Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, anyone who drives a car in Washington, DC, knows that this city needs highway money. Practically every street and highway in this town has potholes or broken pavement. Many of the bridges are in dire need of repair or replacement. It seems like every other bridge in the District has at least one heavy metal plate stuck in the pavement to cover a hole in the bridge. The road infrastructure in the District is falling apart. The $82 million in Federal highway trust fund money is absolutely vital if the District is to reverse this trend. But, as we are well aware, a decaying transportation infrastructure is not a unique problem in Washington, DC. Many other cities face similar problems. So why should this city receive a total waiver of fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 matching funds requirements to get their highway money as the administration has asked for? The District is in this position, because of years of fiscal mismanagement. The city could not sell bonds to raise the capital necessary to meet the 20-percent match requirement, because it's bond rating is so poor. I do not think we want to reward the District's fiscal mismanagement by waiving the share requirement for 2 years. This would be unprecedented in the 39- year history of the Federal highway program and is simply the wrong direction to go in. This legislation does not grant a complete waiver and as a result, does not set such a precedent. However, I support H.R. 2017, the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, sponsored by Delegate Norton and which I have cosponsored with Members from the region. I strongly support the Transportation Committee's mark up of H.R. 2017 which is being considered on the floor today. The District is in a budget crunch--one of its own making. But, we have acknowledged the mismanagement of the past that brought the District to this position, and we have put in place a Control Board to bring financial responsibility to the city's budget. That Board is in operation and has already taken aggressive steps to get control of this situation. There will be budgetary responsibility in the future. With this bill, we are trying to respond to the immediate problem-- the District will lose its Federal highway funding by August 1, if we do not act. This waiver is part of the solution we are trying to reach in the District. We are not penalizing the city for past sins by denying desperately needed highway funds. We are deferring payment of the matching share recognizing the city's immediate cash crisis and structuring a repayment program. This is a disciplined, responsible approach. I would note also that this is not unprecedented, on three occasions in 1975, 1982, and 1991 the States were given an opportunity to defer payment of their matching share and many States took advantage of that Federal offer. Admittedly, this is a different situation, the District is requesting this deferral, but after all, the District doesn't have a State to turn to like Fairfax County might under similar circumstances. The District of Columbia, as our national city, is unique and in many ways the Federal Government must act as the State for the city. I have looked at the final bill reported from the Transportation Committee, and I heartily applaud their efforts. They have imposed financial restrictions on the District to ensure that this waiver does not become a permanent IOU to the Federal Government. Working in consultation with the District of Columbia Control Board, they have come up with restrictions that the city can live with. Finally, I want to point out that this is a regional and a national problem. Hundreds of thousands of people in this region drive through the District daily and millions of tourists travel to Washington. They have a right to visit the Nation's Capital without having their cars swallowed by a pothole, because the District Government was not managing its budget properly in the past. We are now moving toward a solution to the District's problems, the waiver proposal in this bill is one more step [[Page H 8013]] down that road, and I urge the committee to support it.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about one rider that would be stricken by the Stokes-Boehlert amendment, the inspection and maintenance rider. Mr. Chairman, right now, EPA wants to institute for northern Virginia a State-run-test-only regime for auto emissions inspections. Currently, we have 900,000 auto emissions tests conducted annually in northern Virginia at 375 service stations. What does the EPA want to do? They want to take these 900,000 tests and, instead of 375 privately run inspection stations, move them to as few as 12 State-run inspection stations. It means long lines, inconvenience, small service station workers out of work; but more importantly, what happens if during these inspections there is something wrong? Seventy-five thousand motorists failed last year. They will have to drive that dirty car to another place, get it repaired and drive it back again. How in the world does this help clean air? [[Page H 7950]] The Commonwealth of Virginia has been working with the EPA for the last 2 years to try to work out this agreement, and EPA remains inflexible on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I would love to wait for the authorization. We cannot wait; they are threatening to take away our highway money. This rider needs to stay in.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago this week, Congress created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in an effort to relieve an ailing mortgage finance system. By utilizing what works best in the private and public sectors, Congress established Freddie Mac and revolutionized the home finance industry. Since then, Americans across the Nation have shared in the success, as housing funds have become more affordable and more available. Freddie Mac has continuously expanded into new and diverse markets, financing one in every six homes nationwide. They have housed over 16 million families since their inception in 1970. In my own Commonwealth of Virginia, Freddie Mac has purchased over 444,000 loans worth more than $36 billion in its 25 years. As my colleagues are well aware, Freddie Mac keeps the supply of low cost money for housing widely available by linking mortgage lenders with security investors. It accomplishes its task by purchasing investment quality loans from primary lenders, packaging these loans as mortgage backed securities, and selling these securities to investors. Money is then available to purchase more loans from the lenders, and the cycle continues. It is important to point out that Freddie Mac accomplishes this without any Federal funding. In fact, it has been a major Federal taxpayer. In the past 5 years alone, it has paid over $2 billion in Federal taxes. Today, I would like to commend Freddie Mac for another role it plays. As a corporate citizen, Freddie Mac strives to give even more to the communities it serves through its Freddie Mac Foundation. The Freddie Mac Foundation is dedicated to brightening the future of children, youth, and families at risk. Created with an endowment from Freddie Mac in 1990, the Foundation has invested more than $8 million in nonprofit organizations serving the Washington, DC, area. Healthy families help foster healthy communities. Freddie Mac understands this and we in Congress should recognize and commend them for not only fulfilling their mission, but for taking this mission a step further. As their Chairman and CEO, Leland Brendsel, likes to say, while Freddie Mac's mission is to make the American dream of decent, accessible housing a reality, its foundation and its employees work to turn houses into healthy homes for children. They do this throughout the country, but we in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia have been particularly blessed by their presence. In Virginia, one example of particular note is their long-standing partnership with Hunters Woods Elementary School in Reston where the Foundation has committed almost $200,000 and the employees have committed thousands of hours of time working with the kids on their special needs. The entire area will benefit from a recent Freddie Mac commitment of $1 million to help establish a Child Protection Center for area battered and abused children and their families at Children's Hospital. Finally, Freddie Mac's commitment to support our communities is probably best exemplified by a Washington Post article, which I submit for the Record, highlighting their work to help the District's foster care program. This is the kind of public/private partnership Freddie Mac brings not only to the community but to its public mission. I believe Freddie Mac deserves not only congratulations on its 25th anniversary and thanks for doing a good job in meeting its mission, but also for its support for children, youth and families at risk in communities throughout the country.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept the perfecting amendment. I think this amendment clarifies the original intent of my amendment which is to put a stop to EPA's practice of hiring away employees from their contractors. The language the gentleman strikes from my amendment was intended to ensure that EPA does not take retribution against these same contractors who have been harmed by EPA's inappropriate actions. I would, therefore, like to get the gentleman's assurances, that if EPA does take punitive action against three contractors, the gentleman would be willing to revisit this issue.

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

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the administrator of EPA cease all further hiring in the agency's Office of Research and Development [ORD] for the purposes of the contractor conversion initiative as laid out in last year's VA/HUD Appropriations bill. This amendment is necessary to prevent EPA from further eroding the employment base of four well respected private sector companies who have been providing contract support to EPA's office of research and development. Last year, Congress provided EPA with resources and direction in the fiscal year 1995 VA/HUD appropriations bill to improve the agency's contracts management. Unfortunately, the Office of Research and Development has mishandled the resources provided to it and ignored the direction of Congress. My amendment serves to soften the blow to those private sector companies providing contract support. In fiscal year 1995 EPA received an increase in its authorized personnel ceilings by 900 positions. Of that number, 265 positions were provided to the Office of Research and Development. This increase runs contrary to the administration effort as well as this Congress' efforts to reduce the size of Government and has not addressed the weaknesses in EPA contracts management as it was intended to do. These weaknesses were identified by the Congress and the EPA inspector general. Of the 265 positions allotted to ORD, only 32 were directed to address the identified contracts management problems. The remaining 233 positions have been used to augment the ORD workforce in four Government labs. During this time, ORD has undergone an internal reorganization by merging these labs into four ``mega-labs''. The 233 positions were directed to the mega labs under the leadership of an EPA employee. This individual had the sole responsibility for coordinating the contractor conversion activities at EPA and they have used their authority to raid EPA's private contractors. The situation as it stands now is that four well respected private professional service contractors have lost significant business and stand to lose even more if we do not halt ORD's actions. The result has not been improved contacts management or reduced costs for the Government, it has been bigger bureaucracy. This amendment stops this grievous action. Of the companies raided by EPA, one is a small business and another is minority owned. In the case of the minority owned firm, after 10 years of hard work building a successful business, the firm saw 75 percent of its total workforce hired away by EPA. In the case of the small business, it lost 22 of its 33 employees to the agency's actions. This is a prime example of the big Government that so many of us were elected to stop. This amendments puts a hold on any further hiring in EPA's Office of Research and Development for the purposes of carrying out the contractor conversion efforts required under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1994. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support America's small and minority businesses by putting an end to EPA's actions.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 1.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. amendment offered by mr. lewis of california to the amendment offered by mr. davis

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress, Republicans have proven that politicians can go to Washington and actually keep their word. We have not ducked the tough issues and we are not going to start now. This spring, the Medicare trustees reported that Medicare will go broke in 7 years. Since then, Republicans have faced this issue head- on. We have not tried to duck or hide like some of the Members on the other side of the aisle have. But, you see, many of these Members cannot help it. They are the remnants of the old Washington establishment which was rejected by the voters last November, where it was standard operating procedure to avoid the tough issues, to look the other way, and to run from responsibility. It is outside of their political world view to meet an issue head-on, to take a tough position, to show leadership, and follow through with commonsense solutions. Medicare is going bankrupt. It may be 30 years old this week, but it is condemned to death at age 37 unless action is taken. Republicans are working to protect and strengthen Medicare. We ask the Democrats to join us. This is too important an issue to fall into partisan bickering.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Section 13(c) might have originally had a purpose back in 1964, but today it is used simply as a means to pursue broader labor objectives using transit grants as the hostage. Section 13(c) guarantees benefits for displaced workers for up to 6 years after they have lost their jobs, 6 years. Local governments and transit authorities cannot afford that kind of featherbedding. It does not make sense in today's environment. We hear about attacks on the working people of this country by repealing that. If you care about the working people of this country, what about the working person who has to take mass transit to work each day? It is coming out of their transit fares. They are going up and up and up, nibbling at their paychecks. It just does not make sense in today's environment. When I was chairman of the county board in Fairfax and tried to privatize some of our functions in order to save transit dollars, we found that 13(c) was not used to protect workers. It was used to halt privatization and other innovative ways that we could bring more inexpensive transportation means to provide for the average citizen, not those rich people in limousines who drive to work, but people who could not afford to get to work any other way. This is a working man's amendment to repeal section 13(c). Section 13(c) today holds transit agencies hostage to innumerable delay tactics which costs financially strapped agencies millions of dollars and for absolutely no benefit. Its time is outdated. It is time to go. It is time to be repealed. I urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DAVIS

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

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Miller, for his leadership in this matter and I thank my friend from Kansas for the assurances he has given us today. This fall, in the House we will be debating a new farm bill. We will also be debating the budget reconciliation bill that will balance the Federal budget in 7 years, which is going to force substantial cuts in farm commodity programs, such as wheat, dairy, corn, cotton and rice. While these programs have faced an average 40 percent cut since 1985, sugar has not been cut one iota. I believe this is unacceptable and we can face this issue during the farm bill. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add I think every citizen is paying a hidden tax today because of the sugar program. It takes money out of the pockets of American consumer to the tune of $1.4 billion every year in higher food prices. I thank my colleagues for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the Miller amendment to repeal the government sugar program. There is no plausible reason why our government is involved with setting and controlling the price of sugar. It is big government at its worst. It benefits a wealthy few. It promotes the destruction of one of our prized environmental landmarks-- the Florida Everglades. The November elections signaled that the American people wanted a change in the way we in Washington do business. Getting the Federal Government out of this program is a very good place to start. Every citizen pays a hidden tax that takes money out of the pockets of American consumers to the tune of more than $1.4 billion every year in higher food prices according to GAO. This hidden tax has cost Americans more than $10 billion over the last decade. In addition, the consumer interest group Public Voice has recently estimated that the sugar program has cost the Federal Government $110 million annually because of higher purchase prices for sugar and sugar-containing products used in domestic feeding and food programs. This is money that the American people could be saving, investing, or using to buy needed items for their families. But because of this program, they must pay higher prices on everything containing sugar all because of the Federal Government controls in the marketplace. I have great respect for the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Roberts and also respect his committee's right to deal with the future of the sugar program. I want him to know that the nearly 100 co-sponsors of the Miller amendment to repeal the sugar program are watching his committee closely. We look forward to working with him in this endeavor, and working with my friend, Mr. Foley, from Florida, who represents many of these growers and shares a different perspective on this issue.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. When they say pork, last year we had $77 million earmarked for oil technology. The administration this year asked for $87 million, and, of course, this $5 million is part of the $64 million committee mark. So that is down from last year significantly. It is way down from the administration's proposal, and why should it not go to the NIPER facility in Barboursville, which I might add, is a long way from my district across the river in Northern Virginia. Because Barboursville, the NIPER there, the National Institute for Petroleum Energy Research lab there, has won awards from the National Performance Review, and been awarded by Vice President Gore for its privatization efforts, showing how a model facility can be not just Federal employees working together, but the private sector working in partnership. The other two main facilities where this could go, for example, Morgantown and Pittsburgh, tend to specialize in the coal side. I think that is a good reason. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think we need to keep this money in oil research. [[Page H 7042]]

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the corporation is not in my district. There is a facility in the district of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Second, in the interest of straight talk, this removes the money entirely. This does not just take it away from NIPER; this removes money for oil and petroleum research, and I think that is what we are opposed to in the administration's mark. This does not just put it in.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Moran, and I rise today to pay tribute to the Cherry Hill Farm in Falls Church, VA. On Sunday, July 16, 1995, it will celebrate its 150th anniversary. In 1845 William Harvey purchased the 66-acre tract of land that would become known today as Cherry Hill Farm. Cherry Hill Farm is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is open to the public. The site interprets antebellum family life in Virginia on a small but productive farm. Both the 1845 farmhouse and the 1850's hand hewn timber barn remain on their original sites. On Sunday, July 16, 1995, from noon to 6 p.m., Cherry Hill will hold on an old-fashioned anniversary celebration. Reenactors will portray antebellum life as they prepare for a mid-19th century wedding. In addition, there will be music from that period, crafts and old fashioned games for children and adults. The barn will also be open and its antique tool collection will be on display. Mr. Speaker, we know our colleagues join us in honoring Cherry Hill's Farm's 150th anniversary. We also invite and encourage any of our distinguished colleagues to attend this truly historic event at a truly historic place.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, why are we cutting the American Folklife Center? It is a great program, but I think the money can be raised from the private sector. It does not have to come from the governmental sector. More importantly, this money was deauthorized and is not authorized. This money is appropriated but does not have the proper authorization at this point. Why reprogram dollars to the Congressional Budget Office? I think the answer is very simple. Without this amendment, the unfunded mandates legislation that we passed in a bipartisan manner, both Houses of Congress, signed by the President, will have no teeth, because the CBO, who does the estimating on the costs of each mandate so that we will know what they will cost States and localities and the private sector, will not be able to do it. It will be gutted completely. Let us not undo the unfunded mandates reform that a bipartisan Congress and the President passed this spring and the President signed into law. Without this amendment, that is exactly what we are doing. So I rise in support of the Clinger amendment.

Mr. DAVIS

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

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I plan to join the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] in opposing the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. And I guess the last question to ask is: The particular piece of property that we have in mind is, of course, adjacent to the Capitol and Arlington Cemetery in those areas, but we may lose this piece if we don't act within this next year; isn't that correct?

Mr. DAVIS. And I understand there are over 500,000 artifacts sitting out there now, and some of these, frankly, face the fact that they could be lost over time if we do not find a permanent place for them.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding. Let me just ask my colleagues from New York on the Browder amendment: Isn't it true we're going to get over $5 in contributions for every dollar we invest in this museum?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. What this is about is that history is important. We have an obligation to continue teaching the lessons of history and remember our military experiences as they have evolved. As our Army becomes smaller, it is more important that we continue that. This museum will be a recognition of this. To compare this museum with its over 500,000 items and artifacts to the small museums that the Army has scattered across the country is really misleading. The Army museum system today consists of a very disparate collection of localized branch-specific museums. These local collections offer a look at the past from the perspective of their particular area of interest, whether transportation or aviation or logistics, but this museum steps back to look at the experience of the American soldier going back to revolutionary times touched by all aspects of Army life during a long and proud history. I think we can have a consolidation of some of these smaller museums if this moves ahead. But to get to the money issues that have been addressed, Mr. Chairman, for every dollar in public contribution that will go forward to buying this land, we expect a match of over $5 from the private and volunteer sector coming in. That is money well spent in this particular case. At a time when the Army is getting one recruit for over 100 contacts it makes, this will be a good effort to increase the contacts the Army makes to over 200,000 people a year. So I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would allow Hilary Morgan, now know as Ellen Morgan and her mother Dr. Elizabeth Morgan to return safely to the United States. In August of 1987, Dr. Morgan was jailed for civil contempt after she hid Hilary and refused to give up for a 2 week court-ordered unsupervised visitation with her father. Hilary's case, as many throughout the world are aware, involves alleged child abuse by the father. It portrays perhaps the most painful aspect of our own judicial system; a child's welfare and child custody proceedings. Dr. Morgan spent over 2-years in the District of Columbia jail, until my colleague from Virginia, the Honorable Frank Wolf offered legislation limiting to 12 months the time an individual could be incarcerated for civil contempt in child custody cases in the District of Columbia. The bill, approved by this body, in essence freed Dr. Morgan from the D.C. jail. Upon her release she left the country and joined her daughter who was living with relatives in New Zealand. Elizabeth and Ellen remain in New Zealand, to this day. Pending court orders pertaining to both the mother and the child place unacceptable obstacles in the path of their safe return. This bill seeks to remove those obstacles. Ellen has indicated personally to me that she would like to return safely to the United States, which is her home. Ellen will be 13 years old in August and has lived over half her life in New Zealand, away from her family and her home. Dr. Morgan a renowned plastic surgeon, due to local restrictions, has been unable to practice medicine. The Morgan family has suffered greatly, and Ellen wants to come home. We should not force this child, who has suffered so much in her young life to remain in exile if the situation can be remedied. We should not and can not allow the judicial systems antiquated order to continue to punish this child or to force her to grow up away from her family or her country. The legislation I introduce today will remedy the situation and allow Ellen to come back to the United States and pursue her dreams. Unfortunately, judicial proceedings and media coverage tended to focus on disputes between two well-known parents. The court order, now over 7 years old, does not address the current circumstances or the welfare of a young teenage child. Under the provisions of this bill, the current orders relating to the penalties to the mother and visitation by the father, would no longer be operable. However, no bar would be placed on any court from revisiting this issue at any time and weighing the markedly changed circumstances since the original court decree. Intervention in this issue is not unprecedented, but in my judgment merited for the child's own welfare and desire to return to her native country.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honor for me to rise today and pay tribute to one of Reston, VA's most beloved teachers and community leaders, Delores Bohannon-Wilkins who passed away last month after a long, prolonged battle with cancer. On June 15, 1995 the school where Mrs. Wilkins taught, Langston Hughes Middle School, will dedicate a hall in her memory. At Langston Hughes Middle School Delores Bohannon-Wilkins served as a middle school mathematics teacher in Reston, VA. She was actively involved in professional educational pursuits. She originated and directed community mentor programs for children-at-risk in Fairfax County. Mrs. Wilkins served as a leader and presenter at professional educational conferences, seminars, and workshops. She also provided counselling for youths and their families in the Reston community. Among her honors were the Golden Eagle award for outstanding educational contributions and being named Lady Fairfax for the Hunter Mill Magisterial District in Fairfax County [VA], at the Fairfax County Fair in recognition of her leadership contributions to the community. She was a member of several professional and civic organizations. Among these were the Reston Chapter of National Jack and Jill the National Council of Negro Women where she served as president. Delores graduated from St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville, VA. She pursued additional graduate studies at the University of Maryland, University of the District of Columbia, and the University of Virginia. She was married to Dr. Thomas A. Wilkins and was the mother of three children; Lisa, Thomas, and Mark. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in honoring Delores Bohannon-Wilkins, a woman who served as a role model, mentor, and leader in Reston. She was a woman whose leadership in her community made it a [[Page E1252]] much better place to live than she found it. She will be missed by those who knew her, but her example of commitment and concern will remain a part of her legacy.