is not to provide cover to any political entity in this. It is to write a commonsense bill that gets the job done. Small businesses are both plaintiffs and defendants in this. Small businesses are hurt if they cannot sue and get damages under the instances described by the gentleman from Massachusetts, but they can sue here and get full damages. They get their economic damages. They can get a modicum of punitive damages as well. That is why the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business organization in the country, endorses this legislation. That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, made up of large and small organizations, endorse this legislation. That is why I asked unanimous consent this be placed into the Record. The credit unions now endorse this legislation, H.R. 775, because they are small businesses that recognize that, without this kind of relief, their businesses can be brought down, they can go bankrupt, and their customers and their employees are then out on the street. I also will put into the Record a number of Chambers of Commerce and business entities and local groups from National League of Cities on. CUNA & Affiliates Washington, DC Memorandum To: Governmental Affairs and Political Specialists. From: Richard Gose and Karen Ward. Re: Late Breaking News on Y2K and Gaps Conference Call, Wednesday, May 12th Date: May 11, 1999. late breaking development--house to vote on y2k liability legislation tomorrow, may 12th Today, the House Leadership decided to put H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, on the floor May 12th. According to the Rules Committee, the legislation will be considered under a ``modified closed rule.'' Six amendments will be voted on--CUNA urges Yes votes on three amendments: Davis (VA) which defines the types of damages recovered under the bill and changes the effective date of the legislation to January 1, 1999; Moran (VA) which exempts all claims arising from a personal injury suit; Jackson-Lee (TX) which clarifies language regarding notification; and a Yes vote for final passage. Due to the very technical nature of this legislation, we feel that it would be most appropriate for league staff and only selected credit union leaders to lobby their legislators for passage of this bill. Any calls that can be placed to House members' offices tomorrow morning would be very helpful. gaps call on senate bankruptcy vote As you saw in this afternoon's Call to Action, bankruptcy reform is headed for a floor vote in the Senate possibly, as soon as next Monday. We will be holding a GAPS call tomorrow, May 12th at 1:30 pm Eastern Time to discuss our lobbying and grassroots strategy for this bill. We hope that you will be able to join us for this call which we expect to be relatively brief, with the first half used for an update from our lobbying team and the second half reserved for questions and discussion. The call-in number for the call is: 1-888-243-0810. The confirmation number is: 1551181.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does several things. First of all, it changes the effective date of the legislation from the arbitrary date of February 22, 1999, the date of the final draft, to January 1, 1999. We think this makes sense. Sections 201(a) and 202(a) of the bill addresses a Year 2000 action involving contracts as of the date of January 1, 1999, as the effective date of those actions. This language would make all such actions consistent with that date. Changing the effective date of the overall legislation simply makes H.R. 775 consistent within itself. In addition, the Senate version of the legislation, S. 96, has already changed its effective date to January 1, 1999. So this action will aid in the consistency and ease for enactment as the two Houses get together and iron out any difficulties in the legislation, so we would make that consistent. The second part of this amendment completes a needed definition to the term ``damages'' that was left out of the bill. The amendment defines damage to mean punitive, compensatory and restitutionary relief. The bill clearly proposes to require detailed pleading of the bases of Year 2000 lawsuits to reduce claims that could have been avoided by a plaintiff's own timely actions and to curtail the recovery of money damages in designated circumstances. The intent here is to be broad, but there is a type of monetary relief that the term ``damages'' generally does not include. Many States allow awards that are restitutionary in nature, allowing plaintiffs to recover money that is not based on a proven loss but on what it will take to make the plaintiff whole. This language is more inclusive and allows a broader definition of damage, something I would hope the other side would accept. This amendment will clarify that restitution and damages accomplish the same purpose for the purposes of this bill. This will clarify the point for courts on down the line so that a bill that is designed to limit litigation does not spawn more of it because of confusion over definitions, and it makes it consistent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, many of the issues that have been brought to mind by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), apply to the February 22 date as well, which is currently in the legislation. Any litigation that commenced after that date, the same concerns that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) raises would apply to that. So whether it is February 22 or January 1 really does not make any difference for the majority of those concerns. What this does do is that litigation that is filed between January 1 and February 22 would come under the ambit of this legislation, and it is that window of 6 weeks or 7 weeks where there may be pending legislation that would be affected under this, but as to the other concerns, regardless of whether this amendment passes or not, his concerns I think remain. We, of course, need an enactment date. We are trying to make it internally consistent so we do not have one day for enactment for contracts that were entered into and another for tort. We just think this makes it more internally consistent at this point. Again, it is consistent with the Senate version that is currently pending there. In addition to that, I would hope the gentleman would not have any problem with the second part of this amendment that talks about the term ``damages'' and broadens that in a way that I think clarifies it with existing State law.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me also thank the gentleman for making the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas in order. He can see the gratitude he gets, the vote on the rule, but we have tried to try to streamline this and make this an appropriately structured rule where both sides to this argument get their substitutes, they get their amendments in, and we can have an honest debate here on the House floor over exactly how to best remedy this Y2K situation. Let me make a couple of comments going in: First of all, the fastest growing part of the American economy today is our technology sector. They are leading the way in the stock market, in terms of job production, in terms of producing tax revenues, and we are threatening this area with Y2K lawsuits over something that, in many cases, these companies are doing everything they can to rectify, and sometimes it is beyond their means to control. For example, one can have their system perfectly cleaned up, they can have tested it, it can work, and then somehow someone who they never interacted with because of the interconnectivity of this ends up connecting with them, communicating with them, and it brings their system down. And under this legislation, even though they really had nothing to do with the problem except having a computer modem where someone could talk to them, could communicate with them, they could be held liable for all of the damages that may ensue, plus punitive damages of an unlimited amount. That is not fair. But not only is it not fair, it threatens the fastest-growing part of the American economy. In a time when our technology sector is leading the way in a world economy, we threaten to burden it down, so instead of investing their profits in new products where we can remain competitive, these products, the products would not be invested in, and, in fact, money would have to be tied up in litigation, in lawsuits, in settlements, in attorney fees. Mr. Speaker, what that does to America on the world marketplace is it moves us down, makes us less competitive, costs Americans' jobs and will have long-term effects on the American economy. And, of course, the administration that opposes this legislation and others would find it will not be here at the time when we see what results are ensuing. Now we have talked a little bit about these are extreme provisions I heard from the other side that we have in this provision. Some of these extreme provisions have been voted out of this House by pretty substantial margins in other legislation before by both Republicans and Democrats, but let me talk about one of the extreme provisions. We talk in class actions. If an attorney comes forward and makes me part of a class, maybe he bought a set of toasters that malfunctions because the microchip in there was not Y2K compliant and purports to represent me. All we require is for that attorney who purports to represent me, who can settle on my behalf, cut off my access to legal system, be required to notify me so that I can have an opportunity to opt out or get my attorney if I want. That is one of the extreme provisions that they discuss from the other side because it revises existing law in some States. It does deal in some cases a little bit differently with the Uniform Commercial Code, but we have to remember we are in an information age, and a lot of the old rules are going to fall by the wayside if we are indeed going to remain competitive. Joint and several liability is an issue that even the administration has been willing to address. Their concern has been that if we go to proportional liability we may not have the real culprits and be able to hold them in line and the consumer may not be able to get their full damages. Under our legislation, if one causes only part of the problem, they are only held to part of the damages in this case, and I think that is fair. If one has a company and they try to come in and fix an information technology system and during that time they make it better but it is still not corrected and someone is damaged, they can be punished for trying to fix that. That is having an effect today on companies coming forward and being willing to fix some of these systems because they know that just by touching a system if something should go wrong downstream they can be held under the doctrine of joint and several liability, liable for all of the damages. As a result of that, companies who come in and try to fix problems are really putting down some very burdensome rules and regulations in terms of the systems they are trying to fix on the people who are trying to get the systems fixed and that hurts hospitals, it hurts small businesses, it hurts grocery manufacturers, and other groups like that. That is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses support this legislation. That is why the Chamber of Commerce and any number of business organizations who are potential plaintiffs as well as defendants support this legislation, because under this legislation, if someone is damaged by a Y2K problem they get their full damages. In fact, they can get three times their damages in punitive of the actual economic harm. They can get three times that in punitive damages, or $250,000, whichever is least. So they can move ahead and get it, but what we take away are these long-term, high end, without-cap punitive damages that some jury in some jurisdiction can bring down some of the fastest growing and productive companies that we have in this country. That is what we are trying to fix. It is a one-time problem. The Y2K problem applies to the year 2000. We will not see this problem again for another 1,000 years, at best. That is why this does not go to the heart of tort reform and we have constructed this legislation in a way that we are not trying to rewrite tort law for any and all claims, for any and all instances. We even exempt bodily harm and death and disability and those kind of issues that pertain to this. For product liability and the like, if someone causes the problem they ought to pay, but we should not jeopardize the fastest growing part of the American economy. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule on this. I think it has been fair to all sides. I would be happy to support it and would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the Town of Dumfries and its good people as they celebrate their 250th anniversary. The Town of Dumfries, located in Prince William County, has played a significant role in shaping the Eleventh District and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is an honor for me to highlight the foundations of Dumfries, Virginia. The history of Dumfries echoes the commitment to establish a new and greater world by our nation's founding fathers. I ask of you to join me as we turn back the pages of history and share the last 250 years of the Town of Dumfries. Captain John Smith first saw Dumfries as he and his courageous team of explorers sailed up the Potomac River in 1608. In 1651, Richard Turney was issued the first patent in an area that would later become ``Old'' Prince William County. Development began before 1690 as river front plantations began to take shape and commercial enterprises were established. In 1749, the Town of Dumfries was officially chartered. The directors and trustees included George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the principle figure in insisting that the Constitution of the United States of America contain the Bill of Rights. By 1759, the legislature moved the county court to Dumfries. Dumfries had grown into a major center of commerce. Dumfries' port rivaled those of New York, Philadelphia and Boston. In 1796, after several up and down decades, the merchants of Dumfries formed the Quantico Creek Navigation Company to compete with other river ports and to help facilitate the trade town's economy. During the Civil War, General Robert E. Lee brought many troops into the area to protect the Potomac River line. This brought much excitement to the area, in what had primarily become an agriculture town over the previous five decades. With the growth of America's railroad system, the economy turned to oak railroad ties as the primary means of trade. In 1872, the Town of Dumfries was officially incorporated by the state legislature in Richmond. We jump now to 1920, the King's Highway of the colonial days and Telegraph Road of the Civil War, now known as U.S. Highway 1 was overhauled to carry the north and south traffic patterns. This remained a main transportation crossing until the construction of the modern-day interstate highway system. The Town of Dumfries has continued to grow and sustain a well-balanced community ever since. In 1961, the Town of Dumfries celebrated the reinstitution of its charter. A town celebration was also held to honor the Bicentennial of the United States of America. Today, the Town of Dumfries is proud of the growth and success of its recently formed industrial park. Mayor Christopher Keith Brown, currently serving his first term, has been a lifelong resident of the Town of Dumfries. Mayor Brown has played an extremely important role in the success of the Town of Dumfries and its anniversary celebration. I know and trust that the Town of Dumfries is in good hands for the future with Mayor Brown as its leader. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring the Town of Dumfries on its 250th anniversary. The residents of Dumfries have been outstanding citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Their commitment to enhancing the greater Prince William community is greatly appreciated. I know my colleagues join me in saluting the Town of Dumfries on their very special anniversary and wish them continued success into the future.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act, a bill that authorizes the acquisition of Year 2000 information technology by state and local governments through the Federal Supply Schedules of the General Services Administration (GSA). As a former local government official and high technology executive, I recognize the tremendous burden placed on state and local governments as they work to ensure that their mission-critical systems are ready for the new millennium. Under the presistent urging of Representatives Connie Morella of Maryland and Steve Horn of California over the past four years, the federal government has sluggishly moved toward readying most federal mission-critical systems for the Year 2000 conversion. However, many are now just beginning to turn their attention to the condition of many state and local government mission-critical systems that are essential to the seamless delivery of essential governmental services on all levels of government. As John Koskinen, chair of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, has emphasized, we should all be concerned about the ability of some state and local systems to interface with Year 2000 compliant federal systems. These systems include Medicaid and welfare assistance programs. Recently, I held another hearing in the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia at which the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided an upate on the status of the District of Columbia's Year 2000 conversion efforts. The GAO reported this time that the city of Washington, DC was at significant risk of not being able to effectively ensure public safety, collect revenue, educate students and provide health care services. Despite Herculean efforts on the part of the District's Chief Technology Officer, strong private sector support, and substantial federal resources, it appears that the one thing that cannot be controlled during DC's Year 2000 compliance efforts is time. Many states and localities are simply running out of time. I am confident that a substantial number of states, cities, towns, and villages across the country are in similar situations as our Capital City. This is why I am today introducing the Year 2000 Compliance Assistance Act. This legislation is a voluntary program where the federal government will allow state and local governments to purchase Year 2000 conversion related information technology (IT) products and services off the GSA's IT multiple award schedules. Under this emergency authority, state and local governments will have one more option in the fight against time to procure Year 2000 compliance assistance in a cost-effective and timely manner. I believe that during this period of moving governmental responsibilities back to the states and localities, the federal government has a unique opportunity to provide procurement assistance to the state and local governments to help ensure nationwide Year 2000 compliance or contingency preparation. The authority under this legislation is limited to the unique nature of the Year 2000 computer bug. The authority would expire on December 31, 2002, and could only be used by state and local govenments for procurements necessitated by the Year 2000 budget bug. I look forward to working with my colleagues towards the rapid enactment of this unique Year 2000 legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the individuals and businesses who are this year's winners of the ``Best of Reston'' Awards. These awards are made annually by the Reston Chamber of Commerce and Reston Interfaith. The ``Best of Reston'' Community Service Award was created to recognize companies, organizations, and individuals who have made outstanding contributions to community service, and/or who have improved the lives of the people of Reston, Virginia. HCI Technologies, Inc. for their community outreach and leadership in Reston. HCI has been involved in a number of church activities with Faith Mission Church, Christ Fellowship, St. John Neumann, and Heritage Fellowship. HCI has sponsored intern programs associated with George Mason University and South Lakes High School, and is a major sponsor of youth programs that include Reston Youth Baseball and Softball, Basketball, and a newly created Tennis program for disadvantaged community children. HCI sponsors a monthly food drive to support those less fortunate, and has been a sponsor of the Chamber's Ethics Day for the senior class of South Lakes High School. Karl Ingebritsen for being an outstanding pillar of our community. He served as the 1st president of the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce and was the first employee and Executive Director of the Reston Association. He was instrumental in bringing Reston Hospital to our community and served on the Hospital's board of trustees until 1992. In his role as Director of LINK, Karl has worked tirelessly to improve the area's transportation by becoming a strong voice on behalf of the Reston community. Karl is steadfast in his belief that improving the area's transportation is a benefit to all citizens in the region. Basil Jeffers for his inner drive to make Reston the best possible place to live and to raise a family. Basil has been classified as a ``one man moving company.'' He's first to volunteer his hands and station wagon to anyone needing assistance as they move into a new home. A member of the Heritage Fellowship Church, Basil often brings community needs to the attention of the church. If he is unable to assist a given need, he sees that the church is aware of the situation and that they are able to provide the necessary support. Basil currently serves as the president of the PTA at South Lakes High School and served on the nominating committee for the College Partnership Program, a Fairfax County sponsored motivational program encouraging minority students to attend college. He is also involved with a Boy Scout and Cub Scout Troop. Susan (Suzi) Jones for her tireless efforts to improve the community. From serving as a board member and President of the Reston Association to Presidency of the Greater Reston Arts Center to her Community Services Board work, people throughout Fairfax County have benefited from her volunteer services. Drawing upon her human resources skills and expertise, Suzi has generously and frequently contributed her time and skills for the development of a pool of community leaders and the identification and resolution of community issues. Her contributions to the Reston community have been, and continue to be, made through her active service to a number of community organizations and institutions, including St. Anne's Episcopal Church. Alvarez LeCesne for the impact he has had on the lives of many students he's had contact with during his years in volunteer service. He is active in many area associations, including the Optimist Club, Character Counts! Coalition, St. Anne's Episcopal Church, Heritage Fellowship Church, the Medical Care for Children Partnership, and Reston Community Coalition, a community/school partnership promoting drug and alcohol use prevention. During January 1999, LeCesne chaired Reston's Martin Luther King Jr. Planning Committee for the celebration of Dr. King's birthday. Patricia Macintyre for her steadfast efforts as a community volunteer. A renowned artist, she has spent more than 30 years volunteering her talent and love of art in many forums and spaces, including art galleries, government buildings, schools, preschools, festivals and celebrations. She spent 17 years as host of ``You've Gotta Have Art,'' a weekly children's television program directed toward teaching Reston youth to appreciate art. Macintyre has spent her life working to preserve and promote the arts in Reston. Every Saturday morning she leads free family workshops in art and culture at the Reston Historic Trust Museum. USAA for its commitment to a strong work ethic, customer service, and the value of its employees' personal, professional, and family needs. USAA supports efforts to improve the quality of life in its employees' communities, affording them many volunteer opportunities. Through USAA's involvement in the community, research funds have been raised to benefit the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Arthritis Foundation, and others. USAA helps meet the material needs of our community through ongoing collection of food, clothing, books, and school supplies. USAA volunteers support education by giving their time as tutors, mentors, and speakers. A commitment to community involvement is so basic to USAA's corporate culture, that ``Public Outreach'' is a corporate ``Key Result Area.'' Jane Gilmer Wilhelm's mission in Reston and her entire career has been to be a vital, clear, caring resource for all people. She has given innumerable gifts of time and passionate presence to all our community's members from her early years in Reston as Director of Community Relations to the speeches she makes to this day, to save buses, libraries, and funding for the neediest. From infants to the elderly, from the homeless and needy, from young students to senior citizens in learning, from our various community organizations, to nature areas preserved by our founders, her caring has permeated her days. Not to mention her frequent visits with many on Lake Anne benches and her tireless volunteer work for our citizens' many concerns. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring the ``Best of Reston'' Award winners for their dedicated commitment to making Reston, Virginia an exceptional place to live and work. This year's award recipients deserve recognition and gratitude from a very grateful community.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Not at all. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what is important to note here is we are allowing local governments to come in who feel they have been undercounted, to come in with a post-Census sampling and start adding their input into that process. So if they are being undercounted in their cities, if they are going to be punished if it comes to Federal aid or punished in redistricting, they will have an opportunity at that point to have their say before the final count goes forward. That is fair to these localities, many of them that are traditionally undercounted. That is why we put more money for the advertising budget increases, that is why this legislation puts more enumerators in hard- to-count areas, that is why we have extended the census in the schools, and we have moved it up from 20 percent, which is what the administration offered, to 100 percent of the classrooms in America. Many times you reach the parents with the best count going through the classrooms and the kids in the schools. That is why this legislation asks that AmeriCorps volunteers be empowered to help in hard-to-count areas, so we can get to a solid count. That is why the governments and the NGOs are going to be given additional grants to assist in hard-to-count populations, and that is why this legislation allows Federal retirees, welfare recipients, not to be punished if we empower them and help them to get the most accurate count in history. All of these are very, very important. It is ironic that people who claim they are being undercounted would oppose these measures. On January 25 the Supreme Court ruled that sampling could not be used in the 2000 Census for purposes of reapportionment of the House of Representatives. But let me read what the Congressional Research Service report says. It says, ``A closer examination of the other parts of the court's opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as necessarily including at least interstate redistricting.'' That is why my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They lost this at the Supreme Court level, and now they want to go for it with an illegal funding mechanism for the census.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would hope that he would put in the Record the specific language he claims that would mandate that the intrastate redistricting is mandated to use these other numbers he talks about. Looking at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS-5, and I will ask unanimous consent that this report be put into the Congressional Record, they note that for the purpose of intrastate redistricting, ``the Court's opinion indicates it did not interpret those other purposes as necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting. It refers to these other purposes, noting that the census serves as the `linchpin of the federal statistical system by collecting data on the characteristic of individuals, households, and housing units'.'' The document referred to is as follows: Ramifications and Reactions sampling in intrastate redistricting Almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its decision, the opponents of sampling were claiming victory, but at the same time, the supporters of sampling were downplaying the impact of the decision, by emphasizing the narrowness of the holding. The Court held that the census statute prohibited the use of sampling for the apportionment of the House of Representatives, but declined to reach the constitutional question. The Court had even stated that section 195 required the use of sampling for purposes other than apportionment. Slip opinion at 23. The proponents of sampling viewed this as supporting the position that sampling techniques were not only permissible, but were required, in the taking of the census for the purposes of intrastate redistricting and federal funding allocations.\4\ However, a closer examination of other parts of the Court's opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting. It refers to these other purposes, noting that the census serves as the ``linchpin of the federal statistical system by collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country [cities omitted].'' Slip opinion at 24. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes at end of document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed above, Justice O'Connor based her standing analysis, at least in part, on the ``expected effects of the use of sampling in the 2000 census on intrastate redistricting.'' Slip opinion at 14. Her discussion of these expected effects appears to indicate that the Court assumed that the federal decennial census figures for apportionment would be the figures used by the States for congressional redistricting and, in many cases, for state legislative redistricting. The Court seems to think that the references to the federal decennial census data in state legislative redistricting statutes and state constitutional provisions are references to the data for apportionment of the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the threatened injury to the plaintiffs would not be redressed by the Court's decision. Certainly, the position of sampling proponents, if officially adopted and carried out, would mean that the threatened injury to voters in state and local elections had not been eliminated by the Court's decision. The issue of redressability and the possibility of a two-number census was raised during oral argument.\5\ However, the analysis in this part of the Court's decision deals with standing and not with the merits, therefore, technically, the position of sampling proponents, that sampling in intrastate redistricting is required, is not inconsistent with the Court's holdings on the merits, but is arguably inconsistent with the apparent assumptions and larger scheme underlying the holdings. footnotes \4\ Since the required taking of a traditional headcount for apportionment of the House of Representatives would make the non-response follow-up sampling moot, presumably any contemplated sampling for intrastate redistricting and funding allocation data would be similar in concept to the ICM for the undercount or the Post Enumeration Survey conducted after the 1990 Census. \5\ Oral Argument Transcript, found at 1998 WL 827383 on Westlaw (oral argument of Michael A. Carvin on behalf of the appellees in No. 98-564).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. When we mention the caucuses, the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, he is talking about Democratic members of those caucuses.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. They are all Democrats. I thank the gentleman very much. My friend has made the point, he has tried to place color where politics is. He is the one who has said this is all about politics, not us. What we are trying to do is assure a fair count for groups that have traditionally been undercounted. That is why this legislation moves from six languages that are included in the Census surveys to 33 languages, including braille, so that we can get at these hard-to-count populations that have traditionally been undercounted. If they can read the forms, if they can read them in their own language, they are much more likely to answer them. Although it is only 1.3 percent of the population that are included in these additional languages, these are groups who have been traditionally undercounted that we are trying to get at. The 33 languages come from the Census department's own advisory committee, in terms of what these languages are. That is why we are increasing the advertising.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We have one.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 1999 Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Prince William County Greater Manassas Chamber of Commerce Valor Award Winners. The Valor Awards honor public service officers who have demonstrated extreme self-sacrifice, personal bravery, and ingenuity in the performance of their duty. Significantly, this year marks the thirteenth anniversary of the event honoring members of law enforcement and fire and rescue agencies historically servicing Prince William County, Dumfries, Haymarket, Manassas, Manassas Park, Occoquan, and Quantico. There are five categories: The Gold Medal of Valor, the Silver Medal of Valor, the Bronze Medal of Valor, the Certificate of Valor, and the Lifesaving Award. The Silver Medal of Valor is the second highest award for bravery and heroism. Awarded in situations when a public safety official knowingly exposes himself/herself to great personal risk in the performance of an official act. The Silver Medal of Valor Award Winners for 1999 are: Sergeant Barry D. Childress, Jr., USMC; Hospital Corpsman Third Class Eric Scott Parillo, USN The Bronze Medal of Valor is awarded in situations where during the course of an emergency, a public safety official demonstrates judgment, ingenuity, or performance at a level that clearly exceeds that required and expected in the performance of his/her duties. May include the saving of a life that is threatened by medical or physical reasons. The Bronze Medal of Valor Award Winners for 1999 are: Gunnery Sergeant Michael W. Todd, USMC; Captain Mark L. Doyle; Driver Operator David W. Luckett; Firefighter Roger D. Pinkston, USMC; Technicians II Shawn Crispin and John Sims, Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue; Sergeant Darrell G. Steepleton and Firefighter Michael L. Skeele, Occoquan-Woodbridge-Lorton Volunteer Fire Department; Officer James E. Buchanan, Prince William County Police Department The Certificate of Valor is awarded for acts that involve personal risk and/or demonstration of judgement, zeal, or ingenuity above what is normally expected in the performance of duties. The Certificate of Valor Award Winners for 1999 are: Corporal Roberto Armendariz, USMC; Gunnery Sergeant Suzanne R. How, USMC; Troopers Douglas G. Brooks and Darrell D. Estess, and Special Agent Ron Paschal, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of State Police; Sergeant Jesse A. Noriega, USMC; Sergeant David May, Corporal Douglas Songer, Officers Carl Larry and John Murray, Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center; The Lifesaving Award is awarded in recognition of acts taken in a life-threatening situation where an individual's life is in jeopardy, either medically or physically. The Lifesaving Award Winners for 1999 are: Captain Matthew J. Noble, USMC; Emergency Medical Technician Michelle Dickison, Dumfries-Triangle Rescue Squad; Lance Corporal Matthew D. Hammond and Private First Class Jeremy A. Schenck, USMC; Officers Andrew Arnold and Pierre Costello, Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center; Senior Police Officer Nathan S. Hill, Jr., Prince William County Police Department; Trooper Eric W. Berge, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of State Police Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to send my sincere gratitude and heartfelt appreciation to these distinguished public servants, who put their lives on the line everyday on behalf of their fellow Virginians.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate and the statement of administration policy, the support from the administration. Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 858--district of columbia court employees whistleblower protection act of 1999 (Rep. Davis (R) VA and 3 cosponsors) The Administration supports H.R. 858, which would extend coverage under the whistleblower protection provisions of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts of the District of Columbia. The change would protect these employees from losing their jobs or otherwise being penalized for disclosing violations of the law or misuse of government funds or resources. Similar protection is already provided to most District employees.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 858 is a straightforward, bipartisan bill. It simply levels the playing field by providing employees of the D.C. Superior Court, many of whom are my constituents, the same whistleblower protections that are enjoyed by other city employees under the District's Merit Personnel Act. It is also in accordance with the protections which cover employees in the Federal court system. The only additional option we are providing for any claimants, for obvious reasons, is the possibility of seeking relief in either the local or the Federal courts. The reason we need this bill, and we need to pass it in an expeditious fashion, is because of an ongoing GAO study of the financial and budgetary practices of the District of Columbia courts. At my request, management practices are being included in the GAO study. On January 26, 1999, I joined with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member of that subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), in encouraging the Superior Court to urge employees who may have information useful to the GAO auditors to step forward without fear of retaliation. These assurances were provided in the form of administrative orders. We are grateful for such assurances. The bill is intended to provide statutory guarantees that can back up the court's order. It also plugs a loophole in the law that would help to ensure that Congress and others will continue to get the most candid and accurate information. It is obviously very important that when Congress asks for a GAO study, that GAO auditors be in a position to get the answers that they seek. Otherwise, Congress could be basing its subsequent oversight and legislation on misleading data. H.R. 858 would help to guarantee the integrity of the information Congress will be receiving. The D.C. Superior Court has over 1,000 employees and an annual budget of over $128 million. Whistleblower protection is by now a time-honored method of uncovering waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. It should also be noted that Title XI of the D.C. Code, which this bill amends, is the sole prerogative of Congress to change under the Home Rule Act. I would emphasize that this legislation should not be misconstrued to cast any aspersions on those responsible for the sound management of the D.C. Superior Court. We are merely backing up the Court's own directives by providing routine protections which are overdue and which could help the GAO and Congress to receive the most accurate information. The Congressional Budget Office has assured us that this bill will not affect direct spending or receipts, and I want to urge passage of H.R. 858. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of cosponsors to this bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for moving this through the Committee on Government Reform so expeditiously and my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her help in the drafting of this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. The introduction is longer than my speech, I am afraid. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 807, the Federal Reserve Board Retirement Portability Act introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill correct two technical oversights that significantly harm the ability of the 1,700 Reserve Board employees who work at the facility's Washington headquarters to pursue career opportunities open to all other Federal employees. This legislation will accord Federal Reserve Board employees, many of whom live in my District, some of the same privileges that other Federal employees enjoy. The Board currently has its own retirement plan covering employees hired prior to 1984 under the Civil Service Retirement System as well as a bank plan for those hired after that date. Those covered under the CSRS plan have had the pension reciprocity and enjoyed pension civil service portability. Unfortunately, due to a technical oversight when the Federal retirement system, the FERS system, was created, those employees covered solely by the bank plan are not allowed to credit their service with the Federal Reserve to FERS if they leave for another employment opportunity within the Executive Branch. Conversely, under current Federal law, Federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board are given portability. The result of this oversight is that Board employees may face a reduced pension that does not accurately reflect their years of service to the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, Federal Reserve Board employees may collect a reduced pension from both the FERS and the Board plan that does not equal a FERS pension corrected to reflect continuous government service. This problem hinders the career opportunities of Board employees and limits the ability of other Federal Government agencies to recruit those individuals. H.R. 807 also makes another technical correction to allow Federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board from other Federal agencies to have access to their Thrift Savings Plan. Presently, Federal employees who transfer to the Board cannot access their TSP, nor can they roll those TSP dollars over to the Board's thrift plan. Again, this harms the employment opportunities of Federal employees and limits some of the choices they might otherwise enjoy. H.R. 807 will give the Federal Reserve Board the necessary tools to attract the most qualified candidates from within the Executive Branch. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and his pinch-hitter today, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), former chairman, who endorses this legislation. It is a worthwhile bill that deserves the support of every Member. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 807, the Federal Reserve Board Retirement Portability Act introduced by Representative Scarborough and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill corrects two technical oversights that significantly harm the ability of the 1700 Federal Reserve Board employees who work at the facility's Washington headquarters to pursue career opportunities open to other federal employees. This legislation will accord Federal Reserve Board employees--many of whom live in my Congressional district--some of the same privileges that other federal employees enjoy. The Federal Reserve Board currently has its own retirement plan covering employees hired prior to 1984 under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) as well as a Bank plan for those hired after that date. Those covered under the CSRS plan have had pension reciprocity and enjoyed pension civil service portability. Unfortunately, due to a technical oversight when the Federal Retirement System (FERS) was created, those employees covered solely by the bank plan are not allowed to credit their service with the Federal Reserve to FERS if they leave for another employment opportunity within the Executive branch. Conversely, under current law, Federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board are given portability. The result of this oversight is that Board employees may face a reduced pension that does not accurately reflect their years of service to the federal government. As a matter of fact, Federal Reserve Board employees may collect a reduced pension from both the FERS and the Board plan that does not equal a FERS pension corrected to reflect continuous government service. This problem hinders the career opportunities of Federal Reserve employees and limits the ability of other federal government agencies to recruit these individuals. H.R. 807 also makes another technical correction to allow federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board from other federal agencies to have access to their Thrift Savings Plans (TSP). Presently, federal employees who transfer to the Federal Reserve Board cannot access their TSP, nor can they roll those TSP dollars over to the Board's thrift plan. Again, this harms the employment opportunities of federal employees and limits some of the choices they might otherwise enjoy. H.R. 807 will give the Federal Reserve Board the necessary tools to attract the most qualified candidates from within the Executive Branch. H.R. 807 substantially corrects these problems and it recognizes the importance of treating all federal employees fairly. When we ignore these technical oversights, we send our federal employees the wrong message. By addressing the retirement program problems at the Federal Reserve, we enhance that Agency's ability to attract and retain the most qualified individuals. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. Scarborough, Chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee for introducing this legislation. H.R. 807 is a worthwhile bill that deserves the support of every Member, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this legislation.