Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, and as the Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization, I am proud to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative Morella, in co-sponsoring this amendment to H.R. 5005. We certainly have come a long way from the days, back in the 1800's, when it would not have been uncommon to find an ad in a Washington newspaper saying: ``WANTED--A GOVERNMENT CLERKSHIP at a salary of not less than $1,000 per annum. Will give $100 to any one securing me such a position.'' We now have a merit-based Federal civilian workforce that is unsurpassed by none. Our civil servants have responded with professionalism to the threats against our borders and assaults against our values. Those 170,000 employees who are identified to become the first employees of our new Department of Homeland Security will coalesce together to ``prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur.'' We are charging much to them--and they are up to the task. However, just as we are expecting much from these Federal civil servants, they should expect much from a grateful nation. We should safeguard their employment rights to the extent that doing so does not interfere with national security. This amendment that Mrs. Morella and I have introduced strikes this delicate balance. The President and the Federal Labor Relations Authority can presently exempt employees from union membership for ``national security work.'' The President used this authority last year to take away the collective bargaining rights for approximately 500 Justice Department workers, most of whom were clerical employees who had been unionized for twenty years. Their duties had not changed--what had changed was their rights to union membership. Simply stated, our amendment protects the rights of Federal employees. Those who currently have the right of union membership will retain this right in the new Department of Homeland Security--so long as they are doing the same work. This is no more than what is commonly referred to as a ``grandfather'' clause. Of the approximately 170,000 employees that will be transferred to the new Department, only 50,000 are represented by unions--less than one-third. These are the employees who would be protected under our amendment. We cannot take the risk that thousands of employees could lose their labor rights for ambiguous reasons. If they are doing the same work, they should have the same protections. This amendment would not change the standard for new employees hired to the Department of Homeland Security or those employees transferred who were not previously allowed union membership. Also, any employee transferred to the new Department, who was previously allowed union membership, but whose responsibilities change significantly, would no longer retain this right. We have a big challenge ahead of us in shoring up this new Department. Let's protect those who will be protecting us. I urge my colleagues to support Federal employee rights and to pass this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I believe that preserving democracy is as important as fighting terrorism. In a democracy, one set of rights ends where the next set begins. We are hearing this business that there is not enough flexibility, that the Secretary cannot deal with individuals who are not prepared to do their job. Absolutely false. Section 7532 of title V provides: ``Notwithstanding other statutes, the head of an agency may suspend without pay an employee of his agency when he considers that action necessary in the interests of national security.'' You cannot be much clearer than that in terms of the ability of the Secretary to function. The real deal is that we are suspending individual rights and protections. The Waxman-Frost amendment restores those protections. And if we want the agency to function, vote for the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) in cosponsoring this amendment and rise in strong support. The Morella amendment provides that employees who have elected unions to represent them in collective bargaining, before being transferred into the Department of Homeland Security, should not lose their representation rights. Essentially the Morella amendment is a grandfather clause. All it really does is protect those individuals who have collective bargaining rights and are currently union members. There are some people who suggest that this is going to undercut the President's authority. Absolutely not. It only deals with those individuals who are currently union members, and it also provides enough flexibility that if individuals' work assignments change significantly, then the President could, in fact, move them around. We also know that the President issued an executive order barring union representation in U.S. Attorney's offices. Individuals who were doing clerical work were denied the opportunity to be unionized and to have the representation. As a matter of fact, we believe in a strong Presidency. We believe that the flexibility ought to be there. But we also believe that these are hard-won rights that people have struggled to achieve for years and years and years. They should not be diminished. They should not be taken away. And so I simply urge my colleagues to stand with the American people who believe in Civil Service protection, who believe in the rights of the individuals that work. Stand and support the Morella amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I do so because it is actually a step backwards. This is a step backwards by taking away worker rights and protections that Americans have come to cherish. When you take away chapter 5, you talk about fighting terror, you create terror and strike terror and fear in the hearts of workers because now you are saying to them that they may not be able to get annual cost-of-living increases in their wages. That is no longer automatic. You say to those individuals who work in high-market areas that they may not get adequate compensation if they have to work in places like New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., places where the cost of living is much greater and much higher than in other places. It means that we do not have to give employees the right to grieve and to have the protections that every American in the workplace so rightly deserves. So I cannot imagine why it would be necessary to take these protections away under the guise of fighting terror because I can guarantee my colleagues that the people I have been speaking with are terrorized with fear that the rights they have earned will be taken away.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, before Enron Corporation's bankruptcy filing in December 2001, the firm was widely regarded as one of the most innovative, fastest growing, and best managed businesses in the United States. With the swift collapse, shareholders, including thousands of Enron workers who held company stock in their 401 (k) retirement accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars. It now appears that Enron was in terrible financial shape as early as 2000, burdened with debt and money-losing businesses, but manipulated its accounting statements to hide these problems. Now, WorldCom, the nation's second-largest long distance telephone company has been charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports have revealed that WorldCom defrauded investors by improper accounting practices for $3.9 billion in expenses during 2001. We are discovering that publicly traded companies have contributed to bilking the American investors and taxpayers out of about $4 trillion since 2000 due to unaccountable financial filings, accounting errors, misinformation, and mismanagement of funds that has caused the financial markets to become unstable. Where are our watchdogs? They were nowhere to be found when it comes to integrity. In order to ensure corporate accountability, we need to establish under the jurisdiction of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) ways to regulate accounting firms that audit SEC registrants (publicly trade firms). This type of structure could be empowered to charge registrants with annual fees to pay for the cost of staff to carry out the suggested plan of surveillance of auditors. This concept would intervene between a registrant and it's auditor before, during and at the end of an audit, it would be more effective than the current regulatory system in achieving: An early warning of potential financial disasters such as Enron and WorldCom; Requiring a change in auditors when the SEC deems it appropriate; Require pre-approval of consulting engagements for a registrant to be conducted by it's auditor; And, improve the format and content of financial and the auditor reports by including information about labor relations, research and development, marketing programs, and new products. These are the kinds of things that must be done. Therefore, I have irtroduced on today a bill to establish an Office of Audit Review within the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure the audits of certain public companies.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment recognizes the principle that competition should drive decisions about work management. We all know that over the years, there has been some sentiment that somehow or another government work is inferior, that the private sector can do it more effectively, more efficiently and save the taxpayers money. But that is a flawed notion. It is a flawed argument. There is a cadre, a corps of competent, hard-working Federal employees who have the expertise and skill to do the job. We need to provide for them the opportunity to compete, to display their skills and talent. That means the only way we can do it is to support the Moran amendment. I urge its support.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Moran of Virginia, which affords flexibility to Federal agencies in decisions concerning contracting out of government work. There has been a growing sentiment over the years that government work is inherently inferior to that offered by the private sector--that somehow the private sector has a monopoly on brains, diligence, and professionalism. As a result, there has been a thrust towards establishing across-the-board quotas to privatize more and more of the work traditionally done by the government. However, these assumptions are flawed. We have certainly learned a lot in the last year. First, there is a core of extremely competent Federal employees dedicated to serving the American public. Second, there is an undercurrent of greed and abuse in the private business world that is not worthy of emulation. Representative Moran's amendment recognizes that decisions about how best to deliver government services in a quality manner at the lowest cost should depend on unique agency mission requirements, and not on arbitrary across-the-board quotas for privatization. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this debate, the more opposed I come to this legislation. This ban on late-term abortion unconstitutionally endangers women's health. In the Stenberg v. Carhart trial, which ruled a Nebraska law that banned the so-called partial-birth abortion bill unconstitutional, the Supreme Court concluded that women's health must always be protected. According to the Court, the abortion restriction would force women to use riskier forms of abortion. Additionally, they ruled that if a current medical procedure set in place may be safer for some women in certain circumstances, then it cannot be banned. For this reason and reaffirmed in 1999, this ban is still unconstitutional. As of today the American Medical Association, which is one of the largest physician organizations in America, who usually supports abortion ban legislation, has changed their stance and concluded this late-term abortion act unhealthy. Mr. Speaker, I support a woman's right of choice. I am in favor of medical decisions being made in private by women and their families in consultation with their doctors, and not politicians. I am a full supporter of choice without reservation. It should be the definitive right of the individual to make personal decisions regarding their health. I believe the late-term abortion ban invites the government into our doctors' offices and limits the choices of women. I trust women to make decisions that affect their life, body and destiny. There is no more fundamental challenge than protecting a woman's reproductive health. That means guaranteeing a woman's right to choose. This so-called partial-birth abortion ban is part of a political scheme to sensationalize the abortion debate. The truth is that the phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' is a political term, not a medical term. Partial-birth abortion bans have never been about banning one procedure nor about late-term abortions. They are deceptively designed to be intentionally vague in the attempt to ban abortion entirely. This bill opens the door for legislators to ban even more safe abortion procedures. Therefore, I urge that we protect the woman's right to choose, we protect the woman's right to protect her health, and vote to protect the woman's right to protect her life. Vote ``no'' to the partial-birth abortion ban.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4965, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is unconstitutional and will jeopardize the health of women. This so-called ``partial birth'' abortion ban is part of a political scheme to sensationalize the abortion debate. The truth is that the phrase ``partial birth abortion'' is a political term, not a medical term. ``Partial birth'' abortion bans have never been about banning one procedure, nor about late term abortions. They are deceptively designed to be intentionally vague in the attempt to ban abortion entirely. This bill opens the door for legislators to ban even more safe abortion procedures. H.R. 4965 is neither designed, nor written to ban only one procedure, and it deliberately lacks any mention of a viability time line, therefore is applicable through out the pregnancy. These bans are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade. We cannot sit back and watch the reproductive rights of women in America disappear. This bill bans a variety of safe and common abortion procedures, both before and after viability, therefore imposing an undue burden on women seeking access to abortion services. This abortion restriction would, without exception, force women to use riskier methods of abortion. But perhaps the strongest argument against this bill is that it ignores a constitutionally required exception to protect women's health. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in the Carhart v. Stenberg case that women are entitled to medical procedures that are found safest for their individual health. The Supreme Court stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' Anti-choice lawmakers have ignored this constitutional right, and refused to include into their legislation an exception to protect women's health. H.R. 4965 unduly interferes with the doctor-patient relationships by giving Congress the ability to punish physician and put patients at risk. The American Medical Association, one the largest and most politically active groups of physicians in the U.S., who in the past has often supported abortion bans, withdrew their support on this bill. The following is a statement that was released by the AMA, ``The physician must retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.'' Along with the American Medical Association many other medical organizations oppose this legislation, including the American Medical Women's Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American College of Nurse Practitioners, American Medical Student Association, and the Association of Schools of Public Health, to name only a few. These organizations have recognized that it would endanger women's health and inappropriately interfere with medical decision-making. These groups have implored Congress not to intrude into decisions that are more appropriately made by women and their families, in consultation with their physicians. Their medical judgment should not be ignored. For the safety and the constitutionally required right of women, I urge you to vote in opposition to H.R. 4965.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the issue of expansion at O'Hare has been around for a long time and there has been considerable debate. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his leadership on not only this issue, but other issues surrounding transportation. Today I stand in firm support of H.R. 3479. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his efforts to bring a third airport in the Peotone area. Especially, though, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his consistent and eloquent, creative approach to try and develop jobs and economic opportunity and bring them closer to the people in his congressional district. Chicago has a vast and growing transportation industry. Over the years, Chicago O'Hare International Airport has continued its growth in traffic and demand. Presently, O'Hare ranks as the Nation's first or second busiest airport at any given time, with nearly 34 million annual passengers traveling both domestically and internationally. Expanding O'Hare offers an immediate array of benefits, from employment to economic growth. And I am pleased to note that the plan for O'Hare expansion includes a 30 percent goal for minority and women- owned businesses as opposed to a 10 percent goal in the State's plan for Peotone. As Chicago continues to grow, O'Hare continues to experience the backlog of delays. According to the Airport Capacity Benchmark Report in 2001, O'Hare was the third most delayed airport. Sitting in the heart of the Midwest, these delays continue to burden connecting airports, creating a snowball effect and frustrating passengers. By the addition of runways, and the expansion of O'Hare, delay times will diminish and air travel at Chicago's bustling O'Hare will undoubtedly improve for the consumer and the region. I do not believe that this necessitates the idea that there cannot and will not be a third airport at Peotone, or in that area. As the time continues to develop, the need will continue to grow. Right now, though, the greatest need is to expand O'Hare, and I think we will get to Peotone as time comes.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the proposed legislation to lift the ban prohibiting Americans from traveling to Cuba. I would like to thank my colleague, the Gentleman from Arizona, for his leadership in regard to this amendment, and for drawing the attention of Congress to this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, for four decades, American citizens have been unable to travel to Cuba, be it to visit family or to conduct business. As lawmakers for a democratic nation, I do not see how we can limit our own people from contact with a nation that can benefit so extensively from the influence of the strongest ambassadors of freedom in the world--American citizens. After all, what speaks more strongly for the power of democracy, than citizens who enjoy the liberties to earn income and to travel? Mr. Chairman, free American travel to Cuba, in addition to reforming the Cuban political system, increasing rights enjoyed by Cuban citizens, and improving Cuba's economic condition, sends a powerful message of freedom. We must emphasize the value of personal freedom, as it applies to American citizens, by lifting this ban against American travel to Cuba.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Rangel of New York, which bans all funding to the Treasury Department for enforcement of the embargo against Cuba. Forty years ago, the world order was strikingly different than today. We were in the midst of the Cold War, fighting communism from spreading its tentacles around the world. With Cuba so close to our shores, it was good public policy THEN to impose an embargo. However, I am reminded of the song ``The Times They are A-Changin''--and they have. The embargo has not achieved its goals. The same regime rules Cuba now as ruled four decades ago; the Cubans do not have human or civil rights; American citizens are denied their right to travel; and the economic consequences to American farmers and the travel industry are significant. Let's lift the embargo and move toward normal commercial and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Let the Cuban people see what democracy's all about.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment today that would have linked any increase in postage rates by the United States Postal Service (USPS) to Postal Reform. However, I have decided against that. But I would like to share with my colleagues and the American people the crisis in our mail system and its likely impact on our economy. The USPS is hemorrhaging--universal service is in real jeopardy. The Postal Service continues to operate under laws passed in 1970. They cannot raise rates to cover spikes in gas prices. The 1970 laws did not take into consideration e-mail, e-commerce or the impact that other advances in technology would have on first class mail. The USPS is an organization that comprises over 800,000 full and part-time workers and plays a significant role in our economy. The anthrax attacks on the Postal Service have tragically taken the lives of two postal workers and threatened thousands more. The pipe- bomb attacks on rural mailboxes have stirred fear on many of our rural routes and put at risk rural letter carriers and residents. The attacks coupled with a lack of Postal Reform have the Postal Service spiraling dangerously close to bankruptcy. The Postal Service reports that in fiscal year 2002, mail volume is down by six billion pieces--an unprecedented decline. Last year, the Postal Service lost $1.68 billion dollars, and this fiscal year they are predicting losses of $1.5 billion. No business in America can continue to function with these type of losses. The Postal Service is unlike any other business--unique in its mission and goal. It is the anchor for the $900 billion dollar mailing industry--which employs approximately 9 million people. The mailing industry represents 8 percent of the gross domestic product. When the Postal Service gets a cold--the mailing industry gets pneumonia. We are almost at pneumonia crisis in the mailing industry. The uncertainty of the economy coupled with constant rate increased by the Postal Service to cover its budget shortfall could lead to lay offs and cuts at big mailing operations like RR Donnelley & Sons, AOL Time Warner, Lands End and others. The business industry needs and deserves stability in terms of projected increases in rates. A number of companies could be in real jeopardy if the Postal Service is not provided the tools they need in order to be competitive. A viable and competitive Postal Service provides the stability that printers, mailers, employees and consumers can count on. The impact of a weak Postal Service on our quality of life and economy are enormous. It is my hope that we will continue to press the issue for Postal Reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all commend and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their outstanding leadership on health issues, and I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the leadership that they provide. I could not let this opportunity go by without coming over to congratulate and commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for the outstanding leadership she has provided on this issue as well as so many others. I was listening to the debate and was thinking of Loyola University, Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's, University of Illinois, Cook County Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital, Westside Veterans Administration, Heinz, Northwestern, Mercy Hospital, Malcolm X College, the Chicago Rehabilitation Institute, all of which have nursing schools and nursing programs in my congressional district, all who lament the fact that we do not have enough nurses, in many instances, to fill some of the classes. This deal will create an opportunity for many institutions not to find it necessary to import nurses. There is a wealth of talent, individuals around who with a little nudging and a little help will choose nursing as a career. This is an opportunity. It is a great one. Again, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and all of those who have made it happen.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 2001, President Bush signed permanent legislation which permits Federal agencies at their discretion to use appropriated funds to assist their lower income employees with the high cost of quality child care. In order to qualify, the total family income of the employee parent cannot exceed $60,000. Additionally, the children cannot exceed the age of 13, 18 if disabled, and must be placed in licensed day care, home care or after- school care. Employees meeting these criteria could have had from 20 percent to 50 percent of their total child care cost covered. Employees qualifying for this benefit must be working in the United States. I attempted to have an amendment included that would have provided for a study to determine the feasibility of providing child care services to low-income employees of the legislative branch. Unfortunately, that rule was not included. We need to create an affordable child care plan for legislative branch employees. I could not understand and still cannot understand why such an amendment could not have been included so that those individuals could have the possibility of receiving benefits that would assist them to have their children in licensed day care programs. For that reason, I too must vote against this rule because I think it could have allowed certainly this amendment which would have done no harm to anything or anybody.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a good friend of mine, Syd Finley, died at the Central DuPage Hospital in Winfield, Illinois. But before his death, his life personified that of a premier activist. He made effective use of himself to bring about positive and progressive change. After graduating from high school and Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, he began work as a recreational therapist for the State. He served in the military and fought in the Korean War and was awarded the Bronze Star with two oak leaf clusters, the Combat Medic Badge, United Nations Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal and the Merit Unit Citation. In 1961, he was appointed Midwest director of the NAACP and moved his family from Galesburg to what was then segregated Wheaton. Real estate brokers only took him to the parts of town where African American families lived, and African American children were not bused to school like white children, and businesses would not consider hiring blacks. Therefore, Syd started meeting with the school board and city council members. Mr. Finley's style of operating proved to be quite effective; and he not only brought about change in his neighborhood, but he also brought about change for thousands of others through his work at the NAACP. Mr. Finley took his children to civil rights marches in Selma, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. As a leader of the NAACP's Fair Program in the 1980s, Mr. Finley got hundreds of people hired into management jobs at Fortune 500 companies and was appointed Illinois Governor Jim Thompson's Assistant for Minority Affairs. Syd worked at Argonne National Laboratory from 1973 to 1980; and under his leadership, minority employment increased from 9 percent to 14 percent and female employment from 12 percent to 24 percent. Mr. Finley joined Medical Management of America in 1994 and became vice president of Community and Media Relations for Doctor's Hospital of Hyde Park. He was a founder of the DuPage African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1979. He led a full and complete life. He leaves to mourn and cherish his memory his wife, Mary Lou; three children, Sidney Finley, III; Robin Hines; and William Christopher Finley; two sisters, Dorothy Newman and Delores Ford; and two grandchildren. Syd Finley was indeed a unique person and able to influence the thinking and behavior of others. He was an effective leader and a great American. We revere his life, mourn his passing, and shall cherish his memory.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I have listened intently to this argument, to this debate, and to this discussion. I represent a district that is rich in diversity, rich in pluralism, rich in people from different walks of life, different backgrounds. What this program activity does is provide for people to understand each other better, to know what is going on with other people, to know what is in their thoughts and minds and ideas. And so we are not 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 that is what happens. The Illinois Humanities Council does an outstanding job of bringing people together throughout our State. I guarantee you that my residents, the people I represent, would want us to fund this amendment. I am pleased to stand and speak in favor of it and urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mr. Chairman, as the country becomes more diverse and more pluralistic it is important, necessary, as a matter of fact, it is absolutely essential that we find ways to acquaint each other with cultural contributions, mores and folkways of different groups within our society and 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 grow our democracy. Mr. Chairman, I represent an area rich in diversity and rich in understanding of the need to pay attention to not just programs; but also to a way of life, a way of life that keeps alive the American dream and a way of life that keeps music, art, culture and hope ever present in our lives. Mr. Chairman, the Illinois Humanities Council and others like them throughout the nation do outstanding jobs of dividing and allocating these resources, they spread them around and we get the biggest bang for our bucks; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 460. Justin Dart was known by many Members of Congress and by countless thousands in America and around the world for his inspirational leadership and determined efforts to open the doors of opportunity wider for all people whose hopes and dreams have been crushed by discriminatory treatment. Since 1966, when Mr. Dart and his wife, Yoshiko, decided to dedicate their lives to removing the barriers of misunderstanding that exist about people with disabilities and to advocate for their civil rights wherever discrimination exists, he built an unstoppable grass-roots movement that will continue far beyond his days on this Earth. Mr. Speaker, I last saw Justin Dart at a rally in the Senate where you and I and Senator Harkin and some others were there in support of MiCASSA. I just recently read yesterday, as a matter of fact, a wonderful letter from his lovely wife who shared not only his life, but also his passion for the disabled. I guess the reality is that one can be as instructive and didactic in death as they have been in life. If there is any person who never read Justin Dart's last writings that were just mentioned a moment ago by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), I would urge, if my colleagues want to be inspired, if my colleagues want to be motivated, if my colleagues want to be activated, if my colleagues want to be stimulated, just get that and read it. Justin Dart will live on, not only in the hearts and minds of people, but in every action that we take to remove the barriers of discrimination that have existed against people with disabilities.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. Lipinski for his leadership concerning transportation issues in Illinois and especially the issue of O'Hare Expansion and today I stand in firm support of H.R. 3479. Chicago has a vast and growing transportation industry. Over the years Chicago's O'Hare International Airport has continued its growth, in traffic and demand. Presently, O'Hare ranks as the Nation's first or second busiest airport with nearly 34,000,000 annual passengers traveling both domestically and internationally. Expanding O'Hare offers an array of benefits: from employment to economic growth. As Chicago continues to grow, O'Hare continues to experience the backlog of delays. According to the Airport Capacity Benchmark Report in 2001, O'Hare was the third most delayed airport. Sitting in the heart of the Mid West, these delays continue to burden connecting airports creating a snowball affect and frustrated passengers. By the addition of runways, and the expansion of O'Hare delay times will diminish and air travel at Chicago's bustling O'Hare will undoubtedly improve for the consumer and the region. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3479.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in urge of dramatic funding increases to stop the spread of an epidemic that is taking the lives of millions of people throughout the world. Today there are more than 40 million people in the world living with HIV/AIDS. Last year 5 million people contracted the virus, and 3 million people died of AIDS related causes. This current health crisis was once again brought to my attention yesterday, when the Chicago Tribune reported that African-Americans account for 67 percent of all newly reported cases of HIV in Chicago. They went on to state that the rate of undiagnosed AIDS cases among women in Chicago has nearly tripled in the last decade, with 80 percent of those women being African-American. But Chicago is not the only place where people are affected by AIDS. In the words of U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, ``AIDS respects no man, woman, or child. It knows no race, religion, class, or creed. No community, country, or continent is immune from its ravages. `` Ninety-five percent of those infected with HIV/AIDS live in the developing world. Across the Atlantic, millions of Africans are battling with an epidemic that has ravaged the human capital infrastructure, leaving homes and communities barren. The dreams and hopes of millions of people have been deferred as men, women, and children engage in a losing battle with the silent but powerful enemy that is sweeping and dismantling Africa at an alarming rate. Last year in sub-Saharan Africa alone 2.3 million people have died from AIDS related causes. HIV/AIDS has made a devastating impact on the fruit of Africa's future, the children. Thirteen million African children have been orphaned due to AIDS, by the end of the decade this number is expected to exceed 40 million. Global infection rates will continue to rise at alarming rates unless education and treatment options are made available. Recent surveys in 17 countries found that more than half of the adolescents questioned could not name a single method for protecting themselves against HIV/ AIDS. In developing nations only 6 to 10 percent of HIV-infected people are receiving treatment for HIV-related opportunistic infection. If we are serious about finding solutions to this epidemic, then I charge us to commit ourselves to fighting for the humanity of our African brothers and sisters, at whatever the cost. The World Health Organization Commission on Macroeconomics and Health estimates that the cost of mounting an effective global response to HIV/AIDS could reach $14 billion by 2007. This figure includes programs for prevention, care, and treatment. We must provide life-saving drugs at reasonable cost. We must support funding for innovative research in finding a cure. We must support the regulation of affordable drugs for all Africans infected by this deadly disease. We must support the development of comprehensive HIV/AIDS policy for Africa. As a civil society, we ourselves must unite to confront this dilemma head on, to defeat this plague which has us anxious and on the run. It is time for us to stop running and start to act.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding and for his outstanding leadership on this important issue. Before Enron Corporation's bankruptcy filing in December of 2001, all of us knew that the firm was widely regarded as one of the most innovative, fastest-growing, and best-managed businesses in the United States. With the swift collapse, shareholders, including thousands of Enron workers who held company stock in their 401(k) retirement accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars. It now appears that Enron was in terrible financial shape as early as 2000, burdened with debt and money-losing businesses, but manipulated its accounting statements to hide these problems. Now, WorldCom, the Nation's second largest long-distance telephone company, has been charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports have revealed that WorldCom defrauded investors by improper accounting practices of $3.9 billion in expenses during 2001. We are discovering that publicly traded companies have contributed to bilking American investors and taxpayers out of $4 trillion since 2000 due to unaccountable financial filings, accounting errors, misinformation, and mismanagement of funds. Where were our watchdogs? They were nowhere to be found. In order to ensure corporate accountability, we need to establish under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission ways to regulate accounting firms that audit SEC registrants. This type of structure could be empowered to charge registrants with annual fees to pay for the cost of staff to carry out the suggested plan of surveillance of auditors. This concept would intervene between a registrant and its auditor before, during, and at the end of an audit. It would be more effective than the current regulatory system in, one, achieving an early warning of potential financial disasters such as Enron and WorldCom; two, requiring a change in auditors when the SEC deems it appropriate; three, require pre-approval of consulting engagements for a registrant to be conducted by its auditor; and, four, improve the format and content of financial and auditor reports by including information about labor relations, research and development, marketing programs, and new products. I believe that these kinds of safeguards would go a long way towards helping to rectify the situation. Again, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his outstanding leadership, and I thank him for the opportunity to participate in this Special Order.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the election reform bill, H.R. 3295, which has been submitted by my colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). The motion asks the conferees to agree to the Senate provisions relating to the accessibility of voting systems for individuals with disabilities. It is essential that at least one voting machine in each polling place be accessible to people with disabilities. This can be done in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters. The language referred to in the gentleman from Rhode Island's motion has been endorsed by a coalition of 17 national organizations representing people with disabilities; and I believe this is the best approach for increasing the participation of all citizens in the electoral process, especially at a time when voter participation has been decreasing. With the electronic voting technology that exists today, it is possible to enable many individuals with disabilities to record their votes directly and in privacy. This is a fundamental right that all Americans should have. The cost to do this is minimal, and I urge conferees to adopt the language as outlined in the gentleman from Rhode Island's motion. I also commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their leadership on this issue and commend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support a fair and equal prescription drug plan. Mr. Speaker, as you know, Adam Smith's economic theory of competition over monopoly has worked for our country's economy for nearly 200 years. While competition works for material items, it does not work for social services and human needs such as health care and prescription drugs. If we allow private companies to set their own premiums and encourage competition among the prescription drug plan providers we will not cut costs, nor will we provide seniors with low premiums and co-pays. As we have seen from health insurance providers, the most affordable insurance plans offer the least amount of coverage, while the most comprehensive plans are the most expensive. This leaves a senior, on a tight monthly budget, with the option of enrolling in a low-cost plan, or no plan at all. Therefore, by voting for this legislation, and allowing these companies to set their own premiums and deductibles, we are not guaranteeing anything to our seniors, and will be leaving the sickest ones, on the tightest budgets behind. The Democratic plan is simply stated. There will be a $25 premium, $100 deductible, and 20 percent co-pay, and an out-of-pocket limit at $2,000. However, the Republican plan is extremely complicated. Different people will pay different co-pays depending on their total prescription drug costs. And let us not forget the gap in coverage for those who exceed $2,000 in total costs, but do not exceed their out-of- pocket cost of $3,800, all the while continuing to pay their high premiums of $35 per month. In order to maintain all these different co-pays and to assure that competition is available, this bill would create a new agency called the Medicare Benefits Administration. This would only create more bureaucracy and red tape that is currently driving up the cost of health care in America. Almost 25 percent of the cost of health care is to cover the administrative overhead. We cannot add to this current horrible problem. Not only is the Republican plan more confusing, but it will cost our seniors more. Let us look at two examples. The first is of individuals with $100 per month in prescription drug costs. Under the Republican plan they would pay $892 a year, but under the Democratic plan they would pay only $620 a year. How about those that have $300 per month in prescription drug costs? Under the Republican plan they would pay $2,892 a year, but under the Democratic plan they would only have to pay $1,100; that is a difference of $1,796 a year. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that the issue of adding prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients is long over due. But H.R. 4954 is not the answer.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma that the play of the U.S. Soccer Team was exemplary. As a matter of fact, he makes the point that, traditionally, the United States has not been thought of as a world competitor in the soccer arena, but I think we have reached another level. We have crossed that hurdle. Now all of the world recognizes and understands that we have come to the point as a Nation where our athletes can compete in practically any sport and endeavor. Such is true in the case of soccer, so I certainly would want to add my commendation to the team. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his resolution and agree with him. Continuing to reserve my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, let me just agree with the gentleman from St. Louis, Missouri (Mr. Clay). Of course, St. Louis has always been a tremendous town for athletics. I spent 2 years as a young person living in St. Louis, and I learned all of these penalties that he mentioned. I must confess I was a great Red Schoendienst and Harry Caray fan and Ray Jablonski. I think they used to call him Jabbo. It is a great place to be and certainly Jack Buck added tremendously to the aura of St. Louis. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.