Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the dynamic gentleman from Lenexa, Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me commend and congratulate the gentleman from Kansas for introducing this very important bill. As a matter of fact, I rise in support of this legislation to establish the Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission. The Commission, in conjunction with the Department of Education, is charged with planning and coordinating public education activities and initiatives, writing contests and public awareness campaigns. In cooperation with the Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research, the Commission must submit recommendations to Congress to encourage, plan, develop observances of the anniversary of the Brown decision. The 50th anniversary of the Brown decision will take place on May 17, 2004. This Commission is going to need every second of the next 3 years to commemorate the Brown decision in a meaningful way. Brown v. Board of Education is to be commemorated for what it did to address the disparities in the American education system 47 years ago, and to help us address the disparities that we struggle with today. Like in the 1930s and 1950s, the best hope for racial, social and economic equality lay in education. That is why in 1951, Oliver Brown and the parents of 12 other black children filed a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education protesting the city's segregation of black and white students. That is also why, Mr. Speaker, today parents all across America, particularly parents of children of color, are demanding that elected officials improve the American educational system. In 1997, 93 percent of whites aged 25 to 29 had attained a high school diploma or equivalency degree compared to 87 percent of African Americans and just 62 percent of Hispanics. Among those with high school degrees, 35 percent of whites had completed a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to just 16 percent of African Americans and 18 percent of Hispanics. Given the increasing importance of skill in our labor market, these gaps in educational attainment translate into large differences by race and ethnicity in eventual labor market outcomes, such as wages and employment. American schools are integrated, but they still are not equal. They are not equal because we still do not understand in many places what it takes to make schools effective. How do we prepare all of our children to meet the challenges of tomorrow? For some people, charter and private schools are the answer. For others, it is school vouchers and class size reduction. One thing is for sure, if we do not break down the disparities in the educational system, the cycle of poverty will continue among children who attend poor and inner-city schools. A good, solid public education system is basic for all Americans. The historic Brown v. Board of Education was announced on May 7, 1954 by Chief Justice Warren. Justice Warren's words are timeless. He stressed the fact that public education was a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. I trust that the commission will remember these words when planning for observances of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. And even as we discuss this resolution today and prepare for its passage, there is still not equal funding for school districts even in my own State, the land of Lincoln, the State of Illinois, where some school districts receive as much as three times the funding of other districts; and if that is not separate but equal, unequal, then I do not know how to define it. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we all will remember this as we seek to improve the American educational system. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us remember what the Brown v. Board of Education decision was all about. It was all about blacks exercising their citizenship and rights as a people, one Nation under God. Given our dark history concerning slavery and the citizenship rights of blacks and others in this country, we remember the Dred Scott decision. The question in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case where a black slave from Missouri claimed his freedom on the basis of 7 years of residency in a free State. On March 6, 1857, nine justices filed in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, led by Chief Justice Taney, and they asked the question then, ``can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?'' The Supreme Court decision then did not serve justice to Dred Scott. Thirty-nine years later, the answer to this question became much more resounding in the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson as a sad chapter in the pages of history. In this landmark decision of 1896, the court found that the doctrine of separate but equal concerning segregation of public facilities did not violate the Constitution. Separate schools for whites and blacks became a basic rule in southern society, legitimatized in this doctrine that legalized segregation known as ``Jim Crow.'' For years, this decision affected many black boys and girls and kept them from achieving an equitable education that was entitled to them under the Constitution of the United States. In the midwest town of Topeka, Kansas, a little girl named Linda Brown had to ride the bus five miles to school each day, although a public school was located only four blocks from her house. The school was not full, and the little girl met all the requirements to attend, all but one that is. Linda Brown was black, and blacks were not allowed to go to white children's schools. In an attempt to gain equal educational opportunities for their children, 13 parents with the aid of the local chapter of the NAACP filed a class action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka Schools. Prior to becoming our first African American Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Thurgood Marshall presented a legal argument that resulted in the 1954 Supreme Court decision that separate but equal was unconstitutional because it violated the children's 14th amendment rights by separating them solely on the classification of the color of their skin. This ruling in favor of integration was one of the most significant strides America has taken in favor of civil rights. So we come today, Mr. Speaker, in support of a resolution to commemorate that day and to commemorate that time and to commemorate the exciting events that took place then as we look forward to events taking place even now. So I would urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, emergency room nurses are in town, and I commend and congratulate them for the outstanding work they do. This is also a great time to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights, one like the Ganske-Dingell bill that ensures that medical decisions come before business decisions, one that ensures that doctors and patients and nurses have the opportunity to decide what kind of treatment there ought to be. It ensures that external review of individuals who do not have a self-interest are the ones making the decisions and recommendations. Mr. Speaker, it is not like the bill that was introduced yesterday, that allows HMOs to do their own reviewing, to have their own internal reviews to determine whether or not what they are doing is good and right. That is like having the fox guard the chicken house. Mr. Speaker, if we want to be real, we will pass the Ganske-Dingell bill for real patients' rights.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I do so with the full understanding and appreciation for the increase in the weatherization program. I appreciate that, but the realty is that if there is not enough in the pot to begin with, we cannot get out of it what is not there. I come from an environment where it is always too hot or too cold, always. I have more than 165,000 low-income consumers who live at or below the poverty level in a high-priced economic market. All of the time, every day of their lives, they are always moaning, groaning, crying about the inability to have a comfortable environment in which to live. While I appreciate research, am a strong proponent of it, we know that weatherization works. We know that it works. I support this amendment and would urge its passage to give relief to those individuals who need it now because we know that weatherization does work.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge you today to vote in favor of the bi-partisan amendment introduced by Representatives Slaughter, Horn, Dicks and Johnson. The amendment will increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Humanities Council and the Office of Museum Services by $15 million, of which $10 million will go to the NEA. This increase would take the NEA budget to $120 million. Though not the $150 million the agency requested to fully support the Challenge America initiative, it makes important inroads into funding the arts in parts of our country which have not received NEA support before. In a community like my own, these new monies will reach out to community organizations and cultural groups, previously unfunded, working to bring the arts to our children in after school programs. Challenge America is designed to strengthen communities through the creation of partnerships that support arts programs. This program funds projects serving arts education, access for underserved areas, youth- at-risk, cultural heritage preservation and community arts partnerships. These partnerships represent what the arts do so well. Arts organizations working with schools, libraries, local businesses to make the arts available for everyone. There are numerous studies that point to the benefits of art experience and instruction. The arts increase the ability of students to perform better in all areas of education. There are numerous studies that point out the economic impact of the arts in communities small and large. And we all know that quality of life is enhanced when the arts are a central part of a community's life. The NEA has for over 30 years been a partner in those partnerships. Challenge America will being federal dollars into more communities to help more children and families. I urge you to support the Slaughter amendment and increase the budget of the federal cultural agencies by $15 million.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to associate myself with the resolution that was just approved in the House. I think it is seriously important and speaks to the development of our country. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I join with my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 1753, legislation naming the post office located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, Northeast, in Roanoke, Virginia, as the M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on May 8, 2001, and has the support and cosponsorship of the entire Virginia delegation. Mr. Butler is a former representative of Congress representing the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia for five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Butler served with distinction on the House Judiciary and Government Operations Committee. Upon his retirement, he returned home to Roanoke, Virginia, and practiced law until 1998. I must note that the sponsor of this measure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), had the honor of working for Representative Butler as his district director from 1977 to 1979. Obviously, this was, indeed, and always is a tremendous honor. It also gives one the opportunity to observe firsthand what is taking place, what is happening, and maybe in some instances inspire and motivate them to follow in the same footsteps. It is obvious the kind of feeling, the kind of recognition, the kind of honor that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has had and must have felt as he has had the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of a predecessor with whom he also had the opportunity to work with and for. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution and would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I first of all want to congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), and I am pleased to join with him in introducing this resolution and bringing it to the floor for quick action. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 163, particularly today, Juneteenth Independence Day. On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves of the southern States that had seceded from the Union. However, it was not until June 19, 1865, that the Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas, with the news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free. The reaction to the news ranged from shock to immediate jubilation. June 19th, coined Juneteenth, became a time for former slaves to pray and to gather together with remaining family members. Education, self- improvement, and prayer services were and still are a major part of Juneteenth celebrations. Though Texas is the only State to declare June 19 a legal holiday, it is celebrated in communities throughout the country. Juneteenth celebrations are a tribute to all Americans who fought to end slavery and who work hard for social and racial equality. It is an appropriate holiday to precede Independence Day on July 4. The promise of justice and equality contained within the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were realized on this day for many people in 1865. Today marks the 136th celebration of Juneteenth, which was originally handed down through the old tradition, from generation to generation, and finally formally honored for the first time in Texas in 1972. Juneteenth is indeed a time to reflect on and honor those who suffered the tragedy of slavery in America. It is also a time to appreciate the social, political, educational, and economic possibilities afforded by social and racial equality. In short, Juneteenth for many African Americans represents what the Fourth of July means for mainstream America: a celebration of the promise of freedom. As I listened this morning to my favorite radio station, WVON, to talk show host Cliff Kelly, my former colleague from the Chicago City Council, as Cliff was engaging callers in Juneteenth and the meaning of it, all of the calls were indeed positive and represented the idea that celebration was appropriate for this day. So I want to commend radio station WVON for its efforts. I also want to congratulate and commend State Representative Monique Davis, who has introduced legislation in the Illinois General Assembly. This resolution recognizes Juneteenth Day as a day that all of America can celebrate freedom, and recognize that being free, spiritually, physically, socially, financially, educationally, and professionally is meaningful. So for this reason, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 163. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the very passionate gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and first let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his graciousness and for his support of this resolution. There is not a more esteemed Member of this body with more graciousness than the gentleman from Connecticut, and I want him to know that we appreciate him. I also, Madam Speaker, want to again congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for the role that he has played in not only introducing but moving this resolution to the floor. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for making sure that there was an opportunity to discuss this resolution on the floor of the House on this day, June 19th, Juneteenth Day. Madam Speaker, I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) had planned to be here and to speak on the resolution. Unfortunately, she was unable to do so. I think this resolution speaks to America, some of its paradoxes, some of its problems; the recognition that even as slaves were freed, there were over 800,000 who did not know it, and there are people who would say that there are many people in our country today who do not know some of the freedoms that exist. There are many people in our country who do not know that they have an opportunity to seriously impact upon all of the public policy decisions that are made in our great Nation. As we look at the tremendous documents that we have seen evolved, and as we recognize what they really meant, they really meant that there is the opportunity to always be in pursuit of freedom of equality, of justice, of equal opportunity. It also means that we are not there yet. But as long as there is movement towards the goal, then there is hope and possibility for America. There is the hope that America can become the America that it has not been but the America that we all know that it can be. I also want to point out that this resolution provides an opportunity for us to take a look at a part of our history, the period of reconstruction. And I want to commend Lerone Bennett, Senior Editor of Ebony Magazine, for the research and writings and work that he has done. Finally, it was never brought to my attention more than last weekend, while driving to St. Louis to participate in a function with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), when my father and I, who is 89 years old, after the activity was able to interact with my uncle, who is 96 years old. Fortunately for both of them, they still have their wits and they still can recall things and they are both functional. They were discussing the period of their boyhoods and the fact that their grandparents were slaves; that my father's mother's parents were slaves; that my mother's mother's parents were slaves. I am amazed at how much progress they made during the period of reconstruction without formal education, without a great deal of learning but using the experiences of their previous conditions to help build a new America. So Juneteenth recommends and recognizes not only the past but the presence and speaks to the future. So I would urge all of my colleagues to support it and would once again thank all of those who have helped to bring it to the floor on this day.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute first of all organized labor and to talk briefly about the role that it has played and continues to play in the lives of average citizens, ordinary Americans, the role that it has played in helping to create what we call the middle class. Every day when I pick up the paper, the first thing that I generally see is where the rights of workers are being eroded. We are continuing to downsize, outsource, privatize. There is a tremendous amount of anti-union organizing activity. We see the diminution of workers' rights and the elimination of fringe benefits. More and more people are forced into having to work part time, with not a real job where they have benefits, where they know that if they should become ill, they can go to the doctor or go to the hospital. In a world that is increasingly connected by international trade and investment, the need for enforceable rules in the global economy to protect workers' rights and prevent a devastating drive to the bottom in labor standards has never been more critical than what it is today. Working together, countries must take steps to establish minimum international labor standards so that increasing trade competition between nations does not continue to spiral downward. The fact is that since NAFTA was enacted in 1993, the United States has lost more than 600,000 jobs. U.S. companies have less stringent labor and environmental standards. In fact, more than 150 U.S. companies have left the U.S. for Mexico since NAFTA and are now relishing in the fact that they have avoided compliance with important worker safety and health standards. And, of course, they are getting away with paying their employees as little as $7 a day. How can a Teamster, for example, who might make an average of $19 an hour compete with this? The fact of the matter is that he or she cannot. And each and every time we go to the bargaining table to negotiate a good, fair contract, we are berated with threats of companies relocating. In the end, American jobs are eliminated, our wages are suppressed, and benefits cut. Unfortunately, the World Trade Organization does not seem to be concerned with this problem. I was pleased not long ago to listen to my colleague from North Carolina talk about reauthorization of the agricultural bill and the fact that rural America must have a real place in it. I was thinking that when we reauthorize that bill, we need to make sure that we look at some of the subsidies that we are giving to agribusiness, that we look, for example, at the tremendous subsidy that the sugar growers are getting which is keeping the cost of sugar so high in places like where I live that candy companies are going out of business, or they are talking about moving to Mexico or Argentina or someplace other than in the United States. And so I think it is a call to arms for the workers of America to unite, to keep coming together, to keep organizing, to make sure that there is protection for the average person, the workers of this country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the sugar program, as we know it, is hurting workers. We have farm programs for wheat, corn, cotton and many other crops. These programs give direct assistance to farmers and allow market prices to be set by supply and demand. Farmers receive help but not at the expense of workers and consumers. The sugar program is different. The sugar program helps producers by hurting other people. That is not right and we ought to be able to find another way to help sugar farmers. The sugar program keeps our market prices higher than world prices. Domestic sugar prices are about 21 cents a pound compared to world prices of about 9 cents a pound. That is now beginning to cost us jobs. In my community, Brach's Candy Company has announced that it is closing its plant and moving to Argentina so that it can get sugar more cheaply. It is time for us to retain and keep businesses in our country, and one way to do it is to make sure that sugar prices are fair and equal.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the kickoff of National Men's Health Week as we lead up to the celebration of Father's Day on June 17, 2001. The importance of this special week is to raise national awareness among men relative to issues affecting our well-being. As men, Mr. Speaker, we play many roles in society, such as husbands, fathers, brothers, bread winners, Congressmen, Presidents, and more importantly co-partners in families and in some instances heads of families. None of the roles mentioned above are mutually exclusive. Rather, they are all part of an integrated whole. Some of us are very comfortable in each role. Others may find it difficult handling the presence and pressures associated with so many roles. Therefore, as we deal with National Men's Health Week, which is designed to promote health among men and to address a broad range of issues regardless of roles or status, let us be mindful that this is not an egotistical approach to elicit gender competition, but it is simply a reminder that we should all pay attention to problems that are gender specific. If we are not healthy, we cannot be the best husbands, fathers, or productive citizens that are vital to help keep our society going. Today, men suffer from some alarming health statistics. It is common knowledge that heart disease is the leading cause of death among men in the United States. The life expectancy of men is much lower than that of women by at least 7 years. Currently men represent 84 percent of all AIDS cases in the United States. In the African-American community, HIV/AIDS is spreading like wildfire. A recent survey revealed an increased infection rate of 4.4 percent for young gay men. The rates ranged from 2.5 percent all the way up to 14.7 percent among gay black men. In Chicago alone, gay men account for 53 percent of HIV/AIDS cases. Public health officials say that they are seeing disturbing trends of reckless behavior. Another sad statistic is the mortality rate for African Americans from all types of cancer. It is 68 percent higher than for any other group. There are many other types of ailments that afflict us, such as high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, excessive accidents on the road. Well, as one can see very well, the problems are there. The odds seem to be against men. But I assure my colleagues that an ounce of prevention is worth much more than 1,000 remedies. So I would urge all men not to wait until it is too late to bring into our lives the proper balance of health care. We can all have a better life. If that is not possible, we can all certainly make life more bearable. I urge all men to take time to reflect on the value of your life, on the well-being of yourself, and the ripple effect that it can have on all of the roles that you play and the lives of all the people with whom you come into contact. Should your health, your state of mind, your stress level or anything else be of concern that requires attention, please consult your physician, seek assistance at your earliest convenience. Let us celebrate Father's Day in good health as we celebrate this week dedicated to improving the health, not only of all of our citizens, but especially the health of men who oftentimes do not look or pay as much attention to themselves. I also take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to indicate support for the efforts and activities of individuals, organizations, institutions and other entities that are designed to honor fatherhood on Father's Day, especially when we look at statistics which suggest that children who are raised without their fathers account for 63 percent of youth suicides, 71 percent of pregnant teenagers, 90 percent of homeless and runaway children, 85 percent of behavior disorders. As my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, all of these problems are seriously affecting not only the lives of individuals, but the lives of people in our country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in support of this resolution. In 1968, a court-ordered reapportionment of New York's Congressional District created a new 12th district centered in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. Shirley Chisholm, the daughter of immigrants, won the election in that district. As the first black woman to serve in Congress, Shirley Chisholm is quoted as saying at that time ``tremendous amounts of talent are being lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt.'' Shirley Chisholm's advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the examples she has set for the women that have followed her have not been lost on this body, as is evident from this resolution. When Shirley Chisholm arrived in the House of Representatives from her inner-city district, the Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means assigned her to the Committee on Agriculture. Shirley Chisholm, already a critic of the committee system and its emphasis on seniority, appealed to her party caucus for reassignment to a committee of greater relevance to her district. She then received a seat on the committee on Veterans Affairs, followed by several terms on the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Rules. Throughout her service in Congress, Shirley Chisholm fought to extend or protect the same kind of social programs that were at the center of her State and local activism. Among her efforts to aid families were her proposed funding increases to extend the hours of day care facilities and open such facilities to the children of working mothers of low-income and middle-income groups. She sponsored the Adequate Income Act of 1971, which guaranteed an annual income for families; and her defense of the Office of Economic Opportunity against the Nixon administration's efforts to eliminate that agency will always be remembered. On January 25, 1972, Shirley Chisholm declared her candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination. She campaigned extensively and entered primaries in 12 States, winning 28 delegates and receiving 152 first ballot votes at the convention. Shirley Chisholm was indeed a role model as an elected official and an activist. I am pleased to join in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for the purposes of controlling time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, four years ago we unanimously approved the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997, in order to protect the endangered Asian Elephant that proves so vital for ecosystems in Southeast Asia. Our efforts were not in vain. Four years ago the Asian Elephant was caught in a downward spiral towards extinction. Poachers indiscriminately hunted them for their hides, meat, tusks, and teeth. Farmers and urban expansion destroyed their habitats. The effects of these actions were evident in 1997 when there were only an estimated 35,000 elephants left in existence. Today there are an estimated 35,000-50,000 elephants, demonstrating that while our efforts have succeeded to some extent, much more needs to be done. Extinction of the Asian Elephant is still entirely possible, and we must not simply stand idle while this happens. Like most ecosystems of the world, the Asian Elephant is a vital part of its natural habitat, and its existence and interaction with other species proves crucial in maintaining an ecological balance within the Southeast Asian region. For example, the elephants feed on bark from trees that they uproot; smaller species of mammals, insects, and birds rely on ``leftover'' debris from these trees as a dietary staple. Extinction of the Asian Elephant would have multiple and severely negative effects on the populations of countless other species. We must continue to protect this species from poachers and the deforestation that threatens to permanently displace it. By appropriating funds we will also actively discourage poachers, and encourage education that will bolster conservation efforts. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in support in passing H.R. 700, so that we may ensure the survival of this beautiful and vital species.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing out that we are going to be rewriting the farm bill. I think this is an excellent opportunity to correct what we should have done a number of years ago, and so I thank the gentleman again for coming over and for being a part. I am about to summarize this, Madam Speaker, but I have remarks about the Brief History of the Sugar Program that I would include in the Record at this point. Background and Analysis brief history of the sugar program Governments of every sugar producing nation intervene to protect their domestic industry from fluctuating world market prices. Such intervention is necessary, it is argued, because both sugar cane and sugar beets must be processed soon after harvest using costly processing machinery. When farmers significantly reduce production because of low prices, a cane or beet processing plant typically shuts down, usually never to reopen. This close link between production and capital intensive processing makes price stability important to industry survival. The United States has a long history of protection and support for its sugar industry. The Sugar Acts of 1934, 1937, and 1948 required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to estimate domestic consumption and to divide this market for sugar by assigning quotas to U.S. growers and foreign countries, authorized payments to growers when needed as an incentive to limit production, and levied excise taxes on sugar processed and refined in the United States. This type of sugar program expired in 1974. Following a 7-year period of markets relatively open to foreign sugar imports, mandatory price support only in 1977 and 1978, and discretionary support in 1979, Congress included mandatory price support for sugar in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 and the Food Security Act of 1985. Subsequently, 1990 farm program, 1993 budget reconciliation, and 1996 farm program laws extended sugar program authority through the 2002 crop year. Even with price protection available to producers, the United States historically has not produce enough sugar to satisfy domestic demand and thus continues to be a net sugar importer. Historically, domestic sugar growers and foreign suppliers shared the U.S. sugar market in a roughly 55/45 percent split. This, though, has not been the case in recent years. In FY2000, domestic production filled 88 percent of U.S. sugar demand for food and beverage use; imports covered 12 percent. As high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) displaced sugar in the United States during the early 1980s, and as domestic sugar production increased in the late 1980s. The loan rate for raw cane sugar is statutorily set. The loan rate for refined beet sugar historically was set in relation to raw sugar under a prescribed formula; however, this rate now is fixed for 7 years at the 1995 level. Loan support for beet sugar is set higher than for raw sugar, largely reflecting its availability as a product ready for immediate industrial food and beverage use or for human consumption (unlike raw cane sugar). By contrast, raw cane sugar must go through a second stage of processing at a cane refinery to be converted into white refined sugar that is equivalent to refined beet sugar in end use. Loan Rates and Forfeiture Levels. The FY2001 loan rates are set at 18 cents/lb. for raw cane sugar, and 22.9 cents/lb. for refined beet sugar. These loan rates, though, do not serve as the price floor for sugar. In practice, USDA's aim is to support the raw cane sugar price (depending upon the region) at not less than 19.1 to 20.7 cents/lb. (i.e., the price support level in a region plus an amount that coves a processor's cost of shipping raw cane sugar to a cane refinery plus the interest paid on any price support loan taken out less a forfeiture penalty applicable under certain circumstances). Similarly, USDA seeks to support the refined beet sugar price at not less than 23.2 to 26.2 cents/lb. (i.e., the regional loan rate plus specified marketing costs plus the interest paid on a price support loan less the forfeiture penalty), depending on the region. These ``loan forfeiture,'' or higher ``effective'' price support, levels are met by limiting the amount of foreign raw sugar imports allowed into the United States for refining and sale for domestic food and beverage consumption. Import Quota. USDA restricts the amount of foreign sugar allowed to enter the United States to ensure that market prices do not fall below the ``effective'' support levels. The intent in maintaining prices at or above these levels is to make sure that USDA does not acquire sugar due to a loan forfeiture. A loan forfeiture (turning over sugar pledged as loan collateral) occurs if a processor concludes that domestic market prices at the time of a desired sale are lower than the ``effective'' sugar price support level implied by the loan rate. Foreign suppliers absorbed the entire adjustment and saw their share of the U.S. market decline. 1996 Farm Act: Sugar Program To support U.S. sugar market prices, the USDA extends short-term loans to processors and limits imports of foreign sugar. The 1996 farm bill provisions, though, change the nature of the ``loan'' available to processors. The form of price support is now determined largely by the domestic demand/supply situation and USDA's subsequent decision on what the fiscal year level of sugar imports will be. As a result, these parameters together with market developments have injected more-than-usual price uncertainty into the U.S. sugar market. General Overview The sugar program continues to differ from the grains, rice, and cotton programs in that USDA makes no income transfers or payments to beet and cane growers. In contrast, the program is structured to indirectly support the incomes of domestic growers and sugar processors by limiting the amount of foreign sugar allowed to enter into the domestic market using an import quota--a policy mechanism that lies outside the scope of the program's statutory authority. Accordingly, USDA decisions on the size of the import quota affect market prices, and are made carefully to ensure that growers and processors do realize the benefits of price support they expect to receive as laid out in program authority. Price Support. USDA historically has extended price support loans to processors of sugarcane and sugar beets rather than directly to the farmers who harvest these crops. Growers receive USDA-set minimum payment levels for deliveries made to processors who actually take out such loans during the marketing year--a legal requirement. Other growers negotiate contracts that detail delivery prices and other terms with those processors that do not take out loans. In summarizing or closing out or closing up, let me just say this: I am not opposed to helping farmers. As a matter of fact, we have farm programs for wheat, corn, cotton and many other crops. These programs give direct assistance to farmers and allow market prices to be set by supply and demand. Farmers receive help but not at the expense of workers and consumers, but the sugar program is different. The sugar program helps producers by hurting other people. That is not right. There are other ways to help sugar farmers. The sugar program keeps our market prices higher than world prices. Domestic sugar prices are about 21 cents a pound compared to world prices of about 9 cents a pound. Now the price gap is costing jobs. Brach's Confectioners, Incorporated, will close its candy factory on Chicago's West Side, putting 1,100 people out of work in the next 3 years. Other facilities have closed, too, including a Nabisco plant last year. In fact, there were 13,000 workers in Chicago's candy industry 5 years ago but now only 10,000. One reason for the decline, increasing imports of hard candy made with world priced sugar. These nonchocolate candy imports have risen steadily from less than 12 percent of the U.S. market in 1997 to 17 percent in 1999. This candy is cheaper because it is made with sugar that costs 9 cents a pound instead of 21 cents a pound. Our quota system for sugar, along with the high price supports, is costing industrial jobs because imports are displacing United States products. The quotas may be helping large sugar corporations in Southern Florida but they are hurting American workers in Chicago who do not have quotas to protect them. It is time to change this dysfunctional sugar program. We can help producers without hurting workers and other farmers. The new farm bill must reform sugar subsidies. We must support the Miller-Miller legislation and we must make sure that as we reauthorize legislation to govern farm, farmers and farm products in our country, that we reform the sugar program and make it fair.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) very much for his comments. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for coming over. I think he has put his finger right on the issue when he talks about consumers have to pay unnecessarily. I understand that one has to pay for everything that they get but I do not understand when one has to pay more just so a small industry can continue to benefit to the detriment of others. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and I certainly want to thank him for his very passionate and eloquent description of the problem. I had not really thought in terms of further taxation, but when he makes the point that this becomes additional taxation as we purchase beverages, as we purchase candy, and, more importantly, as we purchase ordinary food which contains sugar, that is another way of looking at the issue. I certainly agree with him that it has to stop. We are also pleased that we have been joined by the dean of the Democratic delegation from the State of Illinois, one of the real experts on aviation in this country but one who understands not only aviation but urban issues and urban problems all over America, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). We are so delighted that he has joined us, and we thank him so much for coming.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I noted with tremendous interest the discussion which just took place, and, of course, I think there is always the likelihood and the possibility that countries get larger and larger and opportunities become greater and that those opportunities should be shared by and used by as many people as we can possibly make them available to. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I participated in a press conference called by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). They called this press conference to announce their introduction of legislation to change our sugar policy and to phase out some of those huge subsidies that we are providing for the control of the sugar industry to small groups of people and small business concerns; that is small in numbers but certainly large in terms of influence and large in terms of their control of the industry. Also at that press conference was the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). The whole question of our sugar policy is rocking the country in many places because of the fact it is having a tremendously negative impact upon the ability of people to continue to grow and develop in their local communities. Every country and every government that is of a sugar- producing nation has intervened to protect their domestic industry from fluctuating world market prices. Such intervention has been necessary, it is argued, because both sugar cane and sugar beats must be processed soon after harvest using costly processing machinery. When farmers significantly reduce production because of low prices, a cane or beat processing plant typically shuts down, usually never to reopen. This close link between production and capital-intensive processing makes price stability important to industry survival. The United States has a long history of protection and support for its sugar industry. The Sugar Acts of 1934, 1937, and 1948 required the United States Department of Agriculture to eliminate domestic consumption and to divide this market for sugar by assigning quotas to U.S. growers and foreign countries, authorized payments to growers when needed as an incentive to limit production, and levied excise taxes on sugar processed and refined in the United States. This type of sugar program expired in 1974, following a 7-year period of markets relatively open to foreign sugar imports, mandatory price support only in 1977 and 1978, and discretionary support in 1979. Congress included mandatory price support for sugar in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 and the Food Security Act of 1985. Subsequently, the 1990 Farm Program, the 1993 Budget Reconciliation, and the 1996 Farm Program laws extended sugar program authority through the 2002 crop year. Even with price protection available to producers, the United States historically has not produced enough sugar to satisfy domestic demand and, thus, continues to be a net sugar importer. Historically, domestic sugar growers and foreign suppliers share the United States market in a roughly 55 to 45 split. This, though, has not been the case in recent years. In fiscal year 2000, domestic production filled 88 percent of U.S. sugar demand for food and beverage use. Imports covered 12 percent. A high fructose corn syrup displaced sugar in the United States during the early 1980s and as domestic sugar production increased in the late 1980s. The USDA restricts the amount of foreign sugar allowed to enter the United States to ensure that market prices do not fall below the effective support levels. The intent in maintaining prices at or above these levels is to make sure that the USDA does not acquire sugar due to a loan forfeiture. A loan forfeiture, turning over sugar pledged as loan collateral, occurs if a processor concludes that market prices at the same time of a desired sale are lower than the effective sugar price support level implied by the loan rate. Now, I mention all of this background to mention the fact that there has been reason for the development of our policy. But then as times change, so is there a need for policy change, and so, Mr. Speaker, I approach the subject of sugar subsidies from a little different angle, something slightly different than just looking at what it is that we do for the producers. In my district today, tonight, more than 600 jobs are at risk, in part because of the sugar subsidy. So my view this evening is the view of the community, the point of view of the working man or woman. We live in a society of plenty and, still, 20 percent of our children live in poverty. In areas where we measure near poverty, such as California, the rate rises to 45 percent. Similar numbers characterize my district in the State of Illinois. Over the past 35 years, our national production of goods and services has more than doubled, yet the inflation-adjusted income of most poor Americans is lower today than it was in 1968. A recent CBO report revealed that after-tax income of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households fell between 1979 and 1997, while the income of the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households grew a staggering 157 percent. More egregious, wage and equality, that is, the relative drop in pay for the lowest-paid workers is again on the rise. This is accompanied by an actual loss of jobs in our economy last month of 19,000; and an increase in the number of laid off workers as a share of the workforce. Manufacturing continues to bear the brunt with employment down 124,000 in May and job loss this year averaging 94,000 per month. Most folks know that some of these recent setbacks are at least in part due to the current economic downturn we are experiencing. But especially in manufacturing, we have been experiencing a long-term so- called structured downturn for two generations. Jobs With Justice counted three-quarters of a million jobs lost as a result of NAFTA sucking jobs out of the United States; 37,000 of those jobs were lost in Illinois. Total job loss in Illinois was much worse. Between 1970 and 1984, the city of Chicago lost a total of 233,873 jobs in the manufacturing sector and another 39,660 in wholesaling as a result of plant closings and layoffs. These job losses hit especially hard at women, African Americans, Latinos, members of other minority groups. In addition to jobs lost, occupations which dislocated workers had high concentrations of women. This pattern of job loss and dislocation can be traced all the way back to the end of the Second World War; and of course although I mention Chicago, it is not limited to Chicago and Illinois. Between 1947 and 1963, Detroit, for example, lost 14,000 manufacturing jobs. No wonder the Midwest came to be called the Rust Belt. In fact, though the rust has impacted all of America, globalization has accelerated the process of deindustrialization, but that does not mean that we must resign ourselves to those consequences. On the contrary, what it means is that we need a policy, a trade policy, an economic policy, a foreign policy, which serves the interest of every American, every working man, every working woman. Every man and every woman. Anyone who claims that globalization is just about free trade, about letting the market work, is not telling the whole story. If NAFTA were only about free trade, the treaty would have been a page or two long, and simply declare all taxes and barriers to free trade are hereby repealed. Instead, the treaty is a thousand pages of dense legal type and has hundreds of additional pages of highly technical appendices. All that legalese is there to protect specific interests and specific institutions. What is not protected is the jobs of ordinary Americans. What is not protected is the environment. What is not protected is the health and safety of the American consumer. Mr. Speaker, there is a role for the public sector, and there is a role for the private sector. Of course I am here today to advocate for the removal of an obstacle to economic growth, a relic of agricultural needs and times that have come and gone. While there have been efforts to do this in the past, I trust that this year we will be more successful. But it must be part of a broader concern, a broader policy of protecting the jobs of ordinary Americans; and it must be part of a policy that demands corporate responsibility, performance standards, public disclosure, fairness and equity in return for the nourishing environment our corporations enjoy. Mr. Speaker, the Bible teaches that we sometimes ought to consider what profits a man who loses his soul. I guess I would probably phrase that differently and maybe would ask the question, What profits a Nation which abandons its people? I believe that is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what we continue to do as long as we have an archaic sugar policy that does not allow jobs and economic development to take place in neighborhoods and communities throughout the country that are in need of fairness and fair opportunity to expand, to grow, as opposed to retrenching and going out of business. Mr. Speaker, our sugar policy is a very important issue that has the potential to cost our respective districts many jobs. So now the question becomes and the question is: Should the Federal policy seek to ship overseas the jobs of hardworking American citizens in order to bestow huge subsidies on a relatively small group of individuals and businesses, many of whom are already wealthy? I would think not, and I would venture that the vast majority of Americans would agree with me. That is precisely what is occurring because of the sugar price support program, a program which has thrown onto the unemployment rolls thousands of my constituents, other residents of the city that I come from, and other people all over the country who rely upon the candy and food industries for livelihood. The sugar price support program is in crisis. Approximately 65,000 Americans are employed in the candy industry nationwide. However, according to the Chicago Tribune, since the 1990s, 4,000 of those jobs have been lost and have left the city of Chicago alone. Just recently we got word that one of our plants, Brach's Candy Company, with 1,600 jobs was going to move out of the city, out of the county, out of the State, out of the Nation, into Argentina. They are going to move because they say that they pay twice as much for sugar as do their overseas competitors. Communities like those around the Brach's plant are in many instances already devastated, have already experienced high levels of unemployment, have already had to dig their way out as we have seen change in trends. So I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that these job losses are in addition to those in the cane refining industry. Since the sugar price support program was enacted in 1981, 12 of 22 cane sugar refiners, including one in Chicago, have gone out of business, in all likelihood never to return. As many as 4,000 high-paying union jobs were lost when these refineries shut down. Unlike most other agricultural programs, the sugar program has not since its inception in the 1980s been reformed to reflect change in market conditions. The program is still aimed at keeping sugar prices high by limiting imports and making loans to growers. Operating under the price protection of this program, domestic sugar producers taking advantage of both technological advances and good weather have increased their production dramatically, so much so that production reached such high levels last year that the Federal Government, our government, my government, your government, bought 132,000 tons of sugar off the domestic market at a cost of $54 million. There are some who would call this a sweetheart, I guess you cannot get much sweeter than sugar, deal. In fact, when you include the cost incurred by the government from sugar loan forfeitures, the cost to the United States taxpayer for the sugar program was $465 million last year, and the United States Government is now having to pay additional millions of dollars to store some 800,000 tons of sugar. So there you have it. All of our constituents pay for the sugar program in either their taxes and in the prices of the products they purchase at the grocery store. And then, of course, some of us pay by losing their jobs. The jobs being lost in the candy industry are not moving to another city, county, or State, but to other countries such as Mexico or Argentina where sugar can be purchased at world prices. All of the way back to my days when I served on the Chicago City Council, I have seen the gradual decline and loss of jobs in the candy industry, and specifically in urban Chicago. Therefore, I am certain that we must find a solution to prevent the further loss of jobs throughout urban America, and I would encourage my colleagues to find me and find such a solution. I believe that such a solution has been proposed today. Therefore, I would urge support for the Miller-Miller legislation which was introduced earlier this day. I am also pleased to note that my colleague from the city of Chicago, from the First Congressional District, the oldest, as a matter of fact, African American congressional district currently standing in the United States of America, for example, it was that area after the period of Reconstruction was over and all African Americans had been put out of the Congress, and we went through a period where there was no black representation in Congress for about 30 years, finally from the First Congressional District of Chicago came Oscar DePriest; and following in the footsteps of Oscar DePriest and the footsteps of the late Mayor Harold Washington, I am pleased that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), has come to join us and participate in this discussion.