[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3660-3669]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 3661]]

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 3662]]

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. 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. 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 discuss 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

[[Page 3663]]

that is the reason that we made the decision as has traditionally been 
the case 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. 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

[[Page 3664]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3665]]

     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
       (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

[[Page 3666]]

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 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

[[Page 3667]]

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 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.

[[Page 3668]]

  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 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.

[[Page 3669]]

       (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.
  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.''

                          ____________________