Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coble amendment. I agree with all of those who suggest that the Patent Office ought to have enough money, enough resources, enough activity, to operate. I agree with those who believe that we need to enhance further development and creativity, new ideas, new concepts, new techniques, new ways of doing business. But I do not believe that we want to disrupt an activity that has been ongoing. When we look at the impact of the Coble amendment just on the Census Bureau itself, this amendment takes a $40 million cut from nondecennial programs, representing a reduction of between 22 to 29 percent from the current House mark. This would shut down the Economic Censuses and the Census of Governments, and cripple the mapping and address listing program that supports all Bureau surveys. It would also curtail the continuous measurement pilot program slated to replace the decennial census long form. Combined with existing House action, the Census Bureau would be unable to deliver key economic and demographic data, as we have already heard. This cut would lead to the loss of 500 jobs in the Census Bureau, greatly disrupting the entire Census Bureau, including the decennial census. A cut of this magnitude could indeed cause a ripple effect that could even prevent the Bureau from being able to provide redistricting data that is needed by March 31. But if for no other reason than just simply one, all of us know how difficult it has been in many instances to convince people to fill out the long form. So we have gone all over America telling people that we needed this information, that we needed the information in order to be able to plan, to know who we are, where we are, what we need; that we needed the information for businesses to be able to determine where to put new stores, new plants. We needed the information so that we could understand the economic impact of our being. Now we are saying even though people have provided the information, let us not do anything with it. Let us not put the resources into the Census Bureau so that they can take this information, analyze it, synthesize it, put it in shape and form, and then give it back to the American people so it can be used. So it would seem to me that what we would be doing at that moment is simply throwing out the baby with the bath water, that we are throwing away information that has not been easy to come by. So I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that we vote down the Coble amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active litigation affected by this savings clause. This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its case against tobacco companies. These companies present a devastating product to this country. They target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, ``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . .'' Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of choice from many individuals.'' Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level-- many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco. The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or not. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that greatly involves them. This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government to defend their right for healthy lives. I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's Affairs' underfunded medical care. This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor. It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized for their vulnerability to addictive agents. The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country. We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment. I rise in support not to make the case. As a matter of fact, the case has been adequately made, eloquently made. But I think it is important that we note, increasingly are people becoming incarcerated, increasingly are females becoming incarcerated in this country; and it would seem to me that if we value rights, then the right to health care should not be denied any person, no matter where they are. So as women are in prison, they, too, should have the right to make decisions, to make choices, to make determinations; and I would urge that we not deny them the right to make a choice, to decide, to make a decision about their own health and the health care that they will receive.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way. Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with which to be represented. I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation that would deny all of these people. Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House could do no less. So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit of justice for even those who could be described as being the least among us in terms of the resources with which to pay.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill for several reasons. First of all, it cuts the request by the Department of Justice for its civil rights division by $11.8 million. It cuts the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by $31 million. This bill cuts the Department of Justice's community relations service by $2.35 million. It cuts the Civil Rights Commission by $2.1 million. Finally, I cannot support this bill because it seriously cuts the Legal Services Corporation to a level that will effectively shut down basic legal services for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society who are seeking justice. When we are serious about improving race relations, relationships between law enforcement and communities, when we are serious about reducing racial profiling on our streets and roadways, in our airports and in our courtrooms, when we are serious about the real pursuit of justice for all of America, we will vote down this bill and restore the resources necessary so that everybody will have an opportunity to bridge the gaps between those who have and those who have not. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we vote against this bill so that we can, in fact, ultimately move towards justice for all.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler-DeGette Amendment to appropriate $344 million for 60,000 section 8 incremental (new vouchers) to provide housing assistance to low income families. First of all Mr. Chairman, we know that the overall appropriation recommended for VA-HUD is too low, which forces us into an either-or situation. Either we shortchange some of the pressing needs which are most immediate, or we delay development of new horizons and new opportunities like space exploration; and I tell you Mr. Chairman, I, like countless others want to see us is space as much, as often and in as many ways as we can possibly be. But, Mr. Chairman, I also recognize that there are thousands of people in my district alone who live in dilapidated buildings with vermin, termites, and hopelessness all around them. I know that there are more than 165,000 people in my district who live at, or below the poverty level and I know, I know Mr. Chairman that they need relief; they need help, they need a chance to live decently and they need it now. I met last week with a group of residents at Boulevard Commons on the Southside of Chicago. Boulevard is a project based section 8 program where the building is going to be vacated because of need for repair. They are frustrated, filled with uncertainty, and not sure about what their future will be. I am also working with a group of senior citizens on the near Northside of Chicago at Neighborhood Commons where they are being told that they no longer have section 8, one can imagine the consternation being experienced by this group. And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this Amendment to add 120,000 new section 8 vouchers for low-income families.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have had this matter before us today for consideration. Certainly again I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to such an outstanding American. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 2938, legislation designating the United States Postal Service facility located at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, after the Honorable John Brademas, a former Member of Congress. H.R. 2938 was introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on September the 3, 1999, and reported unanimously from the Committee on Government Reform on September 30, 1999. This measure is supported and cosponsored by the entire Indiana congressional delegation. Mr. John Brademas was born in Mishawaka, Indiana, in 1927 and graduated from South Bend Central High School in 1945. He joined the Navy and was a Veterans National Scholar at Harvard University from which he graduated in 1949 with a BA magna cum laude and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University and received the doctor of philosophy in social studies degree in 1954. Dr. Brademas, the first native born American of Greek origin to be elected to Congress, represented with honor and distinction the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana for 22 years, from 1959 to 1981. He served on the Committee on Education and Labor and was House majority whip for his last 4 years in Congress. As a Member of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Brademas played a key role in authorizing legislation concerning student financial aid, elementary and secondary education, vocational education and support for libraries, museums and the arts and humanities. After serving in Congress, Dr. Brademas became president of New York University, the largest private university in the United States, for 11 years, transforming NYU from a regional commuter school into a national and international residential research university. He is currently serving as president emeritus of this university. Dr. Brademas has been awarded honorary degrees by 50 colleges and universities and serves on numerous boards of nonprofit and for-profit organizations. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is to be commended for seeking to honor the caliber of a man such as former Congressman John Brademas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment and in opposition to the VA-HUD appropriations bill, because I have some serious concerns about the negative impact this legislation will have on the quality of life for veterans and for those citizens who need public housing assistance. This budget for VA-HUD proposes to cut $180 million for Section 202 housing programs, notwithstanding the fact that this is the funding which allows distressed housing authorities to demolish and replace decrepit housing which was mandated in the Omnibus Budget Act of 1996. The Congress has mandated that housing authorities in New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other cities comply with new rules and new directives while, at the same time, cutting the money to make it happen. We cannot get blood out of a turnip, and we cannot make wood cabinets without lumber. In Chicago, the Chicago Housing Authority has unveiled a bold plan for transformation. Components of this plan includes completely replacing the old out-dated, outmoded, socially irresponsible high- rise, densely populated semi-prisons with 25,000 new or newly rehabbed units of housing for families and the creation of new housing opportunities for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Since half of the Chicago Housing Authority's existing stock falls under the Section 202 mandate, the CHA is counting on competing for Hope VI grants as the primary vehicle for change. The CHA will need to win Hope VI revitalization grants in fiscal year 2001 to begin rebuilding of its housing properties, with the one primary example being the infamous Robert Taylor Homes, which has produced 13 of the poorest 15 census tracks in the Nation, and is known as the center of poverty. Under plans being drawn up with residents, the CHA is proposing to create new low-rise mixed income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will be filled with quality housing, 50 percent of which is scheduled to be built by minority firms who will hire public housing residents. There will be new parks, new schools, new roads and infrastructure. These relics of past public policy failures will rise and give hope to thousands of people. This fall, the CHA will take HUD's commitment to fund the CHA over the next 10 years and do something quite extraordinary. The CHA will sell bonds to the private market. And let me reiterate this last point. A public entity is taking Federal commitments from HUD for funding and taking them to the private market and asking them to underwrite the revitalization of the Nation's poorest neighborhoods. This type of public-private partnership to fund revitalization has never been done before. A social nightmare has the possibility of being eliminated as we get rid of some of the worst housing in the Nation and create thriving new neighborhoods. And how is Congress proposing to respond to this bold Chicago plan for renovation? This House is proposing to cut $180 million needed to fund the first phase of this resurgence. We are stating to the private sector that this House does not have enough confidence in HUD or its funded agencies to pull off reform. We are saying that this Congress does not honor its commitments. We ask for the private sector to do its part, but we will not do ours. In short, we have dictated reform and retracted financial support. We want the rain without the thunder and the lightning. We will have summarily doomed reform before it has begun. And what are the consequences? Instead of creating 25,000 units of quality housing, Congress will mandate the Chicago Housing Authority to demolish 19,000 units and keep 19,000 substandard ones. Instead of creating new construction jobs and business opportunities for small- and medium-sized minority ventures, Congress will close the door of opportunity. Instead of new schools, parks, roads, and needed housing opportunities for people of all incomes, Congress will have refueled segregation and pockets of poverty. And instead of demonstrating that government can be an active productive partner with private industry in the recreation of new opportunities for business and future customers, Congress will keep demanding compliance and reinvestment without demonstrating the will to put its money where its mandates are. So I say to this Congress that without additional Hope VI funding, there is no hope. A promising future will be nothing more than broken promises. Those towers of misery will continue as barricades to advancement, locking future generations into poverty and preventing this country from wiping a terrible stain from its past. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Mollohan amendment and urge that we vote down the cuts and raise hope.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment to increase by $18 million the appropriations for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program. As we all know, AIDS is the number one public health problem in this nation and in many places throughout the world. And in my District back in Chicago, AIDS has reached epidemic proportions. In fact, there are at least a thousand reported cases of AIDS in my district and since 1980, more than 10,000 people have died of AIDS in Chicago. Although the mortality rate among individuals living with AIDS is declining as a result of better medical treatments, combination therapies, and earlier diagnosis, the housing opportunities for those living with the disease have not improved accordingly. It is important that this Congress respond with compassion and support. This bill in its current form does not meet this objective, for there are still far too many victims of AIDS who are living, but have no place to live. Fortunately, this amendment seeks to correct this gap and help to meet this need, $18 million is no panacea, but will help many persons living with AIDS to have a place in which to live. Therefore, I urge passage of the Nadler, Shays, Crowley, and Horn amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on May 17, 2000 the Field Museum of Chicago unveiled the largest and most complete T-Rex skeleton ever found, Sue. Sue as she is named was found by the renowned fossil hunter Sue Henderson, who discovered the 67 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex in 1990, where it lay buried within Cheyenne River Sioux backlands in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Field Museum purchased Sue for $8.1 million at auction with assistance from McDonald's Corporation, Walt Disney World Resort, the University of California System and other private donors. Sue is an unprecedented scientific find that opened in Chicago on May 17th. It has rested in Union Station here in Washington, D.C. and is scheduled for a nationwide tour which includes Boston, Honolulu, St. Paul, Columbus, Los Angeles, Toledo, Louisville, Dallas, Seattle, Milwaukee, and other cities during the next three years. Sponsored by McDonald's Corporation as its millennium gift to the nation, the traveling exhibition will ensure that the entire nation has the opportunity to experience and to learn from this fossil. With the fourth most important fossil collection in the world, the Field Museum is seeking federal funds to help construct a new Hall of Paleontology and Earth Science in which to install Sue and to support related exhibits, research and educational programming. The Illinois Delegation has joined in signing a letter urging support for federal funds for Sue.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise today in support of the Slaughter-Johnson- Dicks amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The arts and humanities are important components of American life. The arts really bring to life the struggles and challenges many people are confronted with on a daily basis. Moreover, the arts and humanities transcend cultural race, religion, income, age and geography. Whether it is at the Kennedy Center or a theater in Chicago, the arts really help to enhance the quality of life for all Americans through a breathtaking array of cultural activity. Statistics suggest that art programs in schools and music concerts tend to stimulate students' learning and improve overall academic performance. In my congressional district in Chicago, the NEA has had a significant impact on many of our great institutions and on improving the quality of life. For example, the NEA has supported the West Side Cultural Arts Council, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Black Ensemble Theater Corporation, the School of Art Institute of Chicago, the Black Ensemble's Little City Program, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Illinois Arts Alliance, and the Field Museum of Chicago, just to name a few. For me, increasing funding for the NEA is not an option, it is actually a priority, and it is a priority because public support for the arts and humanities is the finest expression of faith in the individual's ability to think, create and express ideas. The arts and humanities can speak of things that cannot be spoken of in any other way. They foster a sense of community by advancing the understanding of history, of culture, and of ideas. Cultural diversity is something that we talk about a great deal in this country, and it is, indeed, a source of great strength to our Nation, a source of energy, a source of creativity. Therefore, I believe that sustaining and supporting an increase of funding for the arts and humanities must indeed be a national priority, if we are to be able to pull together and shape the Nation, based upon the culture, the tradition, the hopes, the aspirations and the contributions of all of its people. Mr. Chairman, I urge, in a vote, urge a vote in favor of an increase.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The gentleman has truly been a champion for these programs. He will be sorely missed, and his leadership will be missed when he is gone. Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, to discuss one of the most important programs funded in this bill, the consolidated health centers program. The gentleman from Illinois has been a tremendous supporter of health centers. I realize that talking to him about this issue is like preaching to the choir. Members on both sides of the aisle of his subcommittee have united to advance this program, true testaments of the integral role health centers play in the delivery of health care for this Nation. Under his leadership, the subcommittee approved an increase of $81 million to this program, bringing its overall budget to $1.1 billion. While this commitment is a wonderful step in the right direction, it is my hope that the gentleman will continue to work throughout the process to increase funding for the program by a total of $150 million. Every day, community health centers provide critical services to the Nation's most vulnerable populations. These services are especially important for those under the age of 19 and those belonging to minority groups. Health centers serve one out of every six low-income children in America or 4.5 million children. That number also includes one out of every five or 1.6 million low-income, uninsured children. With the current number of uninsured Americans growing in excess of 44 million, the demand for more health centers and more services continues to rise. In addition, health centers provide quality care to more than 7 million people belonging to minority groups. As a former health center employee in the inner city of Chicago, I can attest that health centers provide a key solution to the health care crisis in America which continues to be one of the greatest challenges to our society. We must find a way to provide an additional $150 million to the health center program to help meet the challenges they face in providing care to our Nation's most vulnerable populations, the poor, the uninsured, the underinsured and those with nowhere else to turn for health care services. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the health care of our Nation, it remains divided. It is divided along the lines of those with access and those without. Health centers continue to bridge that divide and contribute to a healthier and a more productive America. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this program and hope that he will continue to work throughout the legislative process to ensure the health center program is provided an additional $150 million in the final bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson amendment to restore $1.25 billion for skill training programs at the Department of Labor. Last week, I joined over 200 young people from a coalition of Alternative Schools Network, CCA Academy, the Latino Alternative School, 200 young people who were marching and protesting. They were marching and protesting the reductions of millions of Federal dollars allocated to skilled training programs for at-risk youth. I, along with the 200 people there, tossed peanuts around to symbolize the small amount of money being allocated to skill training programs and the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. If this budget appropriations process was a poker game, we would have to say that Labor-HHS was dealt a weak hand but still had to play. Therefore, I believe that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has done what he could with a faulty deck stacked against him. Mr. Chairman, these people were not protesting for the things that normal teenagers are often concerned about. Rather, these teenagers were protesting for the opportunity to learn. They were protesting for the opportunity to become well-trained workers and the opportunity to make contributions to this Nation. They were protesting so that we will not have to import workers from foreign countries to take care of skilled job opportunities that are needed. If we truly want to improve the environment of those less fortunate in this society, what we really need to do is provide the necessary funding this amendment calls for. We need to show our communities that we believe that education and job training are essential tools for success. We need to show that we understand what it means to a community when the businesses are downsizing, privatizing, and moving out of the community and in many instances out of the country, obviously displacing workers and increasing the need for training so that they can survive and participate. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in support of the Jackson amendment. If we had an adequately funded skill training program as well as an adequately funded Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we could truly fulfill our duty to help build a society where no sick person would go unattended, no hungry person would go unfed, no able-bodied person would go without adequate employment. Mr. Chairman, we need to ante up. We need to live up to our promise, live up to our duty, live up to our responsibility and vote yes to the Jackson amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. James Belanoff, a long-time union leader for the United Steelworkers in Indiana who was part of a politically and social activist family, many of whom lived in Chicago and were actively involved in the labor and political activity of Chicago and of Illinois. Mr. Belanoff was born in Canada and moved to Chicago where he lived until he returned home from the military and moved to Gary, Indiana, and then to Hammond. Mr. Belanoff went to work for Inland Steel, joined the union, became involved, and ultimately became president of his local. From 1977 to 1981, he served as full-time director of District 31 of the United Steelworkers of America. He developed his labor and community activist interests from his father who owned a grocery store, but who always was involved in civic and community life. Mr. Belanoff graduated from Roosevelt University with a bachelor's degree and was elected to two terms to the Hammond Indiana City Council. Standing up for the common person was a trademark of Mr. Belanoff and that tradition has been embraced by other members of his family as they too have become involved in public service. His sister, Mariam, served as a Cook County judge and as a member of the Illinois General Assembly. His nephew, Clem, is a former State representative and 10th Ward Democratic committeeman. Mr. Belanoff's son, Thomas, is President of Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union and on the State Council of the Service Employees Union in Illinois. In addition to his son Tom, Mr. Belanoff leaves to mourn his wife, Betty, two sons, James Junior and Joseph, a daughter, Katherine Robinson, four brothers, John, Clem, Theodore, and William, and seven grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Belanoff and the Belanoff family represent the very best of what America can be: Common folks doing uncommon things, always representing themselves and their neighbors and their friends. So I am pleased to have had this moment to pay tribute to not only a giant of a man, but a tremendously civic-, community-, and politically active family. I wish for them the best as they mourn their father, their uncle, their grandfather, and a friend to all of humanity.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I am very disappointed with this bill. Let me say at the outset of this debate many of us are aware of the need to protect democracy at home and promote it abroad. However, the question here today is at what cost? Do we really need to spend $183 million for 60 Blackhawk helicopters while at the same time withhold $1.3 billion for much needed school renovation? Do we really need to spend $709 million to repair faulty Apache helicopters while at the same eliminate the elementary school counselors program? I am sure all of us are aware of the 13-year-old honor student accused of killing his English teacher simply because he was reprimanded for throwing water balloons. Do we really need to spend $285 million for 2,200 Hellfire missiles? What is a Hellfire Missile? Do we really need to spend $433 million for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles? While in the very next bill that we must vote on today will cut $26 million from reading instruction programs, $416 million from title 1 reading and math programs and $600 million from our Nation's Head Start programs. Mr. Chairman, building a strong army is not enough to promote democracy or protect our society. It is our duty here in Congress to build a society where no sick person will go unattended, no hungry person will go without food, no able bodied person will go without adequate employment and good schools will be provided for every American child. This bill is too expensive, unnecessary and I urge all Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the House to take action on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. Today marks the second anniversary of the death of James Byrd, Jr., who was maliciously dragged from a speeding car along a back road in Jasper, Texas. His murderers had no problem with him other than the fact that he was black. The Hate Crimes Act will protect individuals like James Byrd and others who have been attacked because of race, color, sexual orientation, religion, gender, or disability. In our society, rich with diversity, the desire for peaceful living is uppermost. It is past time for Congress to set and maintain civilized standards of peaceful diversity. Hate crimes, like any other crime, should be unallowable and punished. Innocent people should not be allowed to be reaped upon just because of their race, color or gender. Mr. Speaker, this is an idea whose time has come. I urge its immediate consideration and passage.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, for many years my colleagues and I have expressed opposition to the U.S. School of Americas. This year's defense authorization measure includes provisions that close the U.S. Army School of Americas and establish the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. This supposedly new school for international military education will still train most of the third world's military tyrants. Mr. Chairman this is only a cosmetic change. A name change with no attempt to address the growing public outcry and congressional concern over the SOA's link to human rights atrocities in Latin America. The people in my district are well aware of the brutal inhuman products of this school. The members of the death school have horribly executed human rights activists in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Pakistan. Mr. Chairman there is no reason to continue funding this macabre institution. That is why I support the Moakley amendment. The Moakley amendment will evaluate the effect of United States military training on the human rights performance of Latin American soldiers. Commando and combat courses have long been core curricula at the SOA and I believe that the training contributes to human rights atrocities. Therefore, Mr. Chairman I strongly urge all Members to vote against any legislation supporting the School of Americas and urge all Members to vote for the Moakley amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting of a permanent normal trade relationship with China. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the story of two workers: one in Liaoyang in Northeast China and one in the 7th District in Chicago, Illinois. They have never met. They probably never will meet. But their fates are tied together as if they were family members . . . and their fates meet here, today on the floor of the House. The workers at the Liaoyang Ferro-alloy Factory, the fourth largest in the city, employing 5,000 workers began huge demonstrations on May 18. Even though the workers only earn what would be considered here starvation wages, they had not been paid in two years. The union had done nothing for them. Because the world was watching and this vote was pending local officials could not crush the demonstrations as they did with 20,000 Yanjiazhan mine workers in a nearby city earlier this year. As a result the factory agreed to pay back wages. In the 7th District of Illinois on Chicago's Westside there is a mini renaissance of manufacturing. Some of it is the result of the Chicago Manufacturing Center which has offices in the same building as my district office. They are struggling to bring manufacturing back to the inner city . . . such as a plant to make awnings. These struggling new small businesses, the engine of job creation today, and their workers are about to be thrown into unfair competition with factories in China like the one I just spoke of. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's own model, over the next ten years, this bill wll create 276,221 jobs, but it will result in the loss of 1,148,313 jobs. A net loss of 872,091 desperately needed U.S. jobs. Those job losses will occur in every state and in every sector of the economy including agriculture. That's with, the job losses will occur in my state and they will occur in every state of this great union. If all you care about is making our economy grow then you must vote against PNTR for China. Don't throw these working families into the unemployment line. Despite the ``dot Com'' hype, it is the consumer spending of working families which is sustaining our economy. If you care at all about real people, if the quality of life of our people, and the people of China matter at all to you. Then you must also vote against PNTR for China. More than 2000 years ago the ancient Greeks taught us the fate of those who were seduced by the alluring voices and false promises of the Sirens. Mr. Speaker, let us not be seduced by the Sirens of the 21st century, who sing of globalism as an end in itself, and who abandon our people for sweet promises. Let us steer for our North Star, our goal of a fair economy, a level playing field . . . that's the road to global prosperity. Vote ``no'' on Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Small Business Week. This is the week we honor the small business owners across the Nation who have done so much to make our country strong and prosperous. America's 23 million small businesses employ more than half of our country's private workforce, create two out of every three new jobs, and generate a majority of American innovations. In my district, we are experiencing tremendous growth as a result of small businesses. I would hope as we get an opportunity in a few days to vote on new market initiatives and the American Community Renewal Act that we, Mr. Speaker, would recognize the value of small businesses and vote this legislation in honor of our small businesses in the country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.