Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Reuse Technology Adoption Program, RTAP, assists the military services and defense agencies through the reuse of computer software, originally developed for older defense systems, in the development of new defense systems. For fiscal year 1998, Congress provided $2.5 million to continue RTAP as a part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Computing Systems and Communications Technology program. Advanced software engineering techniques and training developed under the RTAP program have contributed to the reuse of software and programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22, the EF-111 aircraft, the small ICBM, the global positioning system, and the Comanche helicopter. Other RTAP products have also been used in the software technology for Adaptable Reliable Systems programs and by the Institute for Defense Analysis. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Reuse Technology Adoption Program will result in lower software development and acquisition costs, increase the quality and productivity of software intensive systems, and assist the Department of Defense in developing more efficient and cost effective systems for our Armed Forces.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment offered by my colleagues, Representatives J.C. Watts (R-OK), Jim Moran (D-VA), and William ``Mac'' Thornberry (R-TX) that will help provide a portion of the military retiree community with affordable, accessible, high-quality health care by allowing them to join the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This amendment authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to conduct a demonstration program to enroll Medicare-eligible military retirees in the (FEHBP). The cost of the demonstration program is offset by the sale of the National Defense Stockpile materials. Furthermore, this demonstration project features a three-year program located at 6-10 sites around the nation. It will provide coverage for Medicare eligible military retirees (age 65 and above). This amendment will also cap costs at $100 million per year. Mr. Chairman, although adoption of this amendment falls far short of our original commitments to our veterans. I believe that the passage of this amendment will bring a step closer the promise of lifetime health care made to career military and retirees is kept and I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. It is very much the same set of issues, but it does not mean that it could not happen and this body would be deprived of that. And so, for that reason, at this point I am trying to draw the gentleman out a little bit further in terms of his other concerns with this bill that could be perfected in a way that he could address this and support the legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Well, let me just reply to that. We can do that, but CBO cannot really address anything but the fiscal costs. The benefits are really not within their purview. It is not within their expertise. This has not been something we have traditionally assigned them to do. That is what makes the gentleman from California's amendment more difficult to put in this body, although I think that the goal of it is one which I can sympathize with.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say this amendment is a little contrary to the underlying purpose of this legislation.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has some merit with this, although the experience on this legislation with unfunded mandates, as it pertains to State and local government, has not raised the specter of problems that the gentleman from New York suggests in his comments here where we have had the opportunities, through amendment, to raise these objections. I think over a total of five times this was raised in the last Congress, and it has not been dilatory, has not deprived this body of the opportunity to debate fully the merits and allow the House to debate the particular mandate on the merits. The theory of this bill, the actual practice we have seen in the unfunded mandates bill that has worked well, is to give committees an incentive to do their work up front before bills ever reach the floor. By making points of order not apply to amendments sends the message that it is all well and good to do the work on the floor and not in the committee. That is a concern. I think the gentleman does raise some interesting points that have intrigued me, that, should we accept this amendment, that in point of fact in a number of instances we might be able to have a more full and straightforward debate on the amendment. The question is, if this is a gutting amendment, which is what I am afraid the gentleman is indicating to me, I would be prone to be against it.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. So this would not make the bill acceptable to the gentleman?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to ask my colleague from New York, if this amendment were to pass, would the bill be acceptable to the gentleman?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I share the gentleman's concern. That has not been our experience, of course, with the unfunded mandates bill as it applies to State and local government.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. But the burden would be on the Member who raises the objection to show the $100 million threshold as being met. They would have to come armed with those costs and do their homework ahead of time. This could not be raised in a willy-nilly fashion without the appropriate substantive work showing that this would have a $100 million cost impact on American businesses.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. As an original cosponsor in both this Congress and the 104th Congress, I am enormously proud that we have been able to bring this bill to the floor in a bipartisan manner with the support and cosponsorship of over 270 Members. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has done a tremendous job in garnering support for the Ricky Ray Act and ensuring that it come before the full House today. I also express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well. I also want to recognize the hard work of the students at the Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, Virginia, on behalf of the thousands of hemophiliacs suffering from AIDS. They have dedicated themselves over the past couple of years to winning passage of this legislation and are now witnessing that democracy does work. As my colleagues know, this legislation is named for Ricky Ray, a young boy from Florida who died in 1992 of hemophilia-related AIDS that he contracted through the use of blood-clotting products. Approximately one-half of all hemophilia sufferers were infected with HIV through the use of blood-clotting products between 1980 and 1987. The Federal Government has a shared responsibility for this tragedy because it failed to fulfill its responsibility to protect the Nation's blood supply and to regulate the safety of blood products. The Ricky Ray bill gives a one-time payment of $100,000 each to about 7,200 hemophiliacs, about half of whom are still surviving, who were infected with the AIDS virus from blood-clotting agents between July 1, 1982, and December 31, 1987. It also implements a sunset provision after 5 years from the date of the bill's enactment. Passage of this legislation will mark a defining and critical moment in the lives of many innocent AIDS sufferers, not because of the relatively small amount of money they receive but because of the peace they and their families will have in knowing that their government has taken responsibility for what happened to them and is attempting to compensate them for their suffering to the extent that we are able to do so. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ricky Ray bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, 1998, the Fairfax City Professional Firefighters and Paramedics Association, Local 2702, is celebrating their 20th Anniversary. No matter what the emergency is, their members are committed to providing outstanding emergency services to those in need. They are dedicated to fulfilling their organization's goals of saving lives, preserving property and the environment and ensuring the health and safety of our community. Local 2702 was officially chartered on May 16, 1979 as a local union of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The 22 charter members were: Dennis Rubin, Larry Retzer, John Boon, Joel Hendelman, Mike Kalasanckas, John Long, Dwaine McCollum, Donald Barklage, Jr., Robert Keith Cunningham, Joseph Toy, Thomas Schwartz, Jeffery Sheriff, Joseph Bailey, George Brown, Charles Johnson, George Klumph, William Burris, Kenneth Hill, Dennis Rust and Gary Jones. Since their inception, they have been led by strong leadership focused on ensuring that their department has the personnel and resources to safely and efficiently perform their jobs of helping the public. Dennis Rubin, John Boon, Ken Hahn, Richard Miller, Joel Hendelman, Frank Hall, and Jay Callan have served as President. Today, President Adrian Munday leads Local 2702 in serving the needs of the City of Fairfax's 20,000 residents. The members of local 2702 respond to an astounding 8,000 fire and emergency calls a year. That's an average of 22 calls a day, which equals to almost one call per hour. When not answering calls for help, Local 2702's members spend countless hours in the community teaching fire prevention, CPR, and other safety courses, conducting home safety inspections, installing fire detectors, and conducting child safety seat inspections. Furthermore, they support several charities, such as: Aluminum Cans for Burned Children, Muscular Dystrophy Association's Fill The Boot Campaign, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts of America, Fairfax Little League, Braddock Road Youth Clubs, the International Association Fire Fighter's Fallen Fire Fighter Fund, and Heros Inc. Local 2702 also answers the call for help from other Fire Departments in need around the country during times of crises. Last year, when North Dakota was devastated by rushing waters of a terrible flood, Local 2702 spent several days running calls for many of their fire departments so their fire fighters could return to their homes to be with their families and salvage their homes. When Hurricane Andrew touched down in Homestead, Florida, Local 2702 collected clothes and helped rebuild homes in this ransacked area. After the tragic bombing of Oklahoma City, Local 2702 provided financial assistance to families with children injured by the blast. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I salute these heroes of public service. For all their extraordinary services, we owe the members of Local 2702 a debt of gratitude.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3534, the Unfunded Mandates Information Act of 1998. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply serve as a clarification of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, of which I was a primary sponsor in the 104th Congress. This amendment is necessary due to the Congressional Budget Office's interpretation of an important provision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in a way that is inconsistent with the intent of Congress. The CBO interpretation has a significant impact on the States. The definition of ``Federal Intergovernmental Mandate'' as drafted under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was specifically intended to include Medicaid and other large entitlement programs and efforts to impose new Medicaid mandates without new flexibility. However, when asked to review the President's proposal for a cap on the Federal share of Medicaid spending per beneficiary, CBO determined that the proposal did not contain a mandate as defined by UMRA, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. According to CBO, this was because States currently have the flexibility to amend their own financial and programmatic responsibilities by reducing some optional services or by choosing not to serve some local optional beneficiaries. This interpretation is at odds with congressional intent. In passing UMRA, Congress intended that the flexibility required under clause (ii) be new flexibility, concomitant with the mandate-imposing legislation, for States to amend their responsibilities to provide ``required services'', not optional services. However, because the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, as passed, does not say new flexibility specifically, CBO believes its interpretation is consistent with the law as written. My amendment is supported by Ohio Governor George Voinovich, the National Governors' Association, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities. As a former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I recognize the incredible burdens placed on States and localities by unfunded mandates, of which I just spoke during the general debate, and I would urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will address my amendment a little later. Let me say, taxes are pretty straight forward, put a tax on business or people, and unfunded mandates are hidden taxes. The purpose of this is to let the public know and Members recognize when they are putting these mandates, unfunded mandates, that have the effect of being hidden taxes on companies just as we have done on local governments. Unfunded mandates over the last decade drove up the cost of local governments by the tens of billions of dollars. Congress passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in 1995, because Congress for too long prior to that had been passing the bills and then passing the buck on to the localities who would then have to either raise local taxes. And generally these were property taxes, sales taxes, much more regressive taxes than the Federal income tax, or, in some cases, if they were financially strapped, these unfunded mandates, in driving up the cost of local government, they would have to substitute Washington's priorities for their own priorities. We felt that was wrong and, as a Congress, by overwhelming majorities 2 years ago, 3 years ago were able to pass unfunded mandates reform. And only 5 times in the last Congress, 5 times were objections, points of order even raised on the House floor. At least in two of those cases, we proceeded, after voting to overrule the point, not to sustain the point of order. This bill takes unfunded mandate reform to the next level, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just talked about, something we would have liked to have done 3 years ago, but some Members thought it was too ambitious or even too radical. Now that we have had some experience dealing with State and local governments, I think we are more comfortable. Unfunded mandates, though, to America's businesses often lead to higher prices for American consumers, and they will now be subject to points of order if the cost to American businesses are over $100 million. Remember, American businesses are now engaged in a global economy. We are competing against Japanese companies, German companies, Mexican companies, Chinese companies. If Congress wants to add additional mandates on American businesses, often these mandates will not apply to these foreign businesses as they manufacture goods. That has the effect of raising America's businesses' costs, of making them less competitive, leading to job losses or, in many cases, driving jobs offshore. That has the net effect of unfunded mandates on American business. There may be times and there may be circumstances and there may be priorities where we as a Congress decide it is important to do this because of what we are trying to accomplish. But this at least allows Members to not only recognize what those costs are, but to have an affirmative vote ongoing and moving forward with this cost. This is an important step for America's businesses, something that has been addressed widely by a number of business organizations and, I might also add, by State and local government organizations. Finally, let me just note, Congress does not lose any flexibility to enact any of these mandates, but we will have the information before us. We will have to act in an affirmative manner, recognizing that we are imposing basically a hidden tax or an unfunded mandate on these businesses. I am proud to be here tonight and support my friend in this legislation and hope the House will act favorably on it. I will address my amendment during the amendment period.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think this has the best of all worlds, according to the gentleman from Virginia. This has the Moran intellect and the Davis name, and when we put the two together, from what I hear the gentleman saying, it is a ``can't lose'' amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We could call it the Moran-Davis, Davis-Moran, Dreier-Moakley unity bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Inova Fairfax Hospital Program, Life with Cancer, for its fine work helping cancer victims and their families cope with the disease and enhance their quality of life. Life with Cancer is entirely supported by community funds and offers its programs free of charge to patients in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area and their families and friends, regardless of where the patient is being treated. The group was started at Fairfax Hospital in 1987 by a widower whose wife had died of cancer. He was left with two children and a great deal of emotional pain. He used his two-year experience of coping with his wife's illness and its impact on his family to create a program to support families affected by cancer at all stages of the illness. The resulting program is one of the most comprehensive of its kind in the United States. Because the program is based in Fairfax Hospital, which treats more cancer patients than any other hospital in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area, program staff are able to work closely with highly skilled physicians and allied health care professionals to provide the most beneficial services to patients. Life with Cancer supports family members through the duration of the cancer experience by providing the most current information on cancer diagnoses, treatment, and psychosocial impact, assisting children and adults who have lost a loved one to cancer, collaborating with other health care professionals to assure that patients and their families are receiving comprehensive and coordinated services, and educating the community about cancer and its impact. Classes available to patients and their families include: I Can Cope, a seminar discussing basic facts about coping with cancer, Look Good . . . Feel Better, for patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation treatments, Spirituality and Cancer, to help families reexamine their religious beliefs given the cancer experience, and Humor and Cancer, to help patients and family members use humor as a means to strengthen their mental attitude toward cancer. Ongoing emotional support is provided by support group and family meetings. Short-term counseling and crisis intervention is available for individual assistance. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in thanking the staff and volunteers of Life with Cancer for their dedication to helping cancer victims and their families. This valuable program, which should serve as a national model, provides a much-needed network of support for those dealing with the impact of this devastating disease.