Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have a similar amendment that I will withdraw. As I listen to this debate it seems to me that we are talking about two different worlds. It does not seem to me that we are talking about the one United States of America. I come from the city of Chicago, the third largest city in the country. I also represent 68 percent of the public housing in the city of Chicago. I want to invite the President and the Secretary of HUD to come and look at what public housing is like in the largest urban centers. I also listen to my colleagues who do not seem to understand the differences between communities. And nobody created them exactly the way that they are; but if we look at the causes for drug addiction, the causes for drug use, I represent a district that has lost more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs over the last 40 years; 140,000 solid good- paying jobs have gone as a result of our trade policies. I come from a community that represents the last wave of migration for people trying to escape what was a South that they could not tolerate and refused to continue to live in. When we talk about public housing, in many instances we are talking about thousands of people stacked on top of one another. I have a stretch of public housing that goes from 2200 South to 5700 South, straight down what we call the State Street Corridor. The second poorest urban area in America. And so if my colleagues tell me that we do not need drug elimination efforts, there is nothing the residents of public housing have liked more than to be able to establish their own drug prevention program on site right where they are so that, in spite of the conditions under which they live, children can understand that they can, in fact, grow up with the idea of doing more than standing on the corner hollering ``crack'' and ``blow'' or looking for a nickel bag or a dime bag. So I really do not know where my colleagues have been or what it is that they are talking about. I invite all of my colleagues to come to the big city public housing developments and see what the policies of this Nation have created and then to tell me that we cannot find a little bit of money; that because of some fraud and abuse, that we are going to throw out the baby with the bath water. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any program, any activity where we have not discovered some fraud, some abuse. But we did not stop making airplanes because there was fraud and abuse. We did not stop manufacturing automobiles. So I would urge us, Mr. Chairman, that we rethink our position. That we take another look. That we support the reconstitution of this program. And I too would commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for all of the work and the tenacity with which she has pursued this issue.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey- Evans amendment. I do so because some of us said several months ago when we were debating the budget that we knew we were going to get to the point when we started talking about appropriations, there would be the same hue and cry because we knew then that you cannot get blood out of a turnip. We knew that a big tax cut would take away the possibility of providing the resources that we needed to care of the needs of our people. And so here we are with one of the biggest debts that we have, and that is the debt that we owe our veterans, the debt that we owe the men and women who have given the last measure of everything that they had to give. Now we come and tell them that there is no water at the well, that there is not enough money to provide the needed services. People in my community right now are gearing up for public hearings next week to talk about which one of our veterans hospitals will get closed. Will it be the Lakeside? Will it be the West Side? Will it be Hines? Will it be beds eliminated? Will it be mental health services that they cannot get? And so I join with those who say if we have any responsibility, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility to fully fund medical services for the Veterans Administration. For those men and women who have given so much, at least we can give them a little.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the concentration of poverty, any way one looks at it, simply stated is not productive. It is inhumane, unethical. It is not diverse and does not work. According to the 1999 census data, 32.3 million people in the United States live in poverty. That gives us a poverty rate of 11.8 percent. The National Coalition reports as many as 3 million people are homeless during the course of a year. Of this number, 80,000 of them are in the City of Chicago. The concept of mixing income in neighborhoods offers the best practice of hope for low-income individuals. Chicago, one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the Nation, has a tremendous need to uplift the quality of life for its residents. Currently, in Chicago the Robert Taylor and Rockwell Gardens developments, two of the most well-known public housing developments in the country, are in separate need of Hope VI funding which will allow integration and economic prosperity. I stand today, Mr. Chairman, to beg, to implore, to appeal to the entire 107th Congress, and to argue to increase the funding for this program by $100 million. Hope VI provides disadvantaged families and communities across the country with opportunities for revitalization and new chances, chances for advancement. All of us would probably agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to tear down the high-rise public housing developments, the high-rises, as we know them, the concentrations of poverty. These families need hope and an adequate chance. It is time to fight inner city crime, teen pregnancy, high unemployment, which are all concentrated in the urban ghettos that exist in this Nation centered around high-rise public housing developments. To improve the quality of life for these families, it is necessary to improve the quality of public housing. We can do that by providing the necessary support services, the programs, that encourage residents to go to school, find employment, develop careers, and realize a better quality of life. All of this is found in HOPE VI. By 1999, HOPE VI had provided benefits to 7,840 current resident families, including 4,076 families relocated to section 8 in new units, 5,668 new families in revitalized development, 1,969 families leaving TANF, and a 98 percent increase of youth participation in self- sufficiency programs. HOPE VI had achieved leveraged ratios of 31 cents for every dollar in 1993 and increased this ratio to $2.07 by 1999. HOPE VI revitalization has reduced the average density of on-site development from 23 to 11 and the average percentage of very low income families from 92 to 35 percent. The ultimate outcome of these developments has improved the quality of life for residents of HOPE VI developments and better integration into the overall community. The city of Chicago has a bold new transformation plan for public housing, and, that is to replace the high-rises with mixed-income housing where individuals can interact with different-type persons across the board. But that transformation plan is contingent upon being able to receive assistance from HOPE VI. Unless there is adequate funding for HOPE VI, then we run the risk of going to the well and there being no water, of going to the trough and there being no substance. And so I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that we support this amendment and continue to give hope to the millions of people who need hope and can receive it through the HOPE VI program.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee-Leach Global HIV/AIDS Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which will increase the United States' contribution to the international AIDS trust fund from $100 million to $160 million. In June 1981, scientists reported the first evidence of a disease that would become known as AIDS. Twenty years later, the AIDS pandemic has spread to every corner of the world. Almost 22 million people have already lost their lives to the disease, and over 36 million people are currently infected with the HIV virus. The numbers are indeed staggering. Yet, the consequences of the AIDS pandemic extend far beyond the death tolls. The AIDS pandemic is much more than just a health crisis. It is a social crisis, an economic crisis, and a political, crisis. AIDS knows no borders, and respects no boundaries. A world with AIDS is a world in chaos. Imagine growing up without parents, without teachers. Imagine living in a community with no options for work, no options for education, no mentors or civic leaders to help mold the community's youths into productive members of society. Imagine living in a world where people have no reason to plan for the years ahead, no reason to want to better themselves or improve society. This is the world of AIDS. This is the world we live in. As the world's greatest nation--the nation that is most admired, most respected, and most powerful--we must take a leading role in the fight against AIDS. We must demonstrate to the global community the depth of our compassion, the breadth of our courage, and the strength of our commitment to the greater good. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and inhumane. Therefore, I wholeheartedly Support the Lee-Leach Global HIV/AIDS Amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday evenings I usually do a radio show called ``Talking to the People'' with a co-host, Garfield Major; and on last evening, we were supposed to have a guest, a young lady who was going to be with us. But then, of course, during the week she passed away, and we decided that we would dedicate the show in her memory. Her funeral is going to take place on Thursday of this week, and I simply want to say to the family of Evelyn Spivery and all of the people who worked with her that we share with them in their grief and sorrow at her early and untimely death. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to and talk about an issue that is important to all of America, and that is the issue of a patients' bill of rights. Not just any patients' bill of rights, but I support the patients' bill of rights sponsored by my colleagues Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Edwards in the Senate, and the companion legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) here in the House. I support the patients' bill of rights that puts patients before profits, and values human life over the bottom line. The idea of a patients' bill of rights is nothing new to this Congress. We have all listened to the rhetoric, and we have all been involved in the debate. As a matter of fact, as a Member of Congress since 1996, I must say that it is interesting to see where this debate has gone. I find it worth commenting that the question we are now faced with is not so much whether we should pass a patients' bill of rights, but which version we shall pass. In other words, we are all pretty much in agreement that patients need to be afforded an increased level of protection from the predatory tendencies of some components of our health care delivery system. But rather than immediately delving into the particulars of why we should prefer one version over another, I believe it is instructive to take a step back for a moment and look at the concept of a patients' bill of rights in the first place. The very idea that we need a patients' bill of rights, an idea, I remind you, we are all in support of, implies the presence of an injurious element within our health care system. The simple fact that we are debating this idea means that each one of us at some level acknowledges the basic reality that the interests of some parts of our health care delivery system seem to be adversarial to the interests of patients. I believe that the debate over which patients' bill of rights to accept can be resolved simply by looking more closely at what I will call the nature of the beast. Too often I believe that we talk about solutions without fully understanding the problem. I believe that with a careful examination of the means and motives by which some components of our health care system make money off the pain and suffering of patients, the answer to the question of which patients' bill of rights is the real patients' bill of rights becomes self-evident. Now, what is it about those components of our health care system that is so inherently evil? Well, let me read a quote from Milton Friedman, a well-known advocate of free market economics. Mr. Friedman says that ``few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.'' In other words, if we go by the dictates that managed care organizations live by, not only is it undesirable to take a patient's well-being into account, it is simply unethical to do so. Any motive other than the profit motive is extraneous and inappropriate. This narrow-minded approach has placed our great Nation in a completely unique situation. We are the only Nation in the entire world with a health care system whose fundamental organizing principle is to avoid as many sick people as possible. Let me say that again. I believe this gets to the crux of the matter. Many managed care corporations are predicated upon avoiding the needs of patients. Now, given the fact that some managed care corporations are opposed to the needs of patients, given the fact that some managed care guidelines, as they are currently written, do not allow patients to stay overnight for a mastectomy or see a neurologist for new onset seizures, and given the fact that some corporations spend 25 cents of every dollar on administrative expense while Medicare is administered at a rate of over 12 times less, and given the fact that many of these same corporations feel that patients' rights that would allow the patient to go into a court of law to seek redress for injury, I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the only real Patients' Bill of Rights is the one that puts people over profits, and the motive is to protect the patient.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, last month, I spoke of three firefighters who lost their lives on Father's Day, fighting a five- alarm blaze that ripped through a hardware store in Queens, New York. At that time, I said that their names would be added to the Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial Wall in Memorial Park in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Today, I am sad to say, that their names will be joined by four other brave firefighters. Tom Craven, 30, Devin Weaver, 21, Jessica Johnson, 19, and Karen FitzPatrick, 19, died on Tuesday, July 10 in the North Cascade Mountains in Winthrop, Washington. They were part of a 21-member crew trapped when the fire they were called upon to ``mop up'' blew up around them. The fire, which apparently was sparked by an unattended campfire, quickly spread through stands of 80- to 100-year-old trees. Tom, Devin, Jessica, and Karen, only had seconds to find an escape route. They tried to drive away from the fire, but found themselves on a dead-end road. These brave firefighters were killed when a wall of flames crashed down on them in their foil emergency shelters. H. Res. 201 honors, not only the four firefighters who died in the blaze, but the firefighters who were injured in the fire while saving the lives of two civilians. All the firefighters who were in the Cascade Mountains that day, were there to fulfill their promise to keep their communities safe by being on the front lines against wild fires. We honor them today for their bravery and a promise kept. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic Substitute for the Community Solutions Act as there are thousands of communities and millions of people in our country who have serious problems and are in need of real solutions. I rise in support of this legislation, not because I believe that it is Panacea, I don't believe in one-stop cure-alls for the overwhelming magnitude of social, emotional, spiritual and economic ills which plague our society and are in need of every rational, logical, and proven approach that we can muster. And yes, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because I have faith, faith in the ability of religious institutions to provide human services without proselytizing. I have faith in these institutions to organize themselves into corporate business entities to develop programs, to keep records, and to manage their affairs in compliance with legal requirements. I also have confidence in the ability of these institutions to magnify the Golden Rule, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' I have listened intently to the issues raised by my colleagues who are concerned about legislation and I commend them for their diligence. I appreciate their concerns about charitable choice, ranging from discrimination to infringement on individual liberties. However, charitable choice is already a part of three Federal social programs: One, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; two, the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, and is part of the 2000 Reauthorization of funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Each of these programs possess the overarching goal of helping those in poverty, or treating those suffering from chemical dependency, and the programs seem to achieve their purposes by providing resources in the most effective and efficient manner. The opponents of this legislation have expressed concern about the possible erosion of rights and protections of program participants and beneficiaries. (And rightly so, nothing could be more important). Therefore, I am pleased that the crafters of this legislation (the Democratic Substitute) have taken note and forthrightly addressed these concerns. We must be aware of the fact that many people in poverty, suffer from some form of drug dependency. Alcohol, narcotics, and in some instances, even legalized prescription or over-the-counter-drugs. Many of these individuals have been beaten down, have virtually given up, and have lost the will to overcome their difficulties. It is in these instances and situations, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Community Solutions Act can and will help the most. It reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that poverty, deprivation and the inability to cope with anxiety, frustration, hopelessness is still rampart in our society. Take for example, if you will an ex-offender, unable to get a job, illiterate, semi-illiterate, disavowed by the ambiguities and contradictions of a sometimes cold, misunderstanding, uncaring or unwilling-to-help society, creates the need for something different; new theories, old theories reinforced, new approaches, new treatment modalities. A preacher friend of mine was fond of saying that new occasions call for new truths, new situations make ancient remedies uncouth. Well, I can tell you Mr. Speaker, the drug problem in this country is so overwhelming, so difficult to deal with, so pervasive . . . the Mental health challenges require so much, the abused, neglected and abandoned problems require psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists, well developed pharmaceuticals and all of the social health, physical health and professional treatment that we can muster, but I also believe that we could use a little Balm of Gilead to have and hold, I do believe that we could use a little Balm of Gilead to help heal our sin, sick souls. After reading much of the material and listening to the debate, I am convinced that the activities covered and being promoted by this legislation are too broad to leave under the exemption of section 702 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which allows religious institutions to make employment decisions outside the protection of section 703 dealing with race, color, religion, or national origin; and then in 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1974, which broadened the scope of section 702 and permitted religious institutions to make religion-based employment decisions in all their activities, rather than just religious ones. While the Republican bill correctly addresses race, color, and national origin, it is regrettably silent on the question of sexual orientation; thereby leaving a loophole which I find totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I am told that the cost of drug abuse to society is estimated at $16 billion annually, in less time than it takes to debate this bill, another 14 infants will be born into poverty in America, another 10 will be born without health insurance, and one more child will be neglected or abused. In fact, the number of persons in our country below the poverty level in 1999 was 32.3 million. This legislation recognizes the fact that we must commandeer and enlist every weapon in our arsenal to fight the war against poverty, crime, mental illness, drug use, and abuse as well as all of the maladies that are associated with these debilitating conditions. The Democratic substitute for H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001, can lend a helping hand. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am caught between a rock and a hard place. I say that because I support the concepts of faith-based initiatives. I support the elements of this legislation. I think it is going to go a long way towards finding solutions and helping address some of the many social ills and problems. On the other hand, I do not believe that we can allow any hint of discrimination or the opportunity to discriminate against any segment of our population, no matter whether we are dealing with race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, it matters not. Each and every human being in this country must feel that they have equal protection under the law, must know that they are not going to be discriminated against. While I hope that we will end up at the end of the day having passed this legislation, I hope we will end up at the end of the day sending a message to all of America that we will not allow discrimination in any shape, form, or fashion.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Community Solutions Act, Democratic Substitute, as there are thousands of communities and millions of people in our country who have serious problems and are in need of real solutions. I rise in support of this legislation, not because I believe that it is a panacea, I don't believe in one-stop cure-alls for the overwhelming magnitude of social, emotional, spiritual and economic ills which plague our society and are in need of every rational, logical, and proven approach that we can muster. And yes, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because I have faith, faith in the ability of religious institutions to provide human services without proselytizing. I have faith in these institutions to organize themselves into corporate business entities to develop programs, to keep records, and to manage their affairs in compliance with legal requirements. I also have confidence in the ability of these institutions to magnify the Golden Rule, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' I have listened intently to the issues raised by my colleagues who have expressed serious concerns about this legislation and I commend them for their diligence. I appreciate their concerns about charitable choice, ranging from discrimination to infringement on individual liberties. However, charitable choice is already a part of three federal social programs: (1) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, (2) The Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, and is part of the 2000 Reauthorization of funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Each of these programs possess the overarching goal of helping those in poverty, or treating those suffering from chemical dependency, and the programs seem to achieve their purpose by providing resources in the most effective and efficient manner. The opponents of this legislation have expressed concern about the possible erosion of rights and protections of program participants and beneficiaries. (And rightly so, nothing could be more important). Therefore, I am pleased that after serious scrutiny and debate we have language which protects our citizens and repudiates employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sexual preference. The overall purpose and impact of this legislation can be good. It reinforces for us the fact that many people in poverty, suffer from some form of drug dependency. Alcohol, narcotics, and in some instances, even legalized prescription or over-the-counter-drugs. Many of these individuals have been beaten down, have virtually given up, and have lost the will to overcome their difficulties. It is in these instances and situations, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Community Solutions Act can and will help the most. It reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that poverty, deprivation and the inability to cope with anxiety, frustration, homelessness, are still rampant in our country. Let's look, if you will, at an exoffender, unable to get a job, illiterate, semi-illiterate, disavowed by the ambiguities and contradictions of a sometimes cold, misunderstanding, uncaring or unwilling-to-help society. These situations create the need for something different; new theories, old theories reinforced, new approaches, new treatment modalities. A preacher friend of mine was fond of saying that new occasions call for new truths, new situations make ancient remedies uncouth. Well, I can tell you Mr. Speaker, the drug problem in this country is so overwhelming, so difficult to deal with, so pervasive . . . the Mental health challenges require so much, the abused, neglected and abandoned problems require psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists, well developed pharmaceuticals and all of the social health, physical health and professional treatment that we can muster, but I also believe that we could use a little Balm of Gilead to have and hold, I do believe that we could use a little Balm of Gilead to help heal our sin sick souls. Mr. Speaker, I am told that the cost of drug abuse to society is estimated at $16 billion annually, in less time than it takes to debate this bill, another 14 infants will be born into poverty in America, another 10 will be born without health insurance, and one more child will be neglected or abused. In fact, the number of persons in our country below the poverty level in 1999 was 32.3 million. This legislation recognizes the fact that we must commandeer and enlist every weapon in our arsenal to fight the war against poverty, crime, mental illness, drug use, and abuse as well as all of the maladies that are associated with these debilitating conditions. H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001, can lend a helping hand. But it cannot be allowed to help expand discrimination; therefore, I urge that we vote for the democratic substitute and the motion to recommit.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Velazquez-Kelly amendment. Mr. Chairman, I join with those individuals who recognize that small businesses are in fact the economic engine that drives the economy of this country. It is amazing to me that we can understand how important, how relevant, how impactful small businesses are to the economic viability and well-being of our Nation and then cut those programs that are designed to enhance and promote the same. This amendment is not a difficult amendment. It is not one that is difficult to understand. It is not even one that costs a great deal of money. But it is one that would generate in the hearts and minds of small business people all over the Nation that this Congress, that this administration does in fact understand what small businesses mean to America. So I want to commend both my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). It seems as though New York has some understanding of small business when we get two people, one from each side of the aisle, recognizing that without the resources there is no way that we can keep our small businesses alive, well, healthy, vibrant, and generating what is needed to keep our economy growing.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her remarks, and I associate myself with them.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues defend the sugar subsidy as a no-net-cost program. If that was ever true, it is not true today. The sugar program costs plenty. It costs tax dollars. Last year the Department of Agriculture spent $465 million on sugar subsidies. It costs consumers. The General Accounting Office, a congressional agency, estimates that the people who consume and use sugar, which is all of us, pay an additional $1.9 billion a year because the Federal sugar subsidy keeps prices higher than they would be in a free market. And the sugar program costs industry. Companies in my community, in my neighborhood, and other places throughout the country are moving away because the price is too high. That is unfair. It is unfair to consumers, it is unfair to workers, and it is unfair to America.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to preface my comments by saying that Medicare is a wonderful program. Since the enactment of Medicare in 1965, seniors and disabled individuals have had better access to physicians and more access to life-saving treatments. And in comparison to managed care, Medicare is also extremely cost-effective. It's an under- appreciated fact that Medicare is administrated for just two cents on the dollar, while managed care is typically administrated at a rate twelve times greater. Still, it's absolutely amazing how much bureaucratic red tape you can generate for two cents on the dollar. This is 500 sheets of paper. If you write double-sided, it's 1000 pages. Now, if you imagine 110 of these stacks piled on top of each other, you begin to have an idea of how complicated Medicare is. 110,000 pages of regulations--that's over three times the length of the U.S. tax code. Every month, physicians receive pages upon pages from their Medicare carriers describing ever-changing policies and regulations. Keeping track of everything is frankly impossible. Yet, if a physician doesn't follow one of the rules, no matter how unintentionally, he or she can be subjected to the draconian process of a Medicare audit. Currently, when carriers identify an alleged physician billing error, they can ``extrapolate'' the single identified error to the physician's other claims. This would be like the IRS identifying an error on your most recent tax return, and then assuming that you made that error on every tax return you ever filed. The ``Medicare Education and Regulatory Fairness Act of 2001'' is a common-sense piece of legislation that addresses this injustice, as well as many others. This act will guarantee that physicians receive the same due process that we guarantee all our citizens. If this alone were the only virtue of this bill, it would still be worth passing. But there is a larger significance here that extends beyond physicians, and it can be summarized with a simple equation: Less time spent on paperwork means more time spent on patient care. Therefore, as much as physicians Will benefit from this legislation, let us always keep in mind that the true beneficiaries are the patients.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment. To say that we have an energy crisis is an understatement, but the State of Illinois stands ready to help find a solution. The State of Illinois is a major producer of corn, which, when used in the development of ethanol, makes good sense. This amendment makes good economic sense, environmental sense and common sense. Ethanol is an additive which, when used in gasoline, produces cleaner and more efficient energy. To help this country to become more energy- efficient, we can and should employ greater use of ethanol. Ethanol makes us more energy-efficient, more self-reliant and environmentally protected. It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, earlier today Mr. Robert Rider, chairman of the Postal Board of Governors, released a statement indicating that 6-day mail delivery would continue without any further study. The Postal Board of Governors had commissioned a study on April 3 to study cost savings associated with reducing delivery service to 5 days. In response to the idea of cutting mail delivery to 5 days, I, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), introduced H. Res. 154, a bill to preserve 6-day mail delivery. The bill we introduced enjoys wide bipartisan support and has more than 55 cosponsors. This bill is the companion to Senate Resolution 71 introduced by Senator Harkin. I applaud the Postal Board of Governors' decision today to continue 6-day mail delivery. This decision means that businesses, advertisers, and others who want to reach citizens on Saturday will be able to do so. In addition, citizens who receive paychecks, Social Security, food coupons, and other important mail will not see an interruption in their basic service. Also, it means that postal workers and letter carriers will win because cutting mail delivery to 5 days could have led to mail piling up, delivery delays, and other problems. I commend the leadership and efforts of Moe Biller, and the American Postal Workers Union; Vincent Sombrotto; George Gould and the Letter Carriers; Kevin Richardson and the Printers; Jerry Cerasale and the Direct Marketing Association; and all of those who worked to preserve 6-day mail delivery. Truly, Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service is an important entity in all of our communities. As chair of the Postal Caucus, I look forward to the continued focus on the U.S. Postal Service and assuring its viability not only today but into the future. Mr. Speaker, knowing that the agriculture appropriations bill is going to be on the floor tomorrow, let me just take a moment and remind us that the sugar subsidy program is keeping prices extraordinarily high and is driving candy makers and food processors out of my community and out of many other communities throughout the country because they end up paying an enormously high price for sugar, which is the main ingredient used in their product. As a matter of fact, Brach's Candy Company, located in the heart of the community where I live, just announced that they are going to move their plant to Argentina. Fifteen hundred jobs, 1,500 people, will be out of work. So as we look at agriculture appropriations and rewrite our agricultural policy, let us be reminded that the sugar subsidies are bad for my community, bad for the City of Chicago, bad for the food processors and candy makers and bad for America.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Chicago's finest citizens, Mr. Daniel Levin, who last week was named the American Jewish Committee's 2001 Human Rights Medallion Award recipient. Since 1963, the Human Rights Medallion has been awarded annually to leading Chicago citizens who have stood for the goals that have shaped the American Jewish Committee since it was established in 1906: human rights and equal opportunity for all, and constructive relations between America's many religious, ethnic and racial communities. Chairman of The Habitat Company, Dan Levin has been a real estate developer since 1957. He has been active in development and management activities involving in excess of 20,000 residential units, and has been principally responsible for the financing, structuring and equity syndication of the developments. In 1987, Dan Levin, with The Habitat Company, was appointed Receiver of The Chicago Housing Authority family housing development program by the U.S. District Court in Chicago. He is also the managing general partner of the East Bank Club, which is considered the finest physical fitness and social facility of its kind in the country. Dan Levin's first major Chicago development, in partnership with James P. McHugh of McHugh-Levin Associates, was South Commons, a 30- acre urban renewal site between 26th and 31st Street on the south side of the City. During his career, he has also developed a wide variety of subsidized and non-subsidized housing including, on the South Side, Quadrangle House and Long Grove House. Dan Levin also developed Wheaton Center, a 28-acre urban renewal development in downtown Wheaton. On Chicago's Gold Coast, he has developed, among other properties, Newberry Plaza, Huron Plaza, Asbury Plaza, Columbus Plaza and the Residences of Cityfront Center. The largest urban redevelopment in which Dan Levin has been involved is the Presidential Towers complex located on a two square block area in the near west loop constructed in 1983. The land on which Presidential Towers was developed had become a skid row district of deteriorating residential hotels and industrial properties. Presidential Towers is considered to be a major factor in the revitalization of the area. Dan Levin graduated from the University of Chicago with a B.A. and J.D. degree. He is a member of the Visiting Committee of the University of Chicago School of Public Policy, a Trustee of WTTW, a member of the IIT College of Architecture Board of Overseers, a member of the Board of Trustees for the Jewish Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, a Director of the American Jewish Committee, a Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Director of the Multi-Family Housing Council, and is active in other community and professional organizations. Dan Levin has proven that he is a man to emulate in both business and in public service. He has helped to create homes, jobs and other opportunities for people in need of a helping hand, and he has played a major role in the economic growth and development of Chicago. It is with great pleasure that I commend Dan Levin for his years of service and congratulate him on being named this year's Human Rights Medallion awardee. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Dan's friends, his wife Fay and the rest of his family, the American Jewish Committee, and me in recognizing Dan Levin's outstanding and invaluable service to the Chicago community.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call your attention to a growing crisis--the shortage of nurses in health care facilities across the Nation. Nurses are an absolutely essential component of our health care system--no piece of medical equipment will ever replace the around-the-clock surveillance provided by our Nation's nurses. There is simply no substitute for the element of humanity that nurses bring to medicine. Therefore, I find it extremely alarming that one in five nurses plans to quit the profession within five years due to unsatisfactory working conditions. By the year 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that we will need 450,000 additional registered nurses in order to meet present demand. This projection neglects the fact that around that same time, 78 million baby boomers Will start becoming eligible for Medicare. How did we end up in this situation? Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you are one of the millions of young people across the country trying to decide upon a career. Suppose nursing is a profession that sincerely interests you. Would you still be interested upon discovering that nurses can expect to work nights, weekends, and holidays? Would you still be interested after learning that nurses routinely work 16-hour shifts or longer, and can be forced under threat of dismissal to work mandatory overtime? Would you still be interested after realizing that nurses receive lower salaries, less vacation, and less retirement benefits than their classmates who chose other professions? Would you still be interested after finding out that, with the advent of managed care, nurses now have to spend almost as much time scrambling to fill out paperwork as they do caring for patients? Would you still be interested when you learn that the very real possibility exists that you may be the only hospital staff member available to supervise the well-being of an entire floor of critically- ill patients? It doesn't take a great deal of insight to realize that no matter how passionate your intentions, the disadvantages of the nursing profession have become increasingly prohibitive. Yet, as bad as the nursing crisis is for nurses, its worst consequences will be felt by patients, Last year, an investigative report by the Chicago Tribune revealed that since 1995, at least 1,720 hospital patients have been accidentally killed, and 9,854 others injured as a result of the actions of registered nurses across the country. Interestingly enough, instead of attacking the Tribune report, nurses applauded it because it proved to the American public what they had known for a long time--our nation's nursing corps is being stretched too thin, in part due to reckless pennypinching by managed care companies, and in part due to government underfunding of hospitals. How bad is the crisis? In the mid-90's, short-sighted budget cuts, both by the government and by managed care companies, forced many hospitals that were staffed entirely by registered nurses to rely on lesser-trained practical nurses and nurse aides instead. Nurse aides, many of whom are not required to have high school diplomas, now constitute over one-third of nursing staffs in many hospitals. In my hometown of Chicago, the situation is so dire that housekeeping staff hired to clean rooms have been pressed into duty as aides to dispense medicine. Hospitals now routinely order nurses to care for 15 patients or more at a time, almost double the recommended patient load. Overworked nurses are being forced to juggle more tasks than any single person can be expected to handle, and are being asked to do procedures that they haven't been adequately trained for. Our nurses have reached the end of their rope. To quote Kim Cloninger, a registered nurse from Illinois: ``I wake up every day and hope I don't kill someone today. Every day I pray: God protect me. Let me make it out of there with my patients alive.'' Or perhaps more tellingly, Tricia Hunter, executive director of the California branch of the American Nurses Association states: ``I don't know a nurse who would leave anyone they love in a hospital alone.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the face of nursing today. The nursing profession needs our help. As a profession, nurses have a rich history of doing whatever it takes to provide adequate patient care. Nurses generally don't make a big fuss over working conditions. The fact that they are tells me that something is seriously wrong with our health care system today. Therefore, I support legislation that enacts upwardly adjustable nurse staffing ratios as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and I support legislation banning mandatory overtime. I also support the Patients' Bill of Rights introduced by Mr. McCain, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Kennedy in the Senate, and by Mr. Ganske and Mr. Dingell in the House because it includes a provision that protects health care professionals from retaliation when they speak out for their patients. Lastly, I support the Nurse Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1436, because it addresses the need to attract more people into the nursing profession. I support all of these measures because if we don't act to solve our current nursing crisis, we will all pay the price at some point down the line.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On Father's Day, three brave firefighters died when a massive explosion suddenly ripped through a Queens hardware store, burying them under an avalanche of rubble. John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford lost their lives when what seemed like a routine fire turned into a five-alarm blaze. The devastation marked the deadliest day for the New York Fire Department since three firefighters were killed in a pre-Christmas 1998 high-rise blaze in Canarsie, Brooklyn. The names of Downey, Fahey, and Ford will one day be added to the Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial Wall in Memorial Park in Colorado Springs, Colorado. In front of the memorial wall is a statue called, ``Somewhere Everyday.'' Somewhere every day firefighters are engaged in acts of heroism and saving lives, as these firefighters were doing on Father's Day. The ``Somewhere Everyday'' statue depicts a firefighter descending a ladder and taking the last step of a successful rescue while clutching a child safely within his arms. The rubble from the fire forms the base of the tribute. In the rubble of the Long Island General Supply Company building are the shattered lives of three wives, eight children, and other family, friends, and colleagues. The memorial is dedicated to them and all that they have lost. I would only hope that they find comfort in knowing that Downey, Fahey, and Ford died doing what they loved and fulfilling their promise to keep their communities safe and the lives and homes of the people they served secure. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the rest of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to manage.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to those who have been talking about support for a patient's bill of rights. But, of course, Mr. Speaker, not just any patients' bill of rights. I support the robust patients' bill of rights sponsored by my esteemed colleagues, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Edwards in the Senate, and the companion legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in the House. I support the patients' bill of rights that puts patients before profits and values human life over the bottom line. The idea of a patients' bill of rights is nothing new to this Congress. We have all listened to the rhetoric and we have all been involved in the debate. As a Member of Congress since 1996, I must say that it is interesting to see where this debate has gone. I find it worth commenting that the question we are now faced with is not so much whether or not we should pass a patients' bill of rights but which version we should pass. In other words, we are all in agreement that patients need to be afforded an increased level of protection from the predatory tendencies of managed care organizations. Rather than immediately delve into the particulars of why we should prefer one version over another, I believe it is instructive to take a step back for a moment and look at the concept of a patients' bill of rights in the first place. The very idea that we need a patients' bill of rights, an idea I remind my colleagues that we all are in support of, implies the presence of an injurious element within our health care system. The simple fact that we are debating this idea means that each one of us, on some level, acknowledges the basic reality that the interests of managed care organizations tend to be adversarial to the interests of patients. I believe that the debate over which patients' bill of rights to accept can be resolved simply by looking more closely at the nature of the beast. Too often I believe we talk about solutions without fully understanding the problem. I believe that with a careful examination of the means and motives by which managed care corporations make money, off the pain and suffering of patients, the answer to the question of which patients' bill of rights is the real patients' bill of rights becomes self-evident. Now, what is it about managed care that is so inherently evil? Well, let me just quote one thing that Milton Friedman, a well-known advocate of free market economics, said. ``Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.'' In other words, if we go by the dictates that managed care organizations live by, not only is it undesirable to take a patient's well-being into account, it is simply unethical to do so. Any motive other than profit is extraneous and inappropriate. Now, obviously, this narrow-minded approach has put us in the situation that we are currently in. And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we simply take stock of where we are as a country with a health care delivery system, put patients before profits, make sure that patients and their physicians have the opportunity to collaborate, to make decisions and determinations about the kind of treatment they should receive, and not some bureaucrat or clerk sitting in an office. That is the only real way to do it. So I would urge all of my colleagues and all of America to really support the Ganske-Dingell bill so that patients can have real rights, and that is the right to be involved, the right to live, the right to get good medicine when they are in need of it.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) regarding homelessness and homeless children and where they fit in the school systems that we have to today. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).