Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. John B. Duff, who is retiring as President of Columbia College Chicago after 8 successful years and an illustrious career in both academia and the public sector. Prior to Columbia, Dr. Duff served as commissioner of the Chicago Public Library system, where he supervised construction of the Harold Washington Library, the world's largest public library. His academic positions include serving as the first chancellor of the Board of Regents from Massachusetts' newly reorganized system of public higher education; president of the University of Lowell, Massachusetts; and lay provost, executive vice president and processor of history at Seton Hall University. Founded in 1890, Columbia College Chicago is an undergraduate and graduate college in downtown Chicago, dedicated to communication arts as well as media arts, applied and fine arts, theatrical and performing arts, and management and marketing arts. It is the fifth largest private institution of higher education in Illinois and the largest and most comprehensive arts media and communications college in the country. More than one-third of Columbia's 9,000 students are minorities, the largest minority enrollment of any arts and communication institution in the country. Columbia today is 50 percent larger than it was 9 years ago. In terms of physical space, under Dr. Duff's leadership, Columbia acquired 650,000 square feet. During this time, the first residence hall and new film stage facilities were opened, a new home for the music department was purchased, a new dance center was built, the 33 East Congress Building was purchased to house the English Department and the Radio Department, and Chicago's historic Ludington Building was acquired providing gallery space, student space, the Film/Video Department, and the Center for Book and Paper Arts. The college has played a major role in the revitalization of the South Loop and, working with its neighbors, arts organizations, entrepreneurs and the city is spearheading the development of a Wabash Avenue Arts Corridor. The growth of Columbia's faculty was also a priority for Dr. Duff during his tenure. The college added more than 100 full-time faculty positions to enhance curriculum development and management, to give more continuity to the educational programs, and to increase student contact with faculty. Dr. Duff also reinforced the college's commitment to its students by strengthening developmental education programs, to help students stay in school and graduate. Open-admissions arts colleges are rare, but one as academically strong as Columbia is truly unique. Today, thanks to Dr. Duff's leadership, Columbia remains secure in its mission and traditional commitments to opportunity, diversity, and professional education in the arts and communications. Madam Speaker, I invite all Members of the House to join with me in recognizing Dr. John Duff's many contributions to higher education to the City of Chicago and to the State of Illinois and in wishing him and his wife, journalist Estelle Shanley, our very best as they join one- fifth of the rest of the population in this country and move out to California to spend the rest of their days.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 4213.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to share in this Special Order with my colleague from Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased on August 28 to cosponsor a statewide hearing on the impact of the Balanced Budget Act on hospitals in the State of Illinois. And they came from all over the State: from down state, central Illinois, from Chicago, the northern part of the State, the University of Illinois Hospital, Rush Presbyterian, St. Lukes Medical Center, Cook County Hospital, Northwestern University Hospital, Bethany Hospital, the Illinois Home Health Association, the Illinois Nursing Home Association, Community Health Centers, the University of Chicago, Home Health Agencies, the National Hospice Association. All of them saying essentially the same thing and that is, while they recognize and appreciate the fact that we need to reduce waste and fraud and abuse in the Medicare program, in all of our health programs, in the Medicaid program, the one thing that they also understood is that we have gone too far with the Balanced Budget Act and we have actually cut services in institutions that we cannot afford to cut. We have thrown out in many instances the baby with the bath water. And so I join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and others in calling for another look at the impact of the Balanced Budget Act. We must find a way to save these institutions which are teetering. I am pleased to join with the gentleman tonight.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend and congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for their introduction to a very important piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, it is my hope and my understanding, as well as my desire, that passage of this legislation will help shed additional light on an extreme dark period in the history of this Nation, because as we look back to better understand where we came from, it helps us to recognize how we got to where we are, and then helps propel us into the future in relationship to where we need to be going. Carter G. Woodson, the founder of Black History Month, African- American History Month, once said that while we should not underestimate the achievements of our Nation's greatest architects, builders, and industrialists, we should give credit to those slaves who so largely supplied the demand for labor. This resolution will do just that, and I would hope that as historians write, that in the near future we will see in the history books in every classroom throughout this great Nation the contributions of those whose sweat, whose hard labor, whose intense drive helped to produce not only a magnificent edifice, but helped to provide an opportunity for democracy to grow and flourish.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, actually, I stand not to object, but to end up praising those who have come forth. As the sponsor of this resolution, I want to, first of all commend and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), cochair of the Health Center Caucus; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), cochair of the Health Center Caucus; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is also a cochair of the Health Center Caucus; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). Mr. Speaker, this resolution draws attention to the tremendous service that has been provided by the community health centers for the last 35 years. As a matter of fact, these centers have stood in the gap between crisis and health care delivery for hundreds of thousands of individuals over that period of time, especially individuals from low- income, from inner city, from migrant, from rural, individuals who were homeless, individuals who otherwise would have had no health care services that they could have been recipients of. I believe that we ought to establish a National Health Center Week so that we can point out how important these centers have truly been. I happen to know, Mr. Speaker, that there are several Members of this Congress who themselves have either worked as staff, for example, or board members of these centers, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) at Soul City; the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) at the Jackson Heinz Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, and I have had the good fortune and pleasure to work as a training director at the Martin Luther King Center in Chicago and as a special assistant to the president of the Miles Square Center in Chicago. So the history and legacy of these programs, they bring economic development to their communities. Right now, they have operating budgets of more than $4 billion. They generate more than $14 billion in economic development for the communities where they are. They are a real testament to what can happen, what has happened and what we look forward to them in the future. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4807, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments. The Ryan White CARE Act provides resources through states, localities, and agencies, all with the goal of improving the quality and availability of care of low-income, uninsured, and underserved individuals and families affected by HIV/AIDS. I am thankful for the many individuals and families who have been assisted and care for because of this landmark legislation. And I thank those health care providers, community health centers, and families who care for individuals with HIV/AIDS. We have seen some successes as a result of the Ryan White Act. In fact, in the city of Chicago, the number of deaths due to AIDS decreased from approximately 1,000 per year in 1993-95 to only 377 during 1997. Also, the Ryan White Act is reaching out to the poor. On a national level, the average annual income of more than 50 percent of Ryan White clients have never exceeded $25,000 per year, compared with 27 percent of all HIV-positive clients in care in 1996. Furthermore, the AIDS Drug Assistant Program formulary was expanded from 33 drugs in 1996 to 65 drugs in 1997, including all protease inhibitors and antiretroviral therapies. These reports are encouraging, however, Illinois is among the ten states in the nation reporting the highest number of AIDS cases from 1981 to 1999, that is, 22,348 individuals with AIDS in Illinois, 19,347 of those individuals living in Chicago. We can reach even more people through prevention and early diagnosis programs and we can treat even more people with greater access to the latest drugs and technology. I therefore fully support the expanded provisions under the Ryan White Amendments. First of all, these new provisions revise the grant formula to reflect the prevalence of HIV infections and AIDS cases. Under current law, funds are distributed only on the basis of AIDS cases. Secondly, the bill establishes a new supplementary competitive grant program for states in ``severe need'' of additional resources to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In determining severe need, HHS will consider evidence of disparities in access and services and historically underserved communities. Also, perinatal transmission of HIV is a problem that needs to be more fully addressed through early testing of the mother and baby and through counseling and treatment programs. I am pleased that this bill increases the authorization for the grant program dealing with perinatal HIV transmission by $20 million. In addition to the provisions I mentioned, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments would create focused efforts to reach prisoners with HIV/ AIDS, reach individuals who are currently not receiving care, and eliminate disparities in access to services. Mr. Speaker, I therefore rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic support of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Archer and Ranking Member Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee for their support in this legislation being on the floor today and I want to thank the Speaker for scheduling. Secondly, I want to thank President Clinton and Speaker Hastert for their leadership to commitments to try and help the most distressed, disadvantaged and poverty stricken areas of the country, in both urban and rural America. Thirdly, I want to commend and congratulate my colleagues and principal originators and cosponsors of this legislation, Chairman Jim Talent; chairman of the Small Business Committee and Representative J.C. Watts for their relentless efforts to make this legislation a reality. And Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of those who have indicated support for a small, but seriously important step forward, in reality a giant step as we move to uplift downtrodden communities and put hope back into the hearts of our people. This legislation is designed to do what none of our efforts have effectively done, which is seriously attract business and redevelopment efforts to the poorest communities in our nation. This legislation is no hollow sounding rhetoric, it is no flash and dash, it is no pig in a poke. It is economically sound, socially relevant and based upon the principles of free enterprise. It takes forty Renewal communities and provides tax incentives, lifts restrictions and barriers, provides for capital gains tax for five years, investment programs, wage incentives, environmental clean-ups, CRA credits, Commercial Revitalization, Tax Credit Opportunities to rehabilitate dilapidated housing, venture capital to start businesses and the promotion of Faith-Based Drug Counseling initiatives. I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about this provision, suggest that it infringes upon the separation of church and State and even go so far as to suggest that it is unconstitutional. This is absolutely untrue! In the charitable choice arena, this bill breaks no new ground! First of all, H.R. 4, the current Welfare Law, allows States to contract out their social services to both religious or non-religious providers. In addition, H.R. 4271, the Community Services Authorization Act of 1998, Senate Bill S. 2206 and H.R. 1776, the American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act all have some charitable choice provisions. Even under the establishment of the Religion Clause of the First Amendment, (1) Religious organizations are generally eligible to participate as grantees or contractors in such programs. But the clause has generally been interpreted to bar government from providing direct assistance to organizations that are pervasively sectarian. As a consequence, government funding agencies have often required social service providers, as conditions of receiving public funds, to be incorporated separately from their sponsoring religious institutions. They are to refrain from religious activities and proselytizing in the publicly funded programs and to remove any religious symbols from the premises in which the services are provided. The establishment clause, in short, has been construed to require religious organizations to secularize their services as a condition of obtaining public funding. ACRA's drug treatment provision is the same. It voucherizes the Substance Abuse Block Grant and other treatment Block Grants and allows the patient to decide where to use the voucher. The courts have found that our government can provide assistance directly to enterprises operated by religious concerns as long as it is not pervasively sectarian and that grantees devise ways of involving other organizations including religious ones, in the delivery of such services. In the Aguilar vs. Felton case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for public school teachers to provide remedial and enrichment educational services to sectarian school children on the premises of the schools they attend. Thus, the Court has ruled that as long as the client has a choice among providers both religious and non-religious and the participant makes the decision, then the choice is constitutional. And so, Mr. Speaker, even though I understand the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues, the law is the law. The constitution is the constitution and the legislation is in compliance with both. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote to help the people renew their hope and rebuild their communities. I am reminded of the scripture, they rebuild the walls because the people had a mind to work. This legislation will work to help restore and rebuild faith in America.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Souder amendment and the bill for several reasons. The bill ignores the fact that needle exchange does not increase drug use. It ignores the fact that society would have fewer individuals infected with HIV if they used clean needles. Needle exchange programs make needles available on a replacement basis only, and refer participants to drug counseling and treatment. Numerous studies concluded that needle exchange programs have shown a reduction in risk behaviors as high as 80 percent in injecting drug users, with estimates of 30 percent or greater reduction of HIV. Mr. Chairman, it has long been known that socioeconomic status impacts not only an individual's access to and use of health care but also the quality and benefits derived from health care. Impoverished communities have higher numbers of homeless individuals. Homelessness, in turn, increases risk for HIV due to associated high rates of substance abuse and prostitution. The Federal Office of Minority Health has determined that increased economic inequality is the driving force behind the rising health disparities among Americans. Today, racial and ethnic minorities comprise approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population, but account for more than 66 percent of the Nation's new AIDS cases. Mr. Chairman, last year I said this amendment was politically driven, rather than scientifically based and that still remains true. This bill whips on the poorest of the poor. This bill puts at risk millions of Americans who might be married or committed to someone who they may not know is an intravenous drug user. More importantly, this bill puts children at risk. Mr. Chairman, in order to stop the spread of HIV and improve the health care of those already infected, prevention and intervention programs that are designed to address the specific needs of the population affected must be supported. The D.C. ``clean'' needle exchange program must be funded. I urge all members to vote against this thoughtless amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in serious and enthusiastic support of this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for the longstanding pursuit that they have had of this legislation. I also want to take the opportunity to thank all of those committees that have been a part of processing it up to this point. I also want to thank President Clinton and Speaker Hastert for following through, following up on the commitments that they made to people as they traveled all around America, looking at communities where people had lost hope, where people had given up, where people felt that there was nothing really for them. Now we come with legislation that not only provides hope, but provides money, resources, venture capital, provides an opportunity to attract and bring new businesses to communities where there have not been any for years and years. Wage incentives, so that you can hire people who have been unemployed, opportunities for people to know that they, too, are part of America. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues are concerned about the charitable-choice provisions of this legislation; but I tell my colleagues, all of my research indicates that this legislation breaks no new ground in that arena. There are already charitable choices in the welfare bill that we currently operate under. There are already charitable choices in some of the community development activities that we all need and make use of. So while I am concerned seriously about the Constitution and upholding the law, this legislation is in compliance with both. And I would urge a yes vote, a vote for the renewal, not only of people's minds, but the renewal of their communities. I remember a passage of scripture in the Bible that says, And they rebuilt the walls because the people had a mind to work. This legislation would not only work for renewal communities, but it would work for all of America; and I urge that we vote its passage.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, we are now celebrating the 10th year anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I rise this evening to not only celebrate this landmark occasion, but also to acknowledge my unwavering support of the Americans with Disabilities Act, known as ADA, and the future of this legislation. Just a few days ago, I signed a pledge of support for the American Association of People With Disabilities, thereby affirming my belief that we need an America that lives up to the promise of liberty, opportunity, and justice for all. The ADA advocates for our Nation's more than 43 million citizens with disabilities. In the Seventh District of Illinois, there are over 35,000 people with disabilities under the age of 65, and over 20,000 people with disabilities 65 years or older. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a few thoughts regarding the principles of the ADA and its successes over the last 10 years. First of all, the ADA seeks to break down stereotypes and misconceptions about people with disabilities by including them in the progress and prosperity of our Nation. Equal opportunity, full participation in society, employment opportunities, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency are the guiding principles of the ADA. Today, we are seeing a more inclusive and integrated society as a result of the ADA. People with disabilities are getting jobs that they want and for which they are well qualified. The Global Strategy Group Survey found in October of 1995 that 75 percent of companies with 51 to 200 employees are now hiring people with disabilities. From 1991 to 1994, 800,000 persons with severe disabilities joined the workforce. Public transportation changes and curb cuts are widespread. Accommodations in hotels, restaurants, and stores are becoming more and more accessible. Telecommunications for people who are deaf and hard of hearing is becoming a reality. People who are blind can receive information in a format they can use. So successes from the ADA are visible today, and I hope that we continue to use these gains as a baseline for future work to liberate those who live in confining conditions and who want to be more integrated into society. Mr. Speaker, along that line, I am pleased to note that I am the sponsor of the MiCASSA bill, which would bring our Nation's Medicaid system into accord with the principles set forth by the ADA. This bill will allow individuals with developmental and other disabilities to use Medicaid funding for home-based and community- based services, not just for confining medical institutions. I believe this will strengthen the existing infrastructure set forth by the ADA and the Developmental Disabilities Act. Mr. Speaker, we are not yet where we want to be, but thank God we are not where we were 10 years ago. We still have much progress to make. However, I am pleased to be here today to offer my unwavering support for our people who live and work daily with disabilities. I am proud that as a result of the ADA, many people with disabilities are now thriving, productive members of society, and looking forward to the future with glee and anticipation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. Today, India is the world's largest democracy. India's one billion people account for one-sixth of the world's population. For half a century India has struggled to overcome colonialism, religious and ethnic conflicts and all of the problems of underdevelopment. India has made tremendous progress in trying to address its human rights problems. India has instituted a process to receive complaints, initiate investigations of all claims, and passed laws to take action against those officials and members of security forces that have committed human rights offenses. The Burton amendment would eliminate U.S. assistance to help sustain these achievements. It is senseless to go through this again. As we continue this debate from last year, I want to say again that cutting development assistance to India would have disastrous effects. I know that some members feel that India now has the opportunity to operate without the help of the United States. To that I say opportunity only follows hard work. It follows effort. And it never comes before. Let's take this opportunity now to put forth the effort to truly help India, let's vote down the Burton amendment and help keep India on the road to economic sufficiency.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. We have heard the information. We understand the ravages of this tremendous disease running rampant throughout the continent. And so we know what action is needed. We know that we need resources. We know that we need to add additional money so that there can be health education information, so that there can be medicine and supplies, and so that individuals who are greatly in need of assistance can receive it. I simply want to commend the gentlewoman for this amendment, pledge undying, unstinting support for it, and urge all Members of this House to vote in favor of the Lee amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues in support of the Pelosi amendment, and I do so because I have been told that to those to whom much is given, much is desired and expected in return. In reality, we are given much in this country; and we are simply being asked to share some of what we have with some of the most needy people in all of the world. When we talk about the paltry sum that we are talking about providing now for debt relief for Africa and the Latin American countries, it reminds me of a system of share cropping, where individuals get just enough, where no matter how hard they work, no matter what it is that they do, they can never get out of debt, and they just keep working. When they do that, they lose hope. They lose the feeling that tomorrow is going to be brighter than yesterday. So I would hope that we would recognize that the greatest gift that we can give to ourselves is the gift of hope to those who are hopeless and those who are helpless. I would urge passage of the Pelosi amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Rangel substitute, which will assist more than 60,000 married families in my district. Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be relief from the marriage tax penalty, but the way it's being done in this bill is wrong. Working Americans should not have to pay extra just because they want to get married. The 25 million American couples who are affected by this unfair tax should be able to use the money saved to purchase a new home, or for child care. Right now, if this bill were to pass, American married families would still be taxed at the same rate they were taxed before. The Rangel substitute fixes the flaws in this bill and enables America's married families to truly see their taxes reduced. In my district alone this substitute will help well over 60,000 married families. It is my hope we will get past all of the politics and come together to provide a bill that truly provides fairness and equity to our American families. I want to extend an invitation to my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle to join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a fair and sensible way. Vote for the Rangel substitute and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to, first of all, commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for introducing this very important legislation. I would also like to express appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), ranking member, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I rise in support of H.R. 3909, which names the post office on South Cottage Grove after Henry McGee. I was fortunate to have worked for and with Henry McGee. As a matter of fact, one of the very first meaningful jobs that I ever had was a job working in the Chicago Post Office as a clerk. I can recall at that time that Mr. McGee was an esteemed executive; and one would hear his name being called on the intercom, practically all day in terms of somebody saying, Mr. McGee, please call your office, or Mr. McGee, you are wanted on floor 9, or Mr. McGee, you have a telephone call, or you have a message. Many of us were young people wondering who was this guy McGee. I mean, all day long one constantly heard his name. Then as we got to meet him and got to know him, we were tremendously impressed because he reminded us so much that it is not always a matter of where one begins, but oftentimes it is a matter of where one ends. So here comes Henry McGee beginning as a temporary letter carrier at the very bottom of the process and then working his way all the way to the point of becoming postmaster of one of the largest postal operations in America. But then as my colleagues have already noted, not only did he excel in terms of his chosen profession, but Henry McGee found the time while operating the Chicago Postal Service to also be actively involved in other civic and community affairs. In addition to those already having been mentioned, he was also appointed by Mayor Daley to serve as a member of the Chicago Board of Education. And during those years, serving as a member of the Chicago Board of Education was kind of like being in the military. A board member needed to get hazardous duty pay. And yet Henry McGee was able to do all of that. He was also a great churchman and was seriously involved in his church and was consistently known as the guy who kept the records, who always made sure that the money was handled properly and was accounted for. Not only did he raise money, but he also accounted for money. But then he lived to be 90 years old and to be actively engaged even up to that point. People often talk about a lack of role models, a lack of individuals in African-American communities especially or minority communities in general. I think that young people need not look any further than to look to the Henry McGees of the world, a man who started at the bottom but rose to the top of his profession and ended life as an outstanding and esteemed American. Again, I certainly commend and thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for taking the time to recognize this great American, and I certainly would urge that we all support this legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend and congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on the introduction of a necessity whose time has come, that is, the Quality Health-Care Coalition Act. I also want to thank the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order. The amendment that I offer today enhances the underlying bill by expressing a sense of Congress relative to decisions regarding medical care and treatment. This amendment simply states that it is the sense of this body that decisions regarding medical care and treatment should be made primarily by the physician or health care professional in consultation with the patient. In my congressional district I have 22 hospitals and a vast a array of other health and medical research institutions and many residents with serious health and medical needs. Oftentimes health providers and patients will agree on a course of action, a course of treatment, that they consider best. However, the HMO or insurer will have, in some cases, drafted guidelines and rules that will not allow payment for the suggested treatment prescribed by the doctor. That leads to a situation where the doctor may have to forego his or her prescribed recommendation in order to get the patient's bill paid. In some instances, this has led to tragic consequences for patients. Quality health care is not only found in providing access. It is also found in the ability of doctors and other health providers to find remedies that may be outside the box. In other words, clinicians working for HMOs who draw guidelines to suggest that one size fits all, limit medical potential and the use of modern medical technology and does not allow for unique individual differences that patients may have. The power of insurers to determine coverage potentially gives them the power to dictate professional standards of care for all but the wealthiest of patients. That is not appropriate. It is not good care, and it is not right. Too many patients are suffering because HMOs have put profits ahead of patient care. This House cannot stand silently by while insurance company decisions are superseding the recommendations of health experts and doctors. It is time that we strengthen the doctor-patient relationship. Therefore, I would urge support for this important amendment and urge its passage. I would also suggest that on the eve of July 4, I believe that it is time that we pass a declaration of independence for this Nation's doctors, nurses and other health care providers who along with their patients ought to be able to determine the best and most appropriate course of action. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the definition of health care professional reads in the bill: The term health care professional means an individual who provides health care items or services, treatment, assistance with activities of daily living or medications to patients and who to the extent required by State or Federal law possesses specialized training that confers expertise in the provision of such items or services, treatment, assistance, or medications.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the intent is oftentimes medical providers work as a team. The physician is generally the lead person on the team, and so the language is not restricted to a physician in a situation where only he or she is working alone, but also as they work as members of a team who might be working on a particular problem.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, then I would be pleased to yield the 1 minute that I have remaining to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time I have left?

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

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic Alternative to the Republican proposal for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. As we know, the Medicare program provides significant health insurance coverage for more than 39 million seniors and disabled beneficiaries. However, the program fails to offer protection against the costs of most outpatient prescription drugs. In the 7th District of Illinois, there are 57,353 seniors (65 years and older) who need quality, affordable drug coverage. Patricia Conyers, William Danne, Cassandra Moore, and many others from my district deserve this. Life-saving and sustaining drugs are just as important to seniors today as surgery and clinical evaluation. For example, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in America. Patients with severe heart failure must take at least 3, often 5, medicines at a time. Prescription drug prices continue to rise and the percentage of Americans over age 65 is sharply on the rise--as technology improves, it prolongs life. Last year alone, our nation spent $105 billion on prescription drugs. Accordingly to one study, we will spend 15-18% more in the next five years, more than $200 billion each year. This year, more than one-third of seniors on Medicare will spend over $1,000 on prescription medication. Even worse still are the seniors in our communities who have no drug coverage at all. They are forced to make life-threatening decisions between prescription drugs or food and clothing. These decisions are unfair and un-Democratic. Twenty-seven percent of urban beneficiaries, and 43% of rural beneficiaries lack prescription drug coverage for the entire year (1996). Clearly, neither Medicare nor the private insurance industry are addressing the problem adequately. Medicare is therefore in need of modernization and the addition of a drug benefit that is accessible and affordable to all beneficiaries, regardless of income level or location. The Democratic Plan would provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit accessible and affordable to all Medicare beneficiaries. This is not a new entitlement program as some Republican colleagues claim; it's simply a long-needed modernization of Medicare. Regarding accessibility. Our plan guarantees a prescription benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, whether or not they are rich or poor, enrolled in traditional fee-for-service or Medicare+Choice plans. In our plan, low-income beneficiaries--below 150% poverty level ($17,000 for a couple)--would receive extra help with the cost of premiums; those below 135% would have no cost-sharing. And regarding affordability: Under the Democratic plan, beneficiaries who join the program receive a high quality, defined benefit. It is affordable to all beneficiaries. Premiums would be $25 per month in 2003. Seniors would pay no yearly deductible. Also, the plan offers catastrophic protection (over $4000 out-of-pocket costs) for beneficiaries. This plan, therefore, protects against the risk of industry ``cherry picking'' and negative selection of seniors with the greatest need. Finally, the Democratic prescription drug benefit is consistent with broader reform to strengthen and modernize Medicare. This plan includes greater access to the wide array of prescription drugs available in our marketplace by providing affordable premiums to all Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support the Democratic Plan for prescription drug coverage for seniors. This is true reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican proposal for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republicans' proposal for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The House leaderships' decision to block a Democratic proposal shows their unwillingness to discuss a real drug benefit for seniors. This stonewalling is a sham of the legislative process. As we know, the Medicare program provides significant health insurance coverage for more than 39 million seniors and disabled beneficiaries. However, the program fails to offer protection against the costs of most outpatient prescription drugs. Prescription drug prices continue to rise and the percentage of Americans over age 65 is sharply on the rise. Medicare is therefore in need of modernization and the addition of a drug benefit for all beneficiaries, regardless of income level or location. The Republican plan falls far short of addressing the reality of the problem that many of our seniors face. I oppose the Republican proposal for three chief reasons: First of all, their proposal is based on the faulty premise that insurance companies will write prescription drug plans for seniors. The insurance industry admits that this private insurance model will not work and leaders in the industry deny that such plans will even be offered. Charles N. Kahn, President of the Health Insurance Association of American--a group comprised of 294 insurance companies--told The New York Times on Feb. 21, 2000: ``I don't know of an insurance company that would offer a drug-only policy like that or even consider it.'' Mr. Kahn also comments that ``Private drug-insurance policies are doomed from the start. The idea sounds good, but it cannot succeed in the real world.'' Even if insurance companies write drug plans for seniors, there will be instability in coverage. It is well known that health insurers would use the system to move in and out of markets depending on their advantage, not seniors' health. We see many examples of such pullouts today. This is not right. The Republican plan stresses competition in an already-flawed private Medigap insurance market rather than adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Secondly, the Republican proposal is not affordable: This plan offers no defined benefit. It appears to specify only the ``stop loss amount''--$2,100/yr, maximum limit on beneficiary out-of-pocket costs-- while private insurers could define deductibles, co-pays, and benefit limits. Also, seniors would pay a $250 deductible. Furthermore, their plan would break up seniors into various private plans--if even written--and thus their bargaining power would be significantly reduced. Finally, the Republican plan is not accessible to all Medicare beneficiaries: their plan fails to provide direct premium assistance for low- and middle-income Medicare beneficiaries. Any senior with an income above $12,600 will not have the assurance of lower premiums. This plan, therefore, does not protect against the risk of industry ``cherry picking'' and the negative selection of the sickest and disabled seniors. This is a Darwinian scheme where only the strongest survive. Thus, I believe the Republican plan falls far short of providing a real drug benefit for our nation's seniors. The leaderships' denial to hear our alternative is a travesty. I therefore rise in opposition to the Republican proposal.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member, as well as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and all of the other members of the Committee on Small Business for the outstanding bipartisan way in which this committee conducts its business. We can all see that, when people work together that way, there are results, and they are results which can be measured. So I rise in strong support of this resolution. Over the past 20 years, the 504 program has clearly been one of the real success stories in business development. As many on the committee know, the 504 program is a completely fee-generated program and is not supported by any Federal funds. So we are not really talking about dipping into the Treasury. We are talking about making something work as part of business and economic development. Due to the success of the program, this bill will extend the current fee system for the program until October 1, 2003. The bill will also increase the loan guarantee from $750,000 to $1 million. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it will benefit women-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses currently employ 18.5 million United States workers and contribute more than $3.38 trillion annually to the economy. As a result, the 504 program increases the amount of loan guarantee available to women-owned businesses. But most importantly, I think this bill is affirmation and a testament to the idea that, when people come together and work for the common interests, it does not matter which party they come from, which area of the country, which city, what their real philosophies and ideas are, other than if they come to work together, they can arrive at a common direction and a common success. Of course that direction and success means providing capital and direct services to the businesses that need it. So, once again, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent); the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member; and all members of the Committee on Small Business for an outstanding job well done that will benefit businesses in America.