[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1009-H1018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3924, FREEDOM TO TELECOMMUTE ACT OF
2002
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 373 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 373
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize telecommuting for Federal
contractors. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is an open rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of
2002.
The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the whole to accord
priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for
1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House is considered the
Freedom to Telecommute Act. Currently, a Federal agency may refuse a
bid proposal from a potential contractor that utilizes telecommuting in
its work force. This legislation would prohibit agencies from
continuing this practice. That a potential contractor would allow its
employees to telecommute when appropriate would not disqualify or
reduce the chances of that company winning a Federal contract.
The bill also requires that the GAO, General Accounting Office, make
a report to Congress within 1 year of enactment on the compliance by
agencies with telecommuting regulations.
In the past 25 years, telecommuting has become an increasingly
attractive option for employees in the workplace, and, I would also
add, a commonsense
[[Page H1010]]
addition to the workplace. Technology advances have allowed more and
more employees to telecommute, allowing them to work from anywhere at
any time. In fact, it is estimated that 19 million people enjoy the
benefits of telecommuting today.
As our country continues to engage in the war on terrorism, we are
obviously all more sensitive to the concerns regarding safety and
security. This bill takes into consideration these concerns, allowing
an exception to be made if the contracting officer certifies in writing
that telecommuting would conflict with the needs of that agency.
For example, this exception could apply if a contractor deals with
classified or sensitive information.
Mr. Speaker, the rest of the workplace has recognized the advantages
of telecommuting. The benefits include encouraging a more productive
work force, increasing employee morale and quality of life, as well as
helping the environment by eliminating pollution from increasing
commuter traffic.
Under the leadership of my good friend, the chairman, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy has been a champion of developing and promoting
telecommuting as an option in the Federal workplace. I believe that we
should share the same vision and that the Federal Government should be
the leading advocate for the best practices for the workplace, not
lagging behind.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this open rule, as well as the
commonsense legislation it underlies.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, advances in computer and telecommunications technology
have opened the door for more and more Americans to work from their
homes if they so choose. More than 45,000 Federal employees exercised
their option to telecommute for 52 days or more in 2001.
A footnote right there. This being the seat of creativity, my reading
and that of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is that
``telecommute'' joins the lexicon of new verbs, because to our
knowledge, it did not exist before. So I am kind of proud of us for
coming up with something that takes into consideration all of the
technology that is setting upon our great Nation and our world.
These Federal employees were among the 19 million Americans who
telecommuted at least once last year. Telecommuting holds a host of
advantages for America's workers and employers. It allows workers the
flexibility to perform their jobs and manage their demanding personal
lives at the same time.
Businesses can use telecommuting to retain valuable workers whose
personal and extracurricular obligations would otherwise force them to
take a leave of absence, or, worse, terminate their employment
altogether.
Telecommuting also has the potential to reduce gridlock and
automobile pollution by allowing workers to skip the rush hour commute.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) already noted, H.R. 3924,
the Freedom to Telecommute Act, modifies Federal procurement rules to
allow private contract employees working for Federal agencies the
option to telecommute when executing their duties under those
contracts. These workers will join Federal employees who are already
able to telecommute under existing law.
If a Federal contracting officer feels that telecommuting would be
inconsistent with agency needs, he or she would be permitted under this
legislation to prohibit it, thus creating workplace flexibility and
ensuring security at the same time.
The legislation basically is noncontroversial. It was passed out of
the Committee on Government Reform unanimously, and I urge my
colleagues to support it on the floor this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I appreciate the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) for his support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Technology and Procurement Policy.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the open
rule for H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of 2002. I believe
this is a noncontroversial bill, but I think it is one long overdue in
this House.
Telecommuting is something we ought to encourage. I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for
moving swiftly to bring this bill to the floor. Their efforts to ensure
that we can vote on this important bill I think will expand
opportunities for telecommuting.
H.R. 3924 will prevent Federal agencies from restricting potential
contractors from participating in the bidding process if they use
telecommuters to fulfill the contract. Congress has passed bills over
the last several years that actually direct Federal agencies to develop
and promote telework programs. Unfortunately, the current acquisition
policy sends the wrong message about the importance of telework in the
modern workplace.
Telework is a popular movement that has gained tremendous momentum
over the last 25 years. Today, an estimated 19 million Americans
telework. Employees are drawn to it because it offers improved quality
of life. It increases morale. It generates greater productivity because
there are fewer office distractions.
{time} 1115
Telecommuting is a family-friendly policy that accommodates employees
with health problems or child care problems or elder care
responsibilities. It also eases traffic congestion, and in this region
that is very important, by getting motorists off the roads at key hours
and allowing them to telecommute either from their home or from
telecommuting work stations. And by easing traffic congestion, not only
is it friendlier and saves motorists time, but it helps the environment
due to increased vehicle emissions.
Our Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy has held two
hearings about telecommuting. We heard from both public and private
sector witnesses about their efforts to develop and implement such
programs in their organizations. Many of them have been very successful
in employee retention, in employee recruitment and in productivity. The
testimony revealed that telecommuting is often used as a human capital
management initiative in the private sector and in a few Federal
agencies. It allows employees greater flexibility in their work
environment, and it enhances their quality of life.
It is costly to recruit people, to hire people, to train new staff on
a constant basis. If they are used strategically, telecommuting
programs keep organizations competitive and are critical to maintaining
continuity and efficiency in the workplace. Federal managers have been
reluctant to embrace the concept because they would no longer be in a
position to monitor employees directly. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is
the old model. That is the work model from the industrial era. Today's
workers operate quite differently. The Federal managers have to move
away from such out-dated process-oriented measures. We need to
encourage the government to become a results-driven organization, to
learn from the efficiencies that the private sector has produced.
By allowing Federal agencies to contract with companies that employ
telework initiatives, they are directly exposing them to the employees.
I think this helps the Federal level to encourage our managers to use
more of it. It helps to reverse negative managerial attitudes toward
telecommuting in the Federal Government.
But among contracting officers there has been reluctance to encourage
bids from companies that utilize telecommuting, again, operating under
the old concepts that if we are not there watching over an employee,
somehow the work is not getting done. That is most often done with
security concerns in mind.
H.R. 3924 provides contracting officers with the necessary guidance
for encouraging telecommuting among potential Federal contractors. An
exception is made if the contracting officer certifies in writing that
telecommuting would conflict with the needs of the agency. For example,
this exception could apply if a contractor deals
[[Page H1011]]
with classified or sensitive information. You do not want to let out
information to some foreign Web site or information. This will ensure
that Federal marketplaces continue to be a competitive choice among
contractors.
H.R. 3924 would also prohibit agencies from issuing solicitations
that would reduce the scoring of a potential contractor's proposal if
that contractor utilizes telecommuting.
We ought to be encouraging it, not prohibiting it. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3924.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good
friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the rule of the Freedom to
Telecommute Act and to acknowledge the importance of the underlying
bill. Particularly as this relates to independent contractors, it
certainly is distinctive from full-time employees. With independent
contractors there is a valid basis, saving money and helping with child
care issues. It is good that this bill is moving its way to the floor
of the House.
I would argue and make mention of the fact that there are still many
other issues that we must address. I believe that the very fact of this
rule indicates the necessity for addressing the need to finish our work
and to do more work as it relates to the budget, particularly as we
look prospectively at the rule on the budget that has only 2 hours for
this body, 435 Members of Congress, to be able to discuss one of the
most vital responsibilities that this Congress has. And I would hope
that the time we spend on this rule supporting this very valid
legislation would cause us to think about the time that we have to
utilize and debate on the budget resolution, particularly as we look at
the Republican budget and the budget of the President, that has clearly
squandered the surplus that is going after Social Security and slashes
the lock box of which all of us have had such a strong and vital
commitment.
Only 2 hours of debate is the cause that we have. And I believe that
2 hours of debate does not equate to the time we are spending on the
telecommute resolution and the telecommute bill. I think it is
important to note that the budget resolution of the Republicans
dissipates most of the Social Security surplus and decimates all of the
Medicare surplus for the next 5 years. In fact, it is evident that we
have a situation that shows us that the President's budget surplus
shorts Medicare $226 billion; $226 billion is what the President's
budget does to Medicare. The Republican resolution shows only 5 years
of budget figures instead of 10. The Republican resolution uses OMB,
Office of Management and Budget, rather than CBO figures, which we all
know the Congressional Budget Office is far more objective.
The Republican resolution omits numerous impending budgetary costs
so, therefore, it undermines and misrepresents how much money we have
left. The Republican resolution pays more lip service to prescription
drug benefits. It gives nothing to my constituents who ask me time
after time, senior citizens, about when are they going to get their
prescription drug benefit. And then, of course, the Republican
resolution on the budget does not even fund the education bill. If you
want to see the results, in fact, the education bill, leave no child
behind, has been cut by the Republican budget. And something that
impacts Houston most of all is to realize that his budget and the
Republican budget guts mental health federally funded evidence-proven
programs. Coming from Houston, seeing the tragedy of Andrea Yates,
knowing how important it is for intervention and prevention dollars in
the budget, it is an outrage.
I would say this is a good rule on the telecommute bill. I would say
the bill itself is a good bill. But the question becomes what are we
doing about the budget? Why do we have this short period of time? And
when you ask us why the minority does not have a budget, let me just
point you to Newt Gingrich, because it is the responsibility of the
majority to put a budget that America can be proud of. We are not proud
of this budget, and we stand by the fact it is up to you all to fix the
problem. You have not fixed it. You have decimated the needs of
Americans as it relates to the domestic budget.
It clearly decimates the domestic policies of this country, and it
speaks to the contrast of the words of the President some many months
ago when he said the bipartisan education bill was a priority by not
leaving any child behind. How can you do that if your budget cuts that
very authorization? I would simply argue to my friends and colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, would it not have been better in times
like these for us to have been able to fight together for more funding
for homeland security, more funding for education, more funding for
health care, more funding for mental health needs, more funding for
housing, and more funding for economic development in our communities?
Yet what we have here is a raiding of Social Security and a killing of
Medicare and no relief for our seniors with a prescription drug benefit
and no relief for our veterans and our military personnel.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules we had a fabulous
opportunity to speak not only about this telecommuting bill but also
about the budget. And last night I spoke to the senior Democrat who is
on the Committee on the Budget and I said is there one penny, one penny
that is being taken away from Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid?
Not one penny in this new budget. Not one penny.
The second thing I would like to speak about that the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) talked about is the lock box. Dag-gum
right we passed a lock box, but the other body has not. The other body
has not taken this important legislation up so it is not the law of the
country. So the things which we as Republicans have talked about in
this House for a long time, of making sure that the American public has
the growth and the opportunity and the take-home pay for jobs and
opportunity in this country for retirement security is exactly what
this budget is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman is not in the
Chamber because I want to say some very nice things about him. I am
talking, of course, about the author of this important measure, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). He has been on the forefront
of our effort to realize that the technology revolution has brought
about some incredible changes to our lives. And clearly when it comes
to the issue of telecommuting, dealing with the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area is a very high priority because we have so many
serious problems here. I happen to hail from Los Angeles where we have
even worse problems. In fact, I like to say that I live in two of the
most congested areas on the face of the Earth, Los Angeles, California,
and Washington, D.C. where we have very serious traffic problems.
So the idea of encouraging telecommuting is something that I believe
is important for us to pursue and I think it is very apropos that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) lead the charge in doing that.
Let me say that this rule is an open rule that will allow for a free-
flowing debate on this issue, and I think there should be a strong
bipartisan consensus on it. And my colleagues have begun the debate on
the budget process, as we proceed with the rule, the special rule for
consideration of telecommuting legislation; and we are going to have an
opportunity to discussion this during the rule debate this afternoon.
But let me just say that it is very clear that the package which we
have come forward with first on the rule which allows for the
consideration of legitimate substitutes, there was not a legitimate
substitute put forward, and that is the reason that we made the
decision as has traditionally been the case
[[Page H1012]]
that only legitimate substitutes would be given an opportunity for
consideration.
The supposed substitutes that were put forward were simply, as
described by one of the authors, perfecting amendments to the
chairman's proposed budget, to the budget that came from the Committee
on the Budget and some modifications of numbers going from utilization
of the Congressional Budget Office for the scoring process to the
Office of Management and Budget. And so we are going to have this
afternoon a very important debate with this war-time budget that we are
going to be addressing.
I believe that we should enjoy strong bipartisan support because when
we came together following September 11 behind the President of the
United States with the number one priority being to win the war on
terrorism, this budget that we will be voting on is directly tied to
that shared bipartisan American goal that we have. And so I hope very
much that we will be able to have strong support for it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the State of Virginia for
yielding me time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I note that the distinguished chairperson of the
Committee on Rules, I apologize, he is walking out not because he knew
I would say something regarding what he said. In that debate on last
evening in the Committee on Rules and as late as 12:30 this a.m., I
certainly, and my colleagues certainly, raised the question of us
having sufficient time to discuss this war-time budget.
I did not think and I said so and I do not think that the limited
time that we have is going to be sufficient for all of the Members of
the House of Representatives who so desire to come forward and discuss
the particulars of this budget. The chairman is absolutely correct.
There is no distinction between a Democrat or a Republican on homeland
defense and on the security of our Nation and pursuing the necessary
defense in order that we may be secure. But there is a distinction on
whether or not we are going to fund education or if we are going to
fund housing for the disabled or if we are going to take care of the
energy and environmental considerations. And some of us see the
necessity to avoid some of the tax consequences that have been put
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
{time} 1130
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this rule on the suspension today and
indicate that I suspect that this particular bill is going to meet with
a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. I do regret,
however, that this rule probably has more time allotted to discussion
and debate than the rule on the budget will and the rule on the budget
being in comparison so much more important in dealing with such a large
part of what it is that we do here and what we do for the American
people and at their behest.
I would have to say that there is no difference between the
Republican-Democratic stand when it comes to making sure that our
national security is taken care of and that our homeland security is
taken care of. We stand together. We stand united. We support the
protection of this country at all times.
There is, however, a significant amount of difference, and if we had
ample time on the rules to discuss that and on the bill itself to
discuss it between what our beliefs are and the right way to proceed
with the economic and social security of people in this country.
Everybody understands the financial commitment that we will have to
make toward our national security and toward homeland security, but
there is a great deal of disagreement as to whether we should be
accelerating tax breaks for very wealthy individuals when we should be
standing united as a country and putting some investment into the
education and to the health care and to the building of roads and
bridges and to protection of our homeland, and that is where the
debate, if we had time on the rule and if we had time on the bill
itself, would come into play.
Very frankly speaking, this is a situation where this rule does not
allow enough time in comparison. This rule gives more time than is
needed for a bill and the other rule does not.
points of order
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, point of order, relevancy. I
make a point of order the gentleman is not discussing the rule at hand.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke was not
discussing it either.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman will suspend.
The pending special order of business provides for the consideration
of the telecommuting bill. It does not provide for the consideration of
the budget resolution. The Members will confine their remarks to the
issue of consideration of the telecommuting bill.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I will make a note on that, that as the
last speaker was speaking about the process of the Committee on Rules
last night, not pertaining to this bill, the Chair was completely
silent on that, and I would like some fair treatment as this moves
forward and would expect it from my colleague from New York, who has
been known in the past to be a person of fairness, and I would expect
that to apply here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will
suspend.
The Chair normally awaits a relevancy point of order from the floor.
The Chair does not take initiative.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what the Chair had to say on
that. I did not hear anything when the other speaker was speaking, and
I cannot hear the Chair now either.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not normally take initiative
on a relevancy point of order.
The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed in order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will state his
point of order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, then all of us, myself and the
chairperson of the Committee on Rules, that have spoken, our words
should be taken out of the Record for the reason that they were not
relevant?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would take a unanimous consent request in
order to remove those words from the Record.
The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed in order.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me proceed to talk on the rule for a
second. I think one of the reasons that we are speaking here is that
while this rule on this particular bill by suspension allows more than
adequate time to talk about that rule, the rule on the budget does not
allow enough time to talk about that rule nor does the budget debate
allow for enough time on that.
point of order
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman
is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires a Member to confine
himself to the question under debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the gentleman and all
Members that remarks should be confined to the pending special order of
business and the underlying telecommuting bill.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to the Chair that my
memory being fine, I was discussing and comparing the rule under the
telecommunications bill with the rule for the budget, and I think that
if I am talking about the rule and making a comparison I am in fact
speaking germanely and on the Record, and while my colleagues have
tried, the majority, to stifle that debate on the budget and stifle our
debate on the budget rule, I do not think it is permissible to stifle
our debate on this rule where we are drawing that kind of comparison.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman can maintain a nexus to the
pending special order of business, he may proceed.
[[Page H1013]]
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker because it is difficult
to maintain a nexus, but we do have to take opportunity that we can to
make sure that we are at least heard to some degree on this budget that
is coming up and make sure that we use whatever time we can to make
sure people understand that there is a difference between the parties
when it comes to dealing with the social and economic security of this
country. We can talk under the rules all we want about being able to
step out and protect our Nation and there is no disagreement, but there
ought to be a debate as between accelerating tax cuts and accelerating
the tax cuts for the wealthy versus doing things for the economic
security of this country.
point of order
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
I think the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which
requires a Member to confine himself to the question under debate. We
are speaking today about telecommuting, and that is what this rule is
concerning and on the floor at this time, and I would ask for the Chair
to rule upon this again, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will require the gentleman from
Massachusetts not to dwell on the merits of the budget resolution. It
is not before the House at this point in time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. I understand that my
colleagues on the other side do not want us to dwell on the budget
comparisons and on those issues, and so I will try again to confine my
remarks to the rule, understanding how assiduously they have worked to
make sure we do not get into an extended debate about the economic and
social security of our country and the comparison with tax breaks and
acceleration of tax breaks for the wealthy.
Continuing on this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule gives us plenty of
time, as I said before, to discuss in fact an issue that is not in
great contention, and it is remarkable that we have so much time to
discuss a bill that comes under a great deal of agreement and so little
time to discuss other bills that, in fact, have a great deal of
disagreement and issues of very significant importance to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Rule because it denies the
American people a full and fair debate to the fiscal year 2003 budget
resolution, and denies America's First Responders a full and fair
debate over whether this budget will assist them as they assist us in
fighting terrorism.
As we all know, our nation's first responders rose to the occasion in
recent months, answering the call to protect and stabilize our
communities after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the
anthrax attacks of October 2001. Communities incurred over a billion
dollars in overtime costs for police, fire and medical personnel--and
stand to incur similar unreimbursed expenses as the war on terrorism
continues.
This Amendment--which the Majority refused to allow to come up for a
vote--calls for Congress to include some relief for America's First
Responders who have so ably served our country. It addresses FEMA's
State and Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative which requires local
first responders to put up a burdensome (and for many, unaffordable)
25% local ``match'' in order to receive ANY assistance. The Amendment
concludes that ``Government should assist local communities who stand
ready to participate in FEMA's Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative
by waiving the 25 percent local match prerequisite or by reducing the
percentage as much as practicable.''
This amendment, the substance of which was communicated to the Budget
Committee last week by 114 Members of Congress--Democrats and
Republicans from urban and rural districts across the country--is a
budget neutral remedy to a problem faced by first responders in my
district and across the country. The letter was signed by
Representatives Abercrombie, Ackerman, Andrews, Baca, Baldacci,
Baldwin, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Blagojevich, Blumenauer, Bonior,
Boswell, S. Brown, Capps, Capuano, Cardin, B. Carson, Christensen,
Clayton, Clement, Clyburn, Coyne, Crowley, Cummings, D. Davis,
Delahunt, DeLauro, Doggett, Edwards, Farr, Filner, Frank, Gordon, G.
Green, Graham, Harman, Hinchey, Hoeffel, Holt, Honda, Houghton, Hyde,
Jackson, Tubbs Jones, W. Jones, Kildee, Kind, Kucinich, LaFalce,
Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen, Larson, B. Lee, Jackson Lee, J.
Lewis, LoBiondo, Lofgren, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, Matsui, McCarthy,
McGovern, McKinney, McNulty, Meeks, Menendez, Millender-McDonald, G.
Miller, Moore, Nadler, Neal, Norton, Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor,
Payne, Pelosi, Phelps, Quinn, Rahall, Rivers, Rodriguez, Ross, Sandlin,
Sawyer, Schakowsky, Schiff, Scott, Shows, Skelton, Slaughter, Snyder,
Solis, Stupak, Sweeney, M. Thompson, Thurman, Tierney, Towns, Turner,
M. Udall, T. Udall, Wamp, Watson, Waxman, Weldon, Woolsey, Wu, and
Wynn, all of whom share a commitment to ensuring that local first
responders receive our support and resources to fight terrorism.
This Amendment is co-sponsored by a number of my colleagues who
simply want the opportunity to show our First Responders that our
budget includes resources for them to protect and defend our
communities. I thank Representatives John Baldacci, Tammy Baldwin, Rod
Blagojevich, Sherrod Brown, Michael Capuano, Steve Lynch, Bob Matsui,
Nancy Pelosi, Ciro Rodriguez, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Max Sandlin, and
Tom Sawyer for their support in this important effort.
Our Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative Amendment will allow
creativity and flexibility in shaping policy, so that lawmakers may
either waive the match for fiscal year 2003, reduce the 25% percentage,
and/or explore a ``soft match'' whereby communities that have together
incurred over a billion dollars in overtime costs for police, fire and
medical personnel can individually designate the expenses incurred
after September 11th as part of their match--at no additional cost to
the taxpayers.
Congress has an historic opportunity to assist local communities: by
relieving them of this unfunded mandate; by rewarding the
entrepreneurial and patriotic spirit in so many districts like my own
in Massachusetts where first responders have put aside turf issues and
worked cooperatively to create Local Emergency Planning Committees and
other cross-jurisdictional response strategies to serve the American
people; and by ensuring that local first responders may continue to
serve as America's first line of defense.
Our nation's first responders are in desperate need of assistance
from the Federal government for homeland security efforts and they
deserve a full and fair debate over whether Congress is prepared to
respond to their urgent needs in this year's budget.
Because the Majority refused to allow this debate, I urge my
colleagues to stand up for America's First Responders and against this
unfair rule.
This Amendment to H. Con. Res. 353, the FY 2003 Budget Resolution,
calls for Congress to include some relief for America's First
Responders who have so ably served our country after the terrorist
attacks of September 11th and the anthrax attacks of October, 2001. It
addresses FEMA's proposed $3.5 billion State and Local Terrorism
Preparedness Initiative--$2.625 billion of which will be directed
toward local communities--which requires local first responders to put
up a burdensome (and for many, unaffordable) 25% local ``match'' in
order to receive ANY assistance. The Amendment concludes that
``Government should assist local communities who stand ready to
participate in FEMA's Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative by
waiving the 25 percent local match prerequisite or by reducing the
percentage as much as practicable.''
This bipartisan effort includes a letter signed by 114 Members--
Democrats and Republicans from urban and rural districts across the
country--seeking a budget neutral means to relieve local police, fire
and emergency responders of this unfunded mandate and to ensure that
local first responders may continue to serve as America's first line of
defense. (Please see an attached copy of the letter with a list of
signatories.)
If passed, the Amendment will allow flexibility in shaping policy, so
that lawmakers may either waive the match for FY 2003, reduce the 25%
percentage, and/or explore a ``soft match'' whereby communities that
have together incurred over a billion dollars in overtime costs for
police, fire and medical personnel can individually designate the
expenses incurred after September 11th as part of their match.
At the end, add the following new section:
SEC. . LOCAL TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS ASSISTANCE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) our Nation's first responders rose to the occasion in
recent months, answering the call to protect and stabilize
our communities after the terrorist attacks of September 11th
as well as the anthrax attacks of October 2001;
(2) communities incurred over a billion dollars in overtime
costs for police, fire and medical personnel, and stand to
incur similar unreimbursed expenses as the war on terrorism
continues;
(3) the proposed $3.5 billion for FEMA's State and Local
Terrorism Preparedness Initiative, $2.625 billion of which
would be directed toward local communities might not allow
most first responders to participate because of an onerous 25
percent local match prerequisite for Federal assistance; and
[[Page H1014]]
(4) Congress can fashion a budget-neutral remedy to assist
communities that otherwise could not afford to participate in
the State and Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative through
waiver or reduction of the local match requirement, thereby
relieving local police, fire and emergency responders of this
unfunded mandate and ensuring that local first responders may
continue to serve as America's first line of defense.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Government should assist local communities who stand
ready to participate in FEMA's Local Terrorism Preparedness
Initiative by waiving the 25 percent local match prerequisite
or by reducing the percentage as much as practicable.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Nussle,
Chair, House Budget Committee, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Spratt,
Ranking Member, House Budget Committee, O'Neil House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt: We are
writing to respectfully request that the fiscal year 2003
budget resolution include a waiver for local first responders
in desperate need of assistance from the Federal government
for homeland security efforts.
As you are aware, our nation's first responders rose to the
occasion in recent months, answering the call to protect and
stabilize our communities after the terrorist attacks of
September 11th as well as the anthrax attacks of October
2001. Communities incurred over a billion dollars in overtime
costs for police, fire and medical personnel--and stand to
incur similar unreimbursed expenses as the war on terrorism
continues.
While we are encouraged by the President's proposed
increases in homeland security spending, particularly the
$3.5 billion for FEMA's proposed State and Local Terrorism
Preparedness iniative--$2.625 billion of which will be
directed toward local communities--we note with concern that
the Administration's proposed budget might not allow most
local communities to participate because of an onerous (under
current circumstances cited above) 25% local ``match''
prerequisite for federal assistance. Congress has an historic
opportunity to assist local communities by adding $875
million to this package, thereby relieving them of this
unfunded mandate, and ensuring that local first responders
may continue to serve as America's first line of defense. In
the event that the Committee cannot fund the $875 million, we
respectfully request that you waive the local match or reduce
the percentage as much as possible and adjust local terrorism
preparedness appropriations accordingly.
We recognize the difficult choices that you face this
fiscal year. However, we continue to believe that funding for
local homeland security efforts demands our attention and
assistance.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Representatives Abercrombie, Ackerman, Andrews, Baca,
Baldacci, Baldwin, Becerra, Berkley, Berman,
Blagojevich, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boswell, S. Brown,
Capps, Capuano, Cardin, B. Carson, Christensen,
Clayton, Clement, Clyburn, Coyne, Crowley, Cummings, D.
Davis, Delahunt, DeLauro, Doggett, Edwards, Farr,
Filner, Frank, Gordon, G. Green, Graham, Harman,
Hinchey, Hoeffel, Holt, Honda, Houghton, Hyde, Jackson,
Tubbs Jones, W. Jones, Kildee, Kind, Kucinich, LaFalce,
Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen, Larson, B. Lee,
Jackson Lee, J. Lewis, LoBiondo, Lofgren, Lynch,
Maloney, Markey, Matsui, McCarthy, McGovern, McKinney,
McNulty, Meeks, Menendez, Millender-McDonald, G.
Miller, Moore, Nadler, Neal, Norton, Olver, Pallone,
Pascrell, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Phelps, Quinn, Rahall,
Rivers, Rodriguez, Ross, Sandlin, Sawyer, Schakowsky,
Schiff, Scott, Shows, Skelton, Slaughter, Snyder,
Solis, Stupak, Sweeney, M. Thompson, Thurman, Tierney,
Towns, Turner, M. Udall, T. Udall, Wamp, Watson,
Waxman, Weldon, Woolsey, Wu, and Wynn.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Freedom to
Telecommute Act of 2002.
For many years, the government contracting industry has been forced
to lag behind because many government agencies prohibit their
contractors from allowing telecommuting. This legislation will help
them move into the 21st century.
Many of the country's most technologically advanced companies have
embraced telecommuting as a cost-savings measure that is good for
companies, good for employees and good for families. For far too long
the demands of the job have conflicted with the demands of the family,
and workers have had to choose between the two. For many workers, a 9
to 5 workday is not feasible.
Rather than neglecting their duties at home in order to work,
telecommuting allows them to supplement their traditional workday or to
occasionally work from home. Some businesses have also found it
advantageous to offer telecommuting as an alternative to the
traditional office environment. This practice saves money, and when the
government is the customer, the savings can be passed along to the
American taxpayer.
This legislation permits government contractors to take advantage of
telecommuting opportunities. We will all benefit from this change to
procurement policies. Government contracts will be completed faster and
more efficiently, saving us all money and taxes. The deterrents to
working more than the normal workday will be removed if employees can
work from home and contractors will invest money in their product
rather than costly overhead.
The increased number of telecommuters will also take people off the
roads during heavy commuting hours, reducing congestion and helping our
environment.
The most important change that will result from this legislation is
the benefits that will result for the employees of government
contractors. They will be able to spend more time with their family,
while still meeting their work commitments. Moms and dads will be able
to stay at home with a sick child and still be able to work. Moms and
dads can take their kids to soccer practice and return to work when
they get home.
The district I represent in Norfolk and Virginia Beach has hundreds
of companies who contract with the Defense Department. By allowing
their employees to telecommute, many of these contractors will save
money and give the government the ability to spend money on our
Nation's national security priorities rather than more costly
government contracts.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is pro-taxpayer, pro-business and pro-
family. I thank my good friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement
Policy, for submitting this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) if he has additional speakers. At this time we
have none and we are prepared to close.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman and tell
him that we do have one additional speaker and then I would close. We
will go ahead and allow my speaker, allow the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) to close and then we will do the same. It is my
understanding there will be a vote on this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions), as of 5 minutes ago there was no vote
requested.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to advise Members that may be
listening there is a potential to have a vote on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the time, and I thank most especially the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for bringing this Freedom to
Telecommute Act on the floor.
I rise in support of the rule and of the bill, H.R. 3924. This
legislation is vital to transforming our entire workforce into the
model for the 21st century.
In the year 2000 there were 2.8 million regularly employed
teleworkers in the United States, growing about 20.6 percent from the
previous years. A recent telemarketing cost-benefit analysis suggests
telework arrangements can save employers $3,000 per year per employee.
There is no doubt that this family friendly work arrangement is more
productive both for the employer and the employee and will become more
commonplace in the next century, but
[[Page H1015]]
currently Federal Government employers lag far behind their private
counterparts in accepting and implementing alternative work methods
such as telecommuting. Many Federal employers are stuck in the old
style of management, believing that employees must be in the employer's
sight in order to be productive and effective, and that I believe is a
problem.
In my home district of West Virginia, particularly in the Eastern
Panhandle area, which is very close to Washington, D.C., there are many
Federal employees who endure a tremendously long commute every day.
These hours in the car or on a train cause stress or strain and they
prevent parents from spending more time with their families.
The Jefferson Telecenter in Ranson, West Virginia, has been a
wonderful resource for setting up a more family friendly work
environment. I was just there yesterday and visited with an employee
from the EPA who expressed her arrangement was very satisfactory, both
for her and for her employer.
These personal stories of a better quality of life where people can
spend more time with their children and less time in a car are ample
evidence that Congress should be more open to telecommuting
opportunities.
I urge my colleagues to join me and pass not only the rule but the
act.
I again want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for
his constant vigilance in the area of telecommuting, and I want to join
with him in every effort to see that this moves forward to bring us to
a more productive workforce.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There were points of order against this debate that were raised by my
colleagues on the other side, and there was a citation to the specific
rule that ostensibly and allegedly was violated and rulings from the
Speaker and the Parliamentarian's advices in that regard, all on this
particular rule with reference to telecommunication.
After all the bluster of the past few minutes, let me remind my
friends on the other side that under their budget fewer people will be
able to telecommute because there will be fewer jobs. That is simply
the point we were trying to make, and telecommunication in the final
analysis, the contractors that we are trying to protect are people who
will be dealing with Medicare, people dealing with hospitals and health
care, people dealing with roads, people dealing with education, all of
these telecommuters that we are about the process of trying to protect.
Thus, we saw some of my colleagues come down here to the floor to
discuss the fact that I raised last evening, and that is that we did
not have enough time to discuss those matters that are germane, and
there is a distinction in this rule and the rule that we will be
discussing on the more germane points having to do with this Nation's
security both economically as well as its defense.
Let me just say, stifling debate is the antithesis of opening up the
process that we are trying to do on this telecommunications rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we have had a rule that we debated on telecommuting. We have
underlying legislation that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), through his subcommittee, has brought to the floor today. We
had a vigorous debate. Seems like we have agreement on this bill.
I am very proud of not only the work that the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis) does but also the Committee on Rules for its fair rule,
a one-hour debate which we provide on any piece of legislation that is
important enough to come to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
and the underlying legislation which will allow all workers to enjoy
the all-around benefits of telecommuting, the Federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
{time} 1145
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Pursuant to House Resolution
373 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3924.
{time} 1145
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3924) to authorize telecommuting for Federal contractors, with
Mr. Fossella in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the bill now under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3924, the Freedom to
Telecommute Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for his
assistance in bringing this to the floor, as well as the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and the ranking
member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner); and
also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my colleague from
Virginia, who has been a pioneer in the area of telecommuting
throughout this Congress and previous Congresses.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen a tremendous push for competitors to enter
the marketplace. As the economy has cooled and the Federal Government
appears to be ramping up on spending, vendors are now turning to the
government marketplace as the first stop, not the last. Current
acquisition law hampers the expansion of the government marketplace
because Federal agencies may, under current law, refuse a bid proposal
from a potential contractor that utilizes telecommuting in its work
force. This is a hindrance to some contractors wishing to participate
in the Federal marketplace. It also reduces the pool of contractors
from whom the Federal Government can procure innovative services and
technologies, and by so doing, of course, raises the cost to the
American taxpayer and limits the number of items and the breadth of
items that we can purchase that will accomplish the governmental
mission.
H.R. 3924 would prohibit Federal agencies from continuing this
practice. An exception is made if the contracting officer certifies in
writing that telecommuting would conflict with the needs of the agency.
For example, this exception may apply if a contractor deals with
classified or sensitive information. This will ensure that the Federal
marketplace continues to be a competitive choice among contractors.
The bill would also prohibit agencies from issuing solicitations that
would reduce the scoring of a potential contractor's proposal if that
contractor utilizes telecommuting.
Technological advances make telecommuting an attractive choice for
employees because it allows them to work almost anywhere at any time.
Telecommuting has caught on over the last 25 years and has become an
option for Federal employees just over the last decade. Today, we
estimate that close to 19 million people telework, and that number is
increasing.
Private sector organizations and Federal agencies with telecommuting
programs receive significant benefits. Telework has gained in
popularity since it promotes a productive workforce and increases
morale and quality of life, often resulting in higher rates of worker
retention. The potential for
[[Page H1016]]
increased productivity exists because of reduced office distractions:
fewer phone calls, no water cooler chats, less commuting time going
back and forth to work. Therefore, employees have increased time
uninterrupted at work to do their jobs.
As a Member from northern Virginia, I know what it is like to sit in
the worst traffic congestion in the country. Telecommuting reduces
congestion on our roads, and it helps the environment by eliminating a
significant number of vehicle trips during peak hours. Telework is also
a very family-friendly initiative. It offers parents the choice of
providing care and supervision for their own children while continuing
their careers. It also accommodates employees with health problems or
elder care or day care responsibilities.
The Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, which I chair,
has been encouraging the development and promotion of telecommuting
policies for the Federal Government. Last year, we conducted two
oversight hearings to examine Federal agencies' progress in this area.
We found that telecommuting is an excellent recruitment and retention
tool that the Federal Government can use to address its human capital
management crisis. The Federal Government should be a telecommuting
leader. We should not be following industry. We should not be following
our contractors. We ought to be leading the way. But, unfortunately,
Federal agencies have been reluctant to embrace this concept.
For example, Federal managers are resistant to the concept because
they would no longer be in the position to monitor employees directly.
This attitude ignores the increased employee morale and productivity
that results. The testimony before our subcommittee shows that the
private sector is turning to this because it increases employee morale,
it increases employee retention, it helps in recruitment, and, most of
all, it increases productivity. It is time for Federal managers to
shift their focus from a process-oriented performance measurement to a
results-driven measurement.
When the Federal Government contracts with companies that embrace
telework initiatives, the Federal workforce is directly exposed to this
concept. Managers who have been reluctant to embrace this concept get
to see it firsthand. This is one more way to help break down the
managerial barriers that exist today to successful telecommunications
and telecommuting in the Federal Government.
Federal agencies continue to grapple with barriers to acquiring the
goods and services they need in order to meet their mission objectives.
Agencies require better management approaches and purchasing tools
government-wide to facilitate the efforts of acquisition managers in
meeting agency goals.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy,
I am working with our minority members in the administration to
accomplish broader acquisition reform. For example, I recently
introduced H.R. 3832, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, SARA, which
directs the Federal Government to adopt management reform techniques
modeled after those in the private sector.
The current Federal services acquisition policy precludes companies
with innovative human capital management models from participating
fully in the Federal marketplace. And the loser is the Federal
Government, which does not get the value and it does not get the
competitive nature of these groups. The taxpayers also lose because
they do not get the lower prices that competition brings. This sends
the wrong message to Federal agencies, and it sends the wrong message
to potential contractors.
Federal agencies receive mixed messages about the value of
telecommuting under current law. Congress has passed a variety of
legislation promoting telecommuting in the Federal workplace, and yet
we turn around and restrict Federal contractor employees from
implementing similar policies. At the same time, we are striving to
create an acquisition system for the Federal Government that is modeled
after the best practices of the private sector. But our current policy
prevents the private sector from utilizing a critical management
initiative such as telecommuting.
At the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy's two
hearings on this topic, we heard from companies such as AT&T and
Siemens Enterprise Networks. Both companies testified about the
benefits of their telecommuting programs. They highlighted the
strategic value of these programs as recruitment and retention tools.
Moreover, at the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy's
September 6, 2001, hearing, we heard testimony from the Information
Technology Association of America, the ITAA. Harris Miller, ITAA's
president, testified about the challenges his organization's member
companies face in the contracting process when they offer their
employees the flexibility of telework. Contracting officers are
reluctant to allow contractors to telecommute. As I already mentioned,
H.R. 3924 will solve this problem.
As the Federal Government transforms its services' contracting
processes from one that is performance-based to a results-driven
process, human capital management strategies need to be adjusted
accordingly. Human capital is of primary importance to private sector
organizations. The Federal Government should encourage this viewpoint
among its contractors and incorporate it into the agencies' management
structures.
We are way behind the 8 ball on this at the Federal level; and this
legislation, I think, will move us a step forward. So I encourage my
colleagues to help expand telecommuting opportunities for Federal
contracting employees, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 3924.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3924, and I commend Chairman
Davis for his work on this legislation. It is very clear, I think to
all of us, that the Federal Government faces a severe and looming human
capital crisis; and one of the ways, one of the ways that we can
encourage a strong Federal workforce is to utilize some of the
management principles that the private sector has adopted. And we know
for certainty that the private sector has been much more aggressive in
promoting the use of telecommuting in the private sector than has the
Federal Government.
The benefits to the Federal Government would be to improve worker
productivity, morale and retention, and to improve recruitment of
Federal workers. And to do so, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) has proposed in this legislation an encouragement to the private
contractors, those who contract with the Federal Government, a
provision that would prohibit them from outright banning the use of
telecommunication unless there is some clear and distinct justification
for doing so, such as national security or some other practical
prohibition that would keep those employees of that private contractor
from being able to engage in telecommuting.
Advances in information technology have made it so that many jobs in
our society can be conducted from many locations. People can, in fact,
perform work at home, on the Internet, rather than coming in to the
traditional office. We look at the numbers of how many people are
utilizing telecommunication in the private sector and we see, according
to the latest figures, that there are about 19 million Americans who
telecommute as a part of their job, and that number is rising. But when
we look at the Federal Government, according to the Office of Personnel
Management, there are only about 45,000 employees, or about 2.6 percent
of our Federal workforce, that telecommute once a week, and almost half
of those are in a single agency.
So we can see that the Federal Government has, in fact, lagged behind
the private sector. Now, this bill is designed to encourage the greater
use of telecommuting in the Federal Government. And it is interesting
to note that though this is a very significant piece of legislation to
the gentleman from Virginia, who represents northern Virginia, where we
have a large Federal workforce, the encouragement of telecommuting
could in fact provide Federal employment opportunities as far away as
my district in east Texas. Because if jobs can in fact be performed at
home through the use of the Internet, perhaps some of those very
lucrative Federal jobs could be spread
[[Page H1017]]
around, Mr. Chairman, to some of the rest of us.
So I am very pleased to be able to join my colleague in support of
this legislation to encourage further use of telecommuting in the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and let me just say that there is no reason jobs could
not go to east Texas, or anywhere else under telecommuting, where we
could get the best and the brightest to be able to perform their duties
and not have to have them in the current work-structured atmosphere, an
outmoded structure that the Federal Government now operates under.
I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his
help and assistance on this legislation. He has been a most
constructive partner in our efforts to better utilize telecommunicating
and acquisition reform. Hopefully, the time is not too distant when we
will find thousands more parents in the Washington area and other areas
able to telecommute, giving them more time to drive their kids back and
forth to their piano lessons, to see their kids' practices and games or
visit their schools, to adjust to appropriate medical appointments
their kids may have; and, frankly, just to have more time with their
families. With greater family satisfaction, I think, goes greater
worker productivity.
{time} 1200
It means for the Federal Government our ability to recruit and retain
good people and keep them in this business, something that over the
long term for the American taxpayer lowers our costs and gets better
value for our tax dollars. This is an important first step. I urge
adoption of this measure.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support
H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act. This bill does the right
thing by permitting federal agencies to allow contractors to
telecommute.
Telecommuting is an integral part of building livable communities
because it gives people more choices in their work, for their families
and for our environment. Not everyone can live next-door to his or her
workplace, but with telecommuting, more people can work from home when
appropriate and we can reduce the troublesome peak-hour demand on our
transportation systems.
In 2001, one in five American workers, or 28 million Americans were
telecommuters and the growth of telecommuting is impressive. The number
of U.S. telecommuters grew from roughly 19 million in 2000 to 32
million in 2001 and experts predicts that more than 137 million workers
will be involved in some sort of remote work by next year.
Increasingly, private and public organizations are adopting
telecommuting as a successful workforce strategy because telecommuting
helps recruit new employees, expand the labor pool and provide staffing
flexibility. It also reduces sick leave, increases productivity,
reduces stress and protects the environment. In fact, if 10 percent of
the nation's workforce were able to telecommute only one day a week, we
would cut 24.4 million driving miles, eliminate 12,963 tons of air
pollution and conserve more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel each week.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill that helps build more
livable communities by promoting telecommuting.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3924, the Freedom
to Telecommute Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong advocate
of telecommuting and believe that it can be a major answer to solving
traffic congestion around the country. It's simple. Fewer cars equal
less traffic equal less pollution.
The federal government is already on the way to making telework a
standard option for federal employees. Two years ago I included a
provision in the transportation spending bill which requires federal
agencies to identify employees whose jobs would be appropriate for
telework one or more days each week. By the end of last year, each
agency was required to offer the telework option to 25 percent of these
eligible employees and to continue offering the option to an additional
25 percent until 100 percent of federal employees who are able to
telework can.
My friend and colleague from Virginia, Representative Davis who
strongly supports the federal telework program, has sponsored the
Freedom to Telecommute Act on the floor today. This bill to authorize
telecommuting for federal contractors will partner with my provision
requiring federal agencies to allow workers to telework. It only makes
sense that if we are working to encourage federal employees to be
teleworking, we should also be allowing employees of federal
contractors who work side by side with federal workers the option to
telecommute.
A George Mason University study found that by reducing cars on the
road by 3 percent, you can reduce traffic delays by 10 percent. This
means if we can get 6 percent of the workforce to telecommute, we can
reduce traffic congestion by 20 percent.
Studies show that employees are more productive when they telework.
They also have a higher quality of life and more time to spend with
their families instead of sitting in traffic. Teleworking also saves
businesses money by freeing up expensive office space. Add in the
benefit of cleaner air from fewer cars on the road and teleworking adds
up to a win-win situation for everyone.
I urge a unanimous vote for H.R. 3924.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 3924 is as follows:
H.R. 3924
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to Telecommute Act
of 2002''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF TELECOMMUTING FOR FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS.
(a) Amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued in accordance
with sections 6 and 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405 and 421) shall be amended to permit
the use of telecommuting by employees of Federal contractors
in the performance of contracts with executive agencies.
(b) Content of Amendment.--(1) The amendment issued
pursuant to subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, provide that
solicitations for the acquisition of goods or services shall
not set forth any requirement or evaluation criteria
described in paragraph (2) unless the contracting officer
first--
(A) determines that the needs of the agency, including the
security needs of the agency, cannot be met without any such
requirement; and
(B) explains in writing the basis for that determination.
(2) A requirement or evaluation criteria under this
paragraph is a requirement or evaluation criteria that
would--
(A) render an offeror ineligible to receive a contract
award based on the offeror's plan to allow its employees to
telecommute; or
(B) reduce the scoring of an offeror's proposal based upon
the contractor's plan to allow its employees to telecommute.
(c) GAO Report.--Not later than one year after the date on
which the amendment required by subsection (a) is published
in the Federal Register, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress an evaluation of--
(1) compliance by executive agencies with the regulations;
and
(2) conformance of the regulations with existing law,
together with any recommendations that the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``executive
agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 105 of
title 5, United States Code.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Knollenberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fossella, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3924) to
authorize telecommuting for Federal contractors, pursuant to House
Resolution 373, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
[[Page H1018]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5
minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote on the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 371, which vote will be taken
immediately after the vote on passage of H.R. 3924.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 71]
YEAS--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Blagojevich
Davis (FL)
Gutierrez
Lipinski
Lofgren
Morella
Northup
Peterson (PA)
Rush
Shadegg
Shows
Traficant
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1225
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 71, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________