Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to speak on the matter of the U.N. family-planning program or the UNFPA. Last year, President Bush cancelled three years' worth of funding to the UNFPA after allegations that the UNFPA's program in China violated the Kemp-Kasten law. This law prohibits the United States from providing funding to any organization that supports or participates in involuntary sterilization. In May of last year, President Bush sent his own three person team to China to investigate but even after they returned finding no evidence in support of these rumors, the President still cancelled funding to this much needed organization, endangering the lives of women across the globe. Over the past 33 years, the UNFPA has provided more than $6 billion in assistance to more than 160 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care. It has provided life-saving reproductive health services in over 150 poor countries around the world, but has not provided or paid for abortion services anywhere in the world. The UNFPA has actually worked to reduce the need for abortion by promoting voluntary family planning. The fact remains that today nearly 600,000 die each year from causes related to pregnancy; 99 percent of these women are from developing countries. Many of these deaths could have been prevented by providing the means or information to choose the size and spacing of their families. And while contraceptive use has increased, there are 350 million women in developing countries who do not have access to a range of safe and effective family planning methods. With the UNFPA program, it will provide reproductive health care, including family planning services but not abortion, to the world's poorest women. The loss of each year's funding will have a severe impact in the developing countries the UNFPA serves: $34 million would prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies; nearly 800,000 abortions; 4,700 maternal deaths; nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness; and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths. These numbers are astounding and certainly something I would want to prevent. The evidence is clear: funding to the UNFPA must be restored. The UNFPA has time and time again proven to be a necessary organization ensuring the safety and well being of women and their families. It will continue to provide safe methods of contraception to women, giving them a choice with their health and with their lives.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Nicole Jones on her graduation from Harvard University, July 24, 2003: Whereas, Harvard University, which celebrated its 350th anniversary in 1986, is the oldest institute of higher learning in the United States of America; and Whereas, Harvard University has grown from nine students with a single master to an enrollment of more than 18,000 degree candidates, including undergraduates and students in ten graduate and professional schools; and Whereas, Seven Presidents of the United States of America, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and George W. Bush were graduates of Harvard; and Whereas, its faculty has produced nearly 40 Nobel laureates; and Whereas, Harvard University continues to be recognized as one of the very best and most outstanding academic institutions in the world today; now therefore, be it resolved that I Danny K. Davis take this opportunity to congratulate my next door neighbor, Ms Nicole Jones on this outstanding milestone in her career; and be it further Resolved, That I commend and congratulate my neighbors Mr. George and Ms. Jenny Jones, her proud parents, for the contributions which they have made to Nicole's nurturing and development. We all wish her well as she moves on to the University of Michigan Law School to make further preparation for a lifetime of service.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend and congratulate the American Political Science Association on the occasion of having reached a milestone of 50 years of existence, 50 years of growth, and 50 years of providing opportunities for individuals to obtain first-hand experiences in learning about and being involved about and being involved in the art of public-policy decisionmaking. It has been my experience to have talented, energetic, and eager to learn individuals interact with me and members of my staff in a very professional and sincere way as we worked together in pursuit of mutual goal. I also take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship Program for doing an excellent job of helping to prepare many of our future leaders. We thank you APSA and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I will then discuss my amendment at the same time as the Fattah amendment, though it is different from the Fattah amendment. My amendment dealt with the fact that section 8 is underfunded and HOPE VI housing is underfunded in this appropriation. The bill funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The single largest low-income housing program at HUD is the section 8 housing choice voucher program. The voucher program enables low-income families with children, the elderly and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. It makes up the difference between what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and what private rents are, and is a critical source of support for more than 2 million families. Without vouchers, many of these families would be stuck in overcrowded and unsafe housing, or even worse, homeless. If the shortcomings of this bill are not addressed, 85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. These families need affordable housing assistance. The current funding in H.R. 2861 does not address nor take into consideration inflation and the high cost of living, unemployment, and the failure of corporations and small businesses. Another housing program which is underfunded is HOPE VI. The purpose of the HOPE VI program is to revitalize severely distressed public housing developments and transform them into safe, livable environments. A required element of the program is the provision of the effective, targeted self-sufficiency initiatives so that public housing can regain its role as housing for low-income families who are determined to improve their status. HOPE VI funds are used to provide three types of grants: planning, implementation, and demolition. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of public housing in Chicago is in my district and, of course, we need public housing assistance. Without HOPE VI, many of the people will lose hope and lose what they have had. My amendment would have added $300 million to HOPE VI to replace some of the $500 million that is being cut. But since most of the money has already been given back to the wealthy in the form of huge tax cuts, I am afraid that very little is left for HOPE VI for the poor, for veterans health care, for the needy, for the disadvantaged, and for the 3 million people who have lost their jobs. Since the money is gone, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle the most effective of all Great Society programs, Head Start.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, sometimes when we evaluate, we need to look at the depths from which one comes as opposed to only the heights to which they have not excelled. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore reference to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. And while I am pleased with the acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that other amendments will not be discussed here today. Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50 percent of teachers have bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind. Education is, in fact, the great equalizer, and since its introduction in 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional behavior, and readiness skills necessary for success. In those 38 years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty. What we have learned is what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes dedicated, skilled, well-trained teachers. It takes parental involvement. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care. It takes nutrition. It does not take some kind of program that has never been tested. Let us keep Head Start. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller from the Education and the Workforce Committee and Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey from the Subcommittee on Select Education for their work on this bill. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore references to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. While I am pleased with acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that numerous amendments designed to improve this legislation will not be discussed today. Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50% of teachers have Bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate, like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind. Education is the great equalizer. Since its introduction 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional, behavioral and readiness skills necessary for success in the future. In those thirty-eight years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty and what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes skilled, well trained and dedicated teachers. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care, nutrition, it takes parental involvement and participation. It takes more than eloquent speeches about Leave No Child Behind experiments. The Head Start program has grown and changed through the years with the increased knowledge of how best to serve low-income children and their families. Study after study has shown that participation in the program results in decreased incidence of school failure, higher graduation rates, lower crime rates later in life, and better social and emotional relationships. In these times when politicians speak so eloquently on how no child should be left behind, why would we conduct an experiment that would restructure an already successful program and, ultimately, result in thousands of children being left behind? Title II of this bill would do just that. It implements a pilot program for eight states to take the Head Start money appropriated to them and run the program on their own. The idea behind this experimental program is to integrate Head Start with already existing state preschool programs. However, such a move would undermine the intent of Head Start as a comprehensive, family-based program. Title II would allow states to determine their own standards, guidelines, and qualifications. These states could decide to implement Head Start as a pre-kindergarten program, cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental care, medical care, and other important services currently guaranteed to children in the program. With the current state budget crisis, these services will almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income children served by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely important services. The Head Start program has been in place for 38 years and has been continually improving in quality as professionals have gained knowledge on how best to serve low-income children. This knowledge and understanding has resulted in high quality standards being set. In contrast, many states do not even have preschool programs, and those that do are still in the early stages of developing them. Few state-run preschool programs have established quality standards. Nor do state-run preschool programs encourage the active participation of parents. Helping parents learn how to provide nurturing environments for their children has a positive impact for years after graduation from Head Start and is beneficial for the child in the program as well as his or her siblings. The role of parents in Head Start goes far beyond being a PTA member or a teacher's aide; parents learn that they are the most important role model for their children and must be a caring and supportive influence. The vast majority of State-run preschool programs also have little to no integration of services, which is already a major part of the Head Start program. Merging Head Start with programs that do not have quality standards, do not encourage parent participation, and do not provide such services as nutrition, health, and immunizations runs the risk of destabilizing a successful program and lowering standards and minimizing services that have been so painstakingly developed. Mr. Chairman, Head Start could serve our children better. However, dismantling the program and leaving states to rebuild it without the insights gained over the past thirty-eight years would be a tragedy for our low-income children and their families.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have always stood by the saying that ``education is the great equalizer''. Yet, in this bill, we are allowing education to be easily accessible to the haves and more difficult to obtain for our Nation's have-nots. This attitude toward education is a giant step backwards to 40 years ago. Low-income children, children with disabilities and individuals who want to go to college are the ones that are being hurt substantially in this bill. Although, the 2004 budget resolution was to provide the Department of Education with a $3 billion increase, this bill only allows for a $2.3 billion increase over Fiscal Year 2003. The Title I program is one that is hit the heaviest. Title I schools have the least experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, a less rigorous curriculum, the least amount of resources and students with greater academic deficits, which all adds up to these schools being less able to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's mandates. Instead of providing a substantial increase to offset the disadvantage these schools are already facing, this bill only provides a $666 million increase, compared to the $1 billion in the 2004 budget resolution. On April 30, this House passed the IDEA reauthorization bill with the promise attached from the 2004 budget resolution to provide a $2.2 billion increase over the current level. Yet, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. As deficit stricken states continue to cut from their school funding, schools will have to continue to absorb the costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million school children as well as even cut other school programs or hope for a local referendum to pass to offset the shortfall. A college graduate can expect to earn 80 percent more than a high school graduate, or $1 million over the course of a lifetime. This obviously allows for an individual to have a better quality of life by having a higher skilled job, better health insurance, pension and the ability to provide a better life for their children. Yet, this bill in essence abandons higher education federal student aid. All the federal student aid programs: Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, Perkins Loan Program, LEAP, and Graduate Education are level funded. This may not sound too bad but for example the Pell Grants maximum award was kept at $4,050 which will only cover 38 percent or less of expenses in a 4-year public college compared to 84 percent of expenses covered by Pell Grants in 1975, when the program originated. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is abandoning higher education while the states suffer record breaking deficits. These simultaneous occurrences result in cuts in grant aid to students facing rising cost in higher education. Loyola University Chicago lost $1 million in state grant aid for needy students due to Illinois $5 billion deficit. How much more will their students lose without any increases to the federal student aid programs? Mr. Chairman, If we pass this bill, we are sending the message that we do not care enough about all of our nation's children and young people. We need to ensure that we are helping those who are in most need of help--low-income children, children with disabilities, and those who have the desire to continue their education but who just can not afford to go without assistance of state and federal aid. Our message needs to be clear. But most importantly, our message needs to be more than just words. Let's see increases in funding where they are most needed.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. Those who are debating this bill can be divided into just two separate groups: those who support making pharmaceuticals more affordable to Americans, and those who are swayed by the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to maintain astronomical profit margins. I proudly stand with the first group. You cannot deny the skyrocketing prescription drug costs in this country. The price of the top 50 drugs used by American seniors rose at three and a half times the rate of inflation in 2002. At community clinics, physicians prescribing common antibiotics find that their patients cannot afford them. Americans with diabetes, high blood pressure, and other manageable diseases go without life-preserving medications. Meanwhile, those in other countries pay as little as one tenth what Americans pay for the exact same pharmaceuticals. In Canada, the country's national health care system allows them to negotiate prices with drug companies, substantially reducing costs for Canadians. In their quest for profit, those drug companies raise prices in the U.S. to compensate for lost profits in Canada. Contrary to our opponents' claims, H.R. 2427 has built-in provisions to ensure the safety of reimported drugs. The new technologies developed to ensure the safety of reimported drugs will also safeguard domestic pharmaceuticals against counterfeiting. Our opponents claim that the FDA fails to adequately monitor the safety of drugs already being imported into the U.S. The answer is not to deny Americans the right to reimported pharmaceuticals, but to hold the FDA accountable for its failures and demand improvement. Our opponents claim that H.R. 2427 would hurt low-income Americans, in attempts to win more support for their position. In fact, this bill would only provide poor Americans with more access to the medicines they need through cost reductions. Mr. Speaker, as health care costs rise out of control, we must take every step possible to improve health care for the 41 million uninsured and countless underinsured Americans. I urge you to join me in support of H.R. 2427. Do now allow our opponents, influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, to deny safe, affordable prescription drugs to Americans.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for making that point.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kilpatrick amendment to increase HIV/AIDS funding for Africa. I am very pleased that the committee has seen fit to have already included a total of $1.43 billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. However, this amendment, and in many ways, it is a meager amendment, will allow another $300 million to be added to the funding as a way to get closer to the fulfilling of our country's promise of providing $3 billion in funding for HIV/AIDS in 2004. According to the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, more than 70 million people have already become infected since the outbreak of the disease, with an estimated 5 million new cases this year. The estimated 70 million people infected stretches across borders. They do not stop at three countries or five countries or 10 countries. No, they include all of the countries, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Eastern Europe and Central Asia now have the world's fastest growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. In Africa, six southern nations are facing famine because of the combination of drought and a dramatic decrease in the labor force due to being infected with HIV. Due to these horrific conditions, without work or food, there has been an increase of sex being used to obtain money and food. The Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS also mentions that if an estimated $10.5 billion is spent each year by 2005, then approximately 29 million new infections could be prevented. We need to support the international programs that have been established and that are working. In the President's recent trip to Africa, he continuously repeated America's promise of $3 billion per year. Yet our Congress, under this appropriations bill and the labor-HHS appropriations, is only appropriating less than $2 billion. Mr. Chairman, an estimated 3 million people will die from HIV/AIDS this year. This gives no doubt that the great need for additional assistance is necessary. The time is not now to plunder and wonder or talk about what could possibly happen if we are spending too fast. I would say to my colleagues who worry about spending too fast that people are dying too fast. I would much rather be a part of the spending than be a part of the dying. Let us support the Kilpatrick amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the violation imposed on women prisoners' right to reproductive choice. Abortion has been legal in this country for more than thirty years. Roe v. Wade did not lay out specifics that only white women or black women could get an abortion, that only the rich or the poor could have this health care service or that is to be taken away if a woman is imprisoned. In 1993, Congress lifted the six year funding restriction that had prohibited the use of federal funds to provide abortion services to women in federal prison. After the restrictions were lifted, the Bureau of Prisons required medical, religious or social counseling sessions for women seeking these services. The Bureau even took the steps to respect others views by not requiring the participation of any staff personnel that personally did not agree with reproductive choice. Yet in 1995, the funding restriction was put back in place and once again, women prisoners were denied their reproductive choice. All the cards are stacked against women in prison. In the last decade, the number of women in federal prison has increased by 182 percent, compared to 152 percent for men, making women 7.5 percent of the prison population. The rates of infection for HIV and AIDS in women exceed the rate of infection for men in prison with the number of infected women increasing by more than 88 percent since 1991. Amnesty International USA released a report in 1999 revealing that gynecological services, in general, for women in prisons were inadequate and of poor quality. Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and vulnerable to sexual abuse or misconduct by correctional officers. Now imagine a women in prison being in those conditions, with those circumstances being isolated from family and friends, not earning meaningful compensation from prison jobs, and being pregnant knowing she will receive poor prenatal care, the loss of custody upon the birth, and without the ability to make a decision on her reproductive rights. These women are completely dependent on the health care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons. This ban prevents them from seeking needed reproductive health care and prohibits them from having a reproductive choice.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of this resolution to establish a National Community Health Center Week. As we have discussed prescription drugs for our seniors on the House floor, some of the main points of discussion have been issues like affordability, accessibility and who is being served. Just as the bill that was passed last Congress and this Congress, there will be individuals that can not afford their prescriptions or some that will just not have access to them. Fortunately, I know that there are Community Health Centers available throughout the nation to help those in need or who get displaced by health care legislation. Community health centers have become the safety net within the health care system caring for 1 of every 5 low-income babies born in America, 1 of every 8 uninsured individuals, 1 of every 9 Medicaid beneficiaries, 1 of every 9 persons of color, 1 of every 10 rural Americans, almost 750,000 homeless and nearly 850,000 farm workers. Community health centers are established in almost every corner of our nation, representing every aspect of any Congressional district--whether it be assisting the working poor in the inner city or in the rural farmland, migrant workers, or even those who have insurance but do not have access to any other health facilities. These health centers provide high-quality, cost effective health care as they continually meet escalating health needs and assist in reducing health disparities as well as adapting to the changing nation. With the weakened economy and unemployment reaching its highest point in almost a decade, our nation's health centers are feeling and will continue to feel the consequences by an increasing volume of patients, especially the uninsured. By establishing a week to raise awareness of community health centers, we will also be highlighting each year the great accomplishments these nonprofit, community owned and operated health providers offer so many communities. With recent numbers indicating that the nation's uninsured population is even higher than once thought, at a startling 60 million, if our nation will not realize the need for universal health care, we need to realize the importance and the need to better fund our community health centers. One of the most amazing aspects of the community health centers is the involvement of the community. Each center tailors their services to best meet the needs and priorities of the communities of which they are in. Citizens in these communities become active participants in their community's health care decision making. Health centers even provide approximately 60,000 jobs to the residents in the communities of the centers. Mr. Speaker, community health centers are the safety net that are committed to serving all individuals with the mission that everyone deserves quality health care services regardless of where one resides, if they can pay or have insurance. They are vital in insuring that America's forgotten are being kept healthy.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the SARS epidemic took a great toll on Southeast Asia. China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan and Toronto were all affected. As of July 11, a total of over 8,400 persons fell victim to SARS, and over 800 died. Taiwan was the third hardest hit country, where 671 became ill and 84 died. Many of the SARS cases in Taiwan could be traced to a lapse of infection control procedures in a single hospital. Health authorities rapidly responded, upgrading the SARS surveillance system, tightening infection control procedures, and educating the population to quickly respond--to symptoms of a potential SARS infection. A key element to Taiwan's success was its ability to coordinate the responses of all relevant sectors. I commend the government of Taiwan for its highly effective handling of this health emergency. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the SARS epidemic which had plagued Taiwan has now abated. On July 15, 2003, the Centers for Disease Control officially lifted the travel alert for Taiwan, with no new cases having been reported there in over a month. All known chains of person-to-person transmission of SARS have been broken. I am pleased to say that we may now feel confident in continuing, without fear, our travel to and business with this wonderful country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on this day, I will join many of my colleagues in voicing my disapproval of the amendment presented by Rep. Pete Sessions and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III on H.R. 2691. H.R. 2691 makes appropriations for the Interior Department and related agencies for the fiscal year 2004. This amendment strikes out Section 335 from the bill which prohibits new competitive sourcing studies. In the Interior subcommittee's report language, a bipartisan majority of lawmakers expressed concern about the massive scale, the arbitrary targets, and the cost. This initiative remains on a fast track, without consideration for the implications or impacts of such a massive privatization scheme. The haphazard manner in which agencies are implementing privatization has had a horrendous impact on the agencies' abilities to provide basic services and due to incredibility short timeframe, agencies have been unable to designate and protect those programs that are ``inherently governmental'' as well as critical programs, which should not be subject to privatization. While we support our federal agencies in their efforts to streamline their processes, we contend that all efforts to ensure the success of innovative process management requires due diligence, and should be afforded all resources necessary to conceptualize, plan, test, implement and evaluate said processes. As our agencies are forced into a trust relationship with contractors, they are faced with conflicts which impact their Vision, Mission and Goals of providing efficient and effective quality services to our Nation, while ensuring the solvency and viability of its organization and workforce. We must remain diligent and steadfast in our efforts to protect the Workforce of America, and we must ensure that we do not replace our existing workforce with a new Corp of Contractors, whose Statements of Work preclude them from the commitment and accountability which has remained the focus of our Federal workforce. Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow members of Congress, to vote ``no'' on this amendment, which, sir, is a vote ``yes'' for the future of America and her workforce.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Kind Amendment to increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program. Although, I am aware of the worthy funding for the Committee has offered to this program, I am bothered by the neglect to follow suit in the President's request to increase funding to $288 million from its current funding level of $223 million. The decision to not increase funding to an adequate level for the Weatherization Assistance Program will directly effect my District and my constituents. Chicago endures some of the country's most severe temperature extremes. In 2002, with on the onset of a harsh winter, Chicago residents saw their heating cost soar to record levels--nearly tripling the cost of 1999. Chicago experienced another cold winter in 2001 causing cost once again to be extremely high for residents. There were countless stories about seniors in my district, on a fixed income, making approximately $700 a month but whose December's gas bill was $400. The heating cost just did not affect residents, but small business, high-rises, and schools. The Chicago Public Schools reported in 2001 of having heating cost that were up $7 million, 50 percent more than what was called for in their budget. Historically, Chicago has experience the highest electricity rates in the Midwest and are among some of the highest nationwide. The President's request to increase funding would have permitted an additional 25,000 poor and elderly families to be served by this program. It is estimated that each home that is weatherized will generate $275 in annual savings and $4,650 of life-cycle savings per household. These savings are critical for the countless families in my district living near or below the federal poverty level and depend on this program and programs like it to have a warm home. I am proud that in January of 2002, the city of Chicago implemented its New Energy Conservation Code which re-defines energy efficiency requirements for all new and rehabilitated homes and commercial buildings. The goal of this new code will improve energy efficiency standards by 10 to 20 percent. But this is just one small step in the process to lower energy cost for our constituents that need the federal government's assistance. Mr. Chairman, if we do not help our constituents weatherize their homes to become more energy efficient and heating cost continue to rise, our constituents will only be spending more of their money on energy bills and less towards the growth of our economy. This amendment is good for our constituents, is good for energy conservation and is good for our economy.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the author of this resolution and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply close by suggesting that my mother always used to tell us if we knew better, we would do better. I would hope as men become more aware as this kind of information proliferates, we will find men going to see their physicians, getting early screenings, making sure that they detect at an early stage possible illnesses so we can improve the quality of men's health and the quality of life for all Americans.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, National Men's Health Week is celebrated each year as the week leading up to and including Father's Day. The National Men's Health Week Act was passed by Congress in 1994 and signed into law by President Clinton, becoming Public Law 103-264 on May 31, 1994. Fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, uncles, and grandfathers should make use of this week and become aware of their health risks and ways to prevent disease, disability, and injury. The goal of National Men's Health Week is to raise awareness of the importance of early detection and treatment for men. The focus of last month's National Men's Health Week was heart disease, cancer, injuries, and stroke. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer other than skin cancer among men in the United States. It is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer-related death among men. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for all men in the United States; and injuries, both unintentional and those caused by acts of violence, are among the top 10 killers for Americans of all ages. Males are at a higher risk than women for motor vehicle crashes, falls, drownings, and homicide. This resolution will help address lack of awareness and poor health education among men and their families. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I would commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his introduction and for bringing this matter to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I had a friend who suffered from COPD. He liked to go to the Bulls basketball games. From time to time we would go together. He could not walk more than 20 or 30 feet without having to stop and rest. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his introduction of this very important measure and urge its passage.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 6, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness Month. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, referred to by the acronym COPD, is an umbrella term used to describe the airflow obstruction associated mainly with emphysema and chronic bronchitis. In short, COPD is a debilitating lung disease that is characterized by severe breathing limitations. This affects everyday tasks such as washing, dressing, even light housework and routine walking. COPD leaves many too breathless to leave the home. Sixteen million Americans suffer from COPD, and it is estimated that 16 million more have COPD. The important point to understand about COPD is the effect that it has on various populations. I was shocked to learn that, between 1980 and 2000, the annual COPD death rate for African Americans nearly doubled, going from 25 percent to 43 percent. It is estimated that 1.7 million African Americans have evidence of mild or moderate obstructive lung disease. Yet, in 2000, only half of these individuals reported being diagnosed with COPD. In addition to COPD's effect on African Americans, this disease is now disproportionately affecting women at an alarming rate. During the same period of time, 1980 to 2000, the COPD death rate among women nearly tripled, going from 20 percent to 57 percent. Currently, more women die from COPD than do men. It is estimated that 10.6 million women have evidence of mild or moderate obstructive lung disease. Illinois is not yet listed among the States experiencing high death rates associated with COPD. However, nearly half of the United States is now experiencing high death rates from COPD. The Centers for Disease Control now estimates that COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. By 2020, CDC estimates that COPD will be the third leading killer in the country. There is no cure for COPD, but with early diagnosis, treatment can ease the symptoms of patients who suffer from this disease. Continued ignorance about COPD is costly. COPD is the only leading chronic illness that continues to show increased mortality rates each year. In contrast, mortality rates associated with seven of the ten leading causes of death have actually decreased. Simply put, COPD takes a heavy toll on our economy. According to estimates made by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, in 2000 the annual cost to the Nation for COPD was over $30 billion. This included $14.7 billion in direct health care expenditures, $6.5 billion in indirect morbidity costs, and $9.2 billion in direct mortality costs. The sooner Americans learn more about COPD, the sooner they can take steps to combat it, and the sooner we can control the spiraling toll of this debilitating disease on our economy and human lives. Mr. Speaker, a national awareness month will bring a much-needed focus for COPD and provide a further opportunity to educate Americans and heighten the awareness of COPD's increasing prevalence. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, and I commend the gentleman from Florida for its sponsorship. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for the National Endowment of Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I represent a district that is rich in diversity, rich in pluralism, rich in people from different walks of life, different backgrounds. The grant provided from the NEA and NEH provides opportunities for people to better understand each other, to know what is going on with other people, to know what is in their thoughts, minds and ideas. We are not really talking about funding a program; we are talking about funding a way of life, to help keep America the diverse, understanding, pluralistic Nation that it is and to know what is happening in all parts of our communities and with people from all walks of life. As the country becomes more diverse and more pluralistic, it is absolutely essential that we find ways to better acquaint each other with cultural contributions, mores and folkways of different people within our society. Although we recognize the economic plight of our Nation, we know that inordinate resources must be devoted to anti- terrorism and homeland security measures, but we also know that education and the transference of understanding are necessary to maintain and continue growth in our democracy. Mr. Chairman, the need for understanding is so great that we do not only pay attention to programs but we also have to keep the American Dream alive and the thoughts and ideas continuously moving. We must keep music, art, culture, and hope ever-present in our lives. The Illinois Humanities Council and others like them throughout the Nation do an outstanding job of dividing and allocating these resources. They spread them around. And we get great mileage from the meager resources that we expend. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of increased funding for this great program that allows our Nation to flourish within many cultures. Again, it is not a program. It is keeping the doors of communication open and crossfertilizing different ways of life. It is important. I would urge its passage.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, Maynard Jackson, Jr., who took on Atlanta's establishment as the city's first black mayor and later helped plan for its role in the 1996 Olympics, died last month at the age of 65. Maynard Jackson first made history in 1973 when he was elected the first black mayor of Atlanta. He made his presence known immediately by taking on the predominantly white business leadership and demanding that doors be opened for blacks. That is why many people called him Mr. Affirmative Action in this country. He was reelected to a second term in 1977 where he led the city through one of its darkest periods, the string of slayings of young blacks from 1979 to 1981. When he left office after 2 years, barred from seeking a third consecutive term, he could boast of many accomplishments, including the expansion of Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and the opening of the city's rapid rail system. A lawyer by training, Maynard Jackson, Jr., was born in Dallas, Texas, on March 23, 1938, the third of six children. His father, Maynard Jackson, Sr., was a Baptist minister and his mother, Irene Jackson, was a college language teacher with a doctorate's degree in French. When Maynard was seven, his family moved to Atlanta to take over as pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church. He enrolled at Morehouse College in Atlanta as an early admissions scholar and earned a BA degree in political science. He later earned a law degree from North Carolina Central University. Maynard Jackson's family was active in early voting rights efforts. His grandfather was co-chairman of the Atlanta Negro Voters League, and his father founded the Georgia Voters League. Maynard Jackson can be credited with not only what was accomplished during his terms in office but also for laying the foundation for Atlanta's continuing success as one of the most desirable places in the country to live. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the rest of the time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the author of this resolution, a person from Atlanta who is well-known throughout America, to finish managing our time.