Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, we have heard a great deal all evening about how good this bill is. I agree, it is good. It is good for the banks, good for the corporations, good for business, good for small banks who want to be practically exempt from CRA. But it is not good for consumers. It is not good for consumers who desire privacy protection. It is not good for disadvantaged and distressed communities that have been redlined, discriminated against, raped, and abandoned. It is not good for consumer activists who generated CRA in the first place. And so, it is a good bill, but it is not good enough to protect CRA. It is a good bill, but not good enough. I urge that we vote to protect CRA. Vote against it. Madam Speaker: we have heard from many quarters that this is a good bill and in many ways it is. However, in several instances it does not do what some suggest that it does. The so-called privacy protection of customers being given an opportunity to ``opt-out'' clearly demonstrates the corporate benefits this bill intends. If this bill will benefit consumers, let the corporations sell themselves by mandating that consumers must ``opt-in'' to have information on themselves shared or sold. Financial literacy is already faced with a plethora of challenges let alone teaching consumers how to search for obscure fine print to protect privacy. One key lost opportunity is the failure to insist that expanded financial powers be accompanied by an appropriate expansion of CRA. The proposed small bank exam schedule borders on an outright exemption given the ``twice a decade'' schedule proposed. I am also afraid that some of the report language will discourage communities from commenting or even contacting a financial institution regarding their communities credit needs. This bill will not further community reinvestment; therefore, notwithstanding its other positive feature, I cannot support it.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to express strong support for the confirmation of Senator Carol Moseley- Braun to the ambassadorship of New Zealand. I have known Carol Moseley- Braun both personally and professionally for many years and look forward to her service in this position. Senator Moseley-Braun is an extraordinary woman who has led an extraordinary life, a life of breaking stereotypes, a life of shattering glass ceilings, a life of public service. She earned her law degree from the University of Chicago in 1972 and served as an assistant United States attorney from 1973 to 1977. In 1978, she was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives where she became the first female assistant majority leader. In 1988, Senator Moseley-Braun was elected Cook County Recorder of Deeds, racking up several more firsts. In 1992, she was elected to the United States Senate, becoming the first African American woman to serve in that honorable body. Sometime ago, President Clinton nominated Senator Moseley-Braun to become our ambassador to New Zealand. As ambassador, Carol Moseley- Braun would be the highest ranking diplomatic official accredited to represent our interests in that Pacific Rim nation. I can testify from personal knowledge that Senator Moseley-Braun is well qualified to undertake those solemn responsibilities. Throughout her career in public life, Senator Moseley-Braun has displayed tremendous ability, insight, and perceptivity on the great issues of the day. She is a woman of great personal charm who has been blessed with a remarkable talent to interact with people, to engage them in dialogue, and to represent her position to them with logic, clarity, and persuasiveness. In short, she would represent us well to the people of New Zealand. Mr. Speaker, it is the long-standing tradition of the Senate to welcome former colleagues who have been nominated to high office by the President of the United States and to extend them the courtesy of prompt hearings, in accord with their constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent. Only six former Senators have been turned down for nomination this century, all for Cabinet or Supreme Court positions. A Senator has not been rejected for an ambassadorial appointment since 1835. Up to this point, Senator Moseley-Braun's nomination has been blocked by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who, according to news reports, has demanded an apology for a speech Senator Moseley-Braun made criticizing the use of the Confederate flag. A study by the Alliance for Justice determined that the nomination of an average nonwhite candidate took 60 days longer than that of a white candidate. Couple these two facts and we have a profound malfunction in our democracy. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun will do just fine in whatever direction life takes her. She will be a success as an ambassador if she is confirmed; she will be a success in some other endeavor if she is denied. But democracy in the United States faces a bleaker choice. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, our democracy is being weighed in the balance in the coming days. If fairness does not prevail, if Senator Carol Moseley-Braun is denied confirmation, then those responsible will have offered up proof, proof to the American people, proof to the world, that fairness and justice are still wanted in America five generations after the end of the Civil War. I find that possibility abhorrent, detestable, and obscene. So I add my voice to those urging the Senate to bring the nomination of Senator Moseley-Braun to a quick vote and to approve the nomination by the largest vote possible. I hope that on tomorrow the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will move promptly to approve the nomination of Carol Moseley-Braun as our next ambassador to New Zealand and America will be well served.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the tremendous work performed by a group of dedicated and tireless professionals: the members of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN). Many members, including those from the 7th Congressional District of Illinois, are gathering at the ASN's 32nd Annual Meeting. I rise to congratulate the ASN for its achievements. For some, Nephrology is not an everyday word. However, there is no doubt that we are all too familiar with terms like ``diabetes'' and ``hypertension.'' These two diseases, Mr. Speaker, happen to be the leading two causes of total kidney failure, or End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). In 1997, approximately 361,000 Americans suffered from ESRD and required life-saving dialysis or kidney transplants. While we know the terrible human suffering ESRD imposes on thousands across the country, the economic costs are staggering as well. Recent statistics show that the direct economic cost of health care for kidney failure, stemming largely from the Federal Government, is more than $15 billion per year. Unfortunately, ESRD represents only the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated that 12.5 million Americans have lost at least 50% of their normal kidney function. Further, it must also be mentioned that renal disease affects certain populations disproportionately. For example, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and people over the age of 50 are at higher risk for developing kidney disease. This must change. There is no cure for kidney disease. But there is room for hope. Medical research offers us great promise to reduce the human suffering and enormous costs imposed by ESRD and kidney disease. As a result, I have long supported increased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Further, in order to draw attention to important health care issues in my own district, I staged a series of town hall meetings this past summer. These meetings proved that our citizens are actively concerned about issues like health care. Furthermore, my town meetings demonstrated that we owe it to our constituents to continue to work to provide them important information because, as the saying goes, ``Knowledge is power.'' The same is true for research. While kidney disease does have a devastating impact on our citizens, research has found that the progression of the disease can be slowed if diagnosed and managed early. Some more good news centers on the fact that there are dedicated individuals who are focused on finding ways to beat this disease. Recently, these researchers and experts in the field of Nephrology met to discuss and identify research priorities and obstacles that could impede us from reaching our goals. These discussions were summarized and drafted in the recently released paper, ``Progress and Priorities: Renal Disease Research Plan.'' This project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), was made possible through the work of the American Society of Nephrology and other members of the Council of American Kidney Societies (CAKS). I urge all my colleagues to read through this seminal report and to share copies with their constituents. Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing me this opportunity to acknowledge the work performed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous American, a great individual who was known perhaps best for being an outstanding football player. I guess he was, indeed, an outstanding football player, Walter Payton, who broke every record, set every record at the position which he played. Chicago is a great football town. For many years, our football fortunes were not where we wanted them to be. There was not much to cheer about. There was not much to bring the people out. But then, from a small historically black college came Walter Payton, a college that not many people necessarily knew about, had heard about, Jackson State. Here comes a young man with the grace and finesse of a wizard, one who could sneak and weave through lines no matter what the linemen looked like. While Walter set all of these records and we talk about his greatness as an athlete, if one ever had an opportunity to interact with him, to see him up close, to know the man, to talk with him, to understand him, then one saw much more than an athlete. One saw much more than a football player. One saw a role model. One saw a humaneness that existed. One saw just a good solid human being. Walter was well coached and was ready for the National Football League when he came. I always felt a tremendous sense of pride in his accomplishments because I, too, attended one of the historically black colleges or universities. We were in the same conference, and I must confess that Jackson State usually beat the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff more than we beat them. But also in that conference was Alcorn University, Grambling, Southern, Texas Southern, Prairie View, sometimes Wiley College, sometimes Bishop, sometimes Mississippi Valley. The real point is this is an opportunity to highlight the contributions of historically black colleges and universities, not only academically, not only athletically, but in a total sense of what they meant. Walter died needing an organ transplant. This is also an opportunity to urge all Americans who are able to participate in organ donation programs to help give and sustain life to those who might need an organ, especially if ours is no longer going to be useful to us. So, Walter, even in your death, you win out victorious because you raised the question, you raised an issue, and you helped America understand the need for a program, an organ donation program and policies which will assure that, when people need organs, they are in fact available. You will be in the other Hall of Fame. Rest easy.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she might consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has long been a protector of consumer interests and consumer rights.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend and congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for the very efficient, effective and bipartisan manner in which they have shepherded this legislation through committee. I also want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for the significant role that he played in making sure that we had a good, strong bill and that we have it before us today. As a member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, I am pleased to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) in the consideration of H.R. 170, the Honesty in Sweepstakes Act of 1999. When signed into law, the legislation will protect vulnerable consumers from unscrupulous operators of deceptive sweepstakes and stop many of the more abusive practices of the sweepstakes industry. We in the Congress have learned firsthand the financial and emotional costs to consumers from deceptive and fraudulent sweepstakes. This is a serious problem which plagues our elderly and those on limited budgets. To that end, I am proud to have played a part in the House consideration and markup of the Honesty in Sweepstakes Act of 1999. Last month, the Subcommittee on the Postal Service marked up H.R. 170 and unanimously approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Our bill, which closely mirrors sweepstakes legislation passed by the Senate in August, would impose disclosure requirements relating to sweepstakes mailings and skill contests, contests in which a prize is awarded based on skill and a purchase payment or donation is required, concerning rules, terms, conditions, sponsor, place of business of sponsor, odds of winning and other information, to help ensure the consumer has complete information about the contest. It also prohibits mailings that suggest a connection to the Federal Government or that contain false representations implying that Federal Government benefits or services will be affected by participation or nonparticipation in the contest. It requires that copies of checks sent in any mailing must include a statement on the check itself stating that it is nonnegotiable and has no cash value. It requires certain disclosures to be clearly and conspicuously displayed in certain parts of the sweepstakes and skill contest promotion. It requires sweepstakes companies to maintain individual do-not-mail lists and it gives the Postal Service additional enforcement tools to maintain and investigate and stop deceptive mailings, including the authority to impose civil penalties and subpoenas. The measure before us today adds two very important and critical provisions. First, we provide the Postal Service with subpoena authority to combat sweepstakes fraud and, in addition, we have limited the scope of subpoena authority to only those provisions of law addressing deceptive mailings and required the Postal Service to develop procedures for the issuance of subpoenas. So the issue of consumer protection, whether it relates to telemarketing fraud or sweepstakes deception, is finally receiving the attention it deserves and I am pleased that we are here today at this point and at this time to pass this important legislation. 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, I will enter into the Record a statement from the Executive Office of the President. I will just read a bit of it. ``The administration strongly supports H.R. 170, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, that will be considered on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 170 would protect consumers against deceptive mailings and sweepstakes practices and reinforce their rights by establishing standards for disclosure and financial penalties for sponsors who fail to comply with those standards. ``H.R. 170 would establish standards for sweepstakes mailings, skill contests, and facsimile checks. The bill would restrict government look-alike documents and create a uniform notification system to allow individuals to remove their names and addresses from all major sweepstakes mailing lists at one time. ``It would also create strong financial penalties for not disclosing all terms, conditions, rules, and entry procedures of a contest, the continuation of mailings after an individual has requested cessation and the failure to comply with the Postal Service stop order. ``H.R. 170 would increase the authority of the Postal Service to investigate and stop deceptive mailings while permitting States to establish a higher level of protection for consumers. ``Congress has heard evidence of widespread confusion by consumers and clearly misleading mailings and sweepstakes practices. The administration urges passage of H.R. 170 to protect consumers and address these concerns.'' I also would like to acknowledge the interest of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), who has had a great deal of interest in this legislation and had intended to speak with regards to it on the floor today, and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), who has introduced legislation in this area. Mr. Speaker, I will just wrap up by suggesting that although some sweepstakes mailings are fair, far too many are not. They deceive consumers into spending money or making purchases, none of which is needed, necessary or required. Savvy marketing techniques and technological advances have allowed sweepstakes promoters to target consumers who respond to the mailings or place orders for products. Mailings often use very aggressive marketing techniques, such as personalizing an address and implying if purchases are not made, the customer may lose her or his preferred customer status. In the most egregious cases, customers have received up to hundreds of mailings a year and spent thousands of dollars ordering items they did not want or need in an attempt to win the big prize. These deceptive tactics have resulted in thousands of consumer complaints to the Federal Trade Commission, to State Attorneys General, the United States Postal Service, and Members of Congress. Sadly, the victim of these marketing tactics are the elderly, who have difficulty reading the fine print, and believe that in order to be a preferred customer, that they must buy to win that prize. This is, indeed, an idea now whose time has come. For many years we have looked at this issue and many people have wondered why we have not taken action before. Well, thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), certainly to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), we are indeed taking action and we are taking action today. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter I mentioned earlier in my remarks. H.R. 170--Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act The Administration strongly supports H.R. 170, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, that will be considered on the suspension calendar. H.R. 170 would protect consumers against deceptive mailing and sweepstakes practices and reinforce their rights by establishing standards for disclosure and financial penalties or sponsors who fail to comply with those standards. H.R. 170 would establish standards for sweepstakes mailings, skill contests, and facsimile checks. The bill would restrict ``government look-alike'' documents and create a uniform notification system to allow individuals to remove their names and addresses from all major sweepstakes mailing lists at one time. It would also create strong financial penalties for: not disclosing all terms, conditions, rules, and entry procedures of a contest; the continuation of mailings after an individual has requested cessation; and the failure to comply with a Postal Service ``stop order.'' In addition, H.R. 170 would increase the authority of the Postal Service to investigate and stop deceptive mailings while permitting States to establish a higher level of protection for consumers. Congress has heard evidence of widespread confusion by consumers and clearly misleading mailing and sweepstakes practices. The Administration urges passage of H.R. 170 to protect consumers and address these concerns. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). It has been my experience that whenever there is an issue involving consumers and their protection and rights and the needs of the people, one would find the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to first of all commend and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for not only the legislative work that they have done in terms of trying to make sure that we have adequate resources for the census but also for the tremendous individual work that they have done to try and make sure that we have a fair, accurate and complete count of all the people in the United States of America. And so I commend and congratulate both of them. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Census, I am pleased today to rise in support of this resolution urging a public and private partnership of the participation in the decennial census. As census day rapidly approaches, it is important for communities to work with the Census Bureau and urge people to participate. There are several things we can do across the country, no matter where we are, no matter where we live, no matter where we come from to urge participation in the 2000 census. Among these many things include forming a complete count committee, a cross-section of community representatives working to design and implement a localized census 2000 outreach and promotion program. In the Seventh Congressional District of Illinois, I have formed such a committee. They are busy working to ensure full participation. I want to thank Reverend Johnny Miller and Reverend C.L. Sparks for taking the leadership in this effort. We have the Census in the Schools program under way. I want to thank Superintendent Paul Vallas and all of the schools not only in Chicago but throughout my district in the suburban communities of Oak Park, Maywood, Bellwood and Broadview as well. In addition, we can encourage local businesses, organizations, churches, sororities and fraternities to get involved by providing information through their businesses, calendars, newsletters and church bulletins. An accurate census could ensure fair representation in Federal, State and local governments. An accurate census could mean an extra senior citizen facility or a school. Thus, I urge communities to form a partnership with the Census Bureau and let us work together to ensure full participation in the 2000 census. I am pleased to support this resolution. Again, I commend the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from New York. I also want to commend the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus on the Census, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), and the chairman of the Black Caucus Committee on Census for the outstanding work both of these caucuses have done and are doing throughout their communities in America to try and make sure that we get a fair, complete, honest count. Because if you are not counted, then you do not count.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an American citizen of humble origin who developed himself into a scholar, a great preacher, an inspirational leader, a person who was a developer of people, as well as a builder of institutions. The Reverend Dr. C.J. Brooks was born in Monticello, Arkansas, on February 1, 1934. Being an only child and living in rural America, he developed a great relationship with his dog and other creatures of the animal world. As young Cleodus grew up in a Christian home, he developed an early interest in preaching and often practiced on his dog and the other animals who followed him around. Cleodus attended the Drew County High School at the age of 17, realized that he wanted to spend the rest of his life preaching and teaching the gospel. He was licensed and ordained that same year. After high school, he attended the Morris Booker Memorial College in Dermott, Arkansas, which is about two blocks from my father's home and where my father continues to work, although he is 88 years old, and he never misses a day from going there to do his volunteer work. He also attended the Arkansas Baptist College in Little Rock, the University of Heidelberg, in Heidelberg, Germany, where he served in the Air Force from 1954 to 1957. Upon his return, Reverend Brooks attended Arkansas A.M. & N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, where he earned his bachelor of arts degree and graduated in 1961. I might add that Cleodus and I were classmates and he was the president of our freshman class. Before coming to the Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, Reverend Brooks held pastorates at the Sunset Baptist Church in Texarkana, Texas; Mt. Carmel Baptist Church, Warren, Arkansas; Rosehill Baptist Church, Dermott, Arkansas; and the New Hope Baptist Church, at Chicasaw Plantation in McGhee, Arkansas. In addition to leading and guiding the Shiloh Baptist Church from 1969 to his death in 1999, Reverend Brooks was an instructor for the Illinois Baptist General State Congress of Christian Education, instructor for the Greater New Era District Baptist Association, Parliamentarian of the parent body of the Illinois Baptist State Convention from 1990 to 1999, and treasurer of the Greater New Era District Association. During his 30-year tenure at Shiloh Baptist Church in Chicago, Reverend Brooks developed a reputation for being an astute and creative leader. Under his tutelage, the church moved into a new facility, paid off all of its mortgages, developed the Board of Christian Education Ministries, instituted a full service missionary department, a weekly food and clothing ministry, a young people's department, and he personally served as mentor to many young persons, several of whom followed him into the ministry. On March 25, 1991, the Shiloh Baptist Church Board of Christian Education conferred upon him the Doctor of Divinity Honorary Degree. Yes, C.J. Brooks, born in rural Arkansas, went from the back roads to the high roads, became a tremendous scholar, great teacher, one of the first leaders that I ever knew, the leader of our freshman class in college, and he continued to lead the rest of his life. C.J., it was a pleasure knowing you. You have done yourself and your family extremely well. I say may you rest in peace and may the memory of your being always rest with your wife, Carrie, and the members of your church.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great theologian, a great community builder, a tremendous humanitarian and a great American, Reverend Wilbur N. Daniel, pastor of the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church of Chicago for 42 years. Reverend Daniel will be best remembered as a fast start Baptist preacher who had the ability to electrify and move crowds in a matter of 2 or 3 minutes. He was a tremendous organizer and social activist who served as president of the Southside Branch NAACP in Chicago. He was chairman of the board of the Antioch Foundation, moderator of the North Woodriver Baptist District Association for 40 years, treasurer of the National Baptist Convention of America and chairman of the board of directors of the Highland Community Bank. Reverend Daniel was born in Louisville, Kentucky, where he attended school and entered the ministry at age 25. His first pastorate was at the Macedonia Baptist Church in Gary, Indiana. It was while there that he enrolled at the Fort Wayne Bible Institute and then on to becoming one of the most learned theologians in America. While a great preacher and spiritual motivator, Dr. Daniel was also a master builder and his church was an early leader in the building of affordable housing through its Eden's Green Development. He will be seriously remembered for helping to rebuild the Englewood Community in Chicago. When you drive through it, you will see new homes, senior citizen buildings, nursing homes, rehabilitated apartment dwellings, all put together by Reverend Wilbur Daniel and his 4,000-member Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. Please do not think that Dr. Daniel relied upon the spirit alone. He was an astute politician. He was Republican, Democrat, Independent, making use of everybody to build houses and develop communities. A visionary who encouraged social activism, civic involvement, union organizing, outreach programs for the needy and recreational activities for youth. He built a Christian academy and brought more than $25 million of Federal housing money into the Englewood Community. Condolences to his sons Wilbur Jr., Ricky Eugene and two grandchildren. A dreamer, a man of vision, a worker, a leader, a good neighbor, a good friend, and a great American, Dr. Wilbur N. Daniel.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Chicago's finest and most longstanding family-owned businesses, the H. Horwitz Company, jewelers since 1899. 1999 marks the 100th year anniversary of H. Horwitz Company, Chicago's oldest family-owned jeweler. Founder Hyman Horwitz emigrated to the United States from Russia in 1895, equipped with a jeweler's training and desire to start his own business. At first, his one-room loop shop handled only jewelry repairs. But it soon blossomed into a thriving boutique that in addition to gems, provided gainful employment for a passel of Horwitz's Russian Jewish brothers and sisters. Scooping Service Merchandise by decades, he sold his diamonds alongside luggage, radios and cameras from the 1930s through the 1960s through his jewels values catalog. Horwitz and his son Donald, who ran the shop until 1998, experimented from the start with cutting edge jewelry designs. Theirs was one of the first companies to produce the pearl mystery clasp, a setting in which a necklace or bracelet clasp is drilled into two pearls, allowing them to screw together. The all around channel setting, now a common setting for diamond rings, was another pioneering step forward in jewelry design for the company. This spirit of innovation also characterized Hyman Horwitz's humanitarian interest. In addition to supporting several Chicago charitable organizations, such as the Shrine Foundation and Chicago's Scholarship Fund, Horwitz created a custom braille watch to give to the blind of Chicago. This watch was made to size with the bracelet band and engraved with the name on the back. Of the luminaries who have shopped at H. Horwitz, least surprising is the one famous for his diamond fetish, Liberace. Other patrons have included former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, Henry Youngman, Archbishop Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Chicago's Goldblatt family and insurance magnate and philanthropist W. Clement Stone. Now run by Donald's wife Phyllis and son Craig, H. Horwitz and Company continues to offer fine jewelry at a discount. The company also imports all of its diamonds and precious gems directly from diamond cutters. Mr. Speaker, 100 years is a long time, especially is it a long time to own and operate a business in one of the Nation's finest cities, Chicago, the windy city, city of the big shoulders, the city of neighborhoods. Yes, Chicago, the home of Horwitz jewelers. Yes, Ms. Phyllis Horwitz, we salute you and your family for an outstanding century of providing services to Chicagoans and all of those who have come to know of your service, professionalism and contributions to humanity. We say congratulations. We wish you well as you continue down the road to success. You are makers of history and we are pleased that you are a part of our community and that you prepare and distribute some of the finest jewelry in the world.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, in the few minutes allocated to me this evening, I want to address one of the most significant issues this Congress faces this year, a subject worthy of hours of exploration, discussion and debate: the need to increase the Federal minimum wage. Madam Speaker, I could talk about how the average American worker now produces about 12 percent more in an hour's work than he or she did in 1989, but, after adjusting for inflation, that worker's wages have only increased 1.9 percent. But time does not permit us to examine this very basic question. I could talk about how an increase in the minimum wage helps to convert low wage, dead-end jobs into decent jobs with wages to support a family, thereby reducing turnover and building worker loyalty and productivity. But I really do not have the time to do that, either. We might speak about the role of the minimum wage in creating a truly national labor market and creating a level playing field for working men and women regardless of so-called State right-to-work laws and other anti-union legislation. We could look at the harm and distortions of our economy brought about by our failure to maintain the minimum wage. But that would take much more time than the few moments that I have this evening. We could talk about how, without an increase, the real value of the minimum wage would fall to $4.90 an hour by the year 2000 according to inflation projections by the Congressional Budget Office. We could talk about how 59 percent of workers on minimum wage are women and how women desperately need an increase in the minimum wage to rectify growing female wage inequality. We could talk about how African Americans make up 11.6 percent of the workforce but 15.1 percent of those affected by an increase in the minimum wage. How Hispanics make up 10.6 percent of the workforce but 17.4 percent of those affected by an increase in the minimum wage. We could talk about the need for justice for these working families. And we could talk about the pain, the anguish, the agony, the frustration of 11.8 million workers, more than 10 percent of the workforce, who live on minimum wage, 504,000 workers in Illinois alone who try and survive on minimum wage dollars. But it would be impossible to adequately describe that pain, that anguish, that agony in just a few minutes. We could explode the myth, the great bogey man, of those opposed to raising the minimum wage that increases in the minimum wage reduce the number of minimum wage jobs and hurt low-income workers, especially youth. The 1999 Levy Institute survey of small businesses and 60 years of other studies which focus on facts, not tired old dogmas, show, contrary to the common supposition that youth and students are hurt, minimum wage increases actually shift employment to them, especially in the fast food industry. As one commentator said in this regard, ``Our facts trump your theories.'' We could talk about applying minimum wage theories to TANF activities and the positive effects on families and public budgets. Or we could talk about how our big cities, whose population of poverty is some 20 percent as opposed to 8 percent in suburban communities, are forced to bear a huge and disproportionate share of public costs of dealing with poverty, and how even an increase of $1 an hour in the minimum wage would impact that burden. Census numbers released in September show that while the poverty rates are declining, the number of full-time workers with incomes below the poverty line rose by 459,000 in 1998. The numbers show that more than one in every three black and Hispanic children remain poor. The numbers show that poor families are poorer on average than a few years ago. Madam Speaker, we could talk for hours, but it is clear that even Sy Plukas knows what all of America knows and demands, that it is only right, it is only justice, it is only fair, it is in the interest of all America, it is essential, it is critical to act now, this month, to raise the minimum wage by at least $1 per hour.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Let me commend the gentlewoman for not only her leadership on this issue, but for the leadership that she has provided on a number of issues not only affecting your home State of Michigan, but actually affecting the lives of people all over America. I am indeed pleased and delighted to join with the gentlewoman tonight as we talk about this problem. Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ushered in the largest cuts in Medicaid spending since 1981. Cuts estimated at $17 billion over five years, and $61.4 billion over 10 years. These cuts amount to and account for more than 9 percent of the supposed savings under the Balanced Budget Act. Two-thirds of the cuts in Medicaid are from reductions or limits on disproportionate share or additional reimbursements to hospitals. These are payments to hospitals serving a disproportionate share of low-income, Medicaid and uninsured patients. Ten-year cuts, $40.4 billion. Twenty percent of the reductions shift the cost of Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance while the very poor to physicians and other providers of care. Most of the remainder of the cuts come from the repeal of the Buyer amendment, requiring minimum payment guarantees for hospitals, nursing homes and community health centers. 10 years worth of cuts, $6.9 billion. There were several other provisions which were particularly cruel. The phaseout of the health center cost reimbursement with 10-year cuts totaling $1.3 billion, and the counting of veterans' benefits as income with 10-year cuts totaling $200 million. Mr. Speaker, as disastrous as these cuts are, they are not the end of the story, or even the worst of the story. The impact of the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment on Medicare has been even more staggering, and it is not an exaggeration to state that the long-term existence of Medicare is not guaranteed. The byzantine logic of the Balanced Budget Amendment extended the life of Medicare by slowing the rate of growth in Medicare's payments to providers and shifting some home health services out of Part A. But the Balanced Budget Amendment did nothing to fundamentally address the problem of insuring the health of future generations of seniors. Medicare is based on the principle of spreading the risk for our seniors through a system of insurance funded through our tax system. Medicare has been one of the most successful Federal programs in our history. But now, Medicare faces new challenges, largely because we are living longer. By the year 2030, we expect that the number of beneficiaries will double, reaching a total of 76 million, or almost 20 percent of our population. This has raised questions about how will we continue to fund the program. The Balanced Budget Amendment shortsightedly attempts to address the problem by saying that the government can no longer afford to pay for health care for our seniors. The implication is that our Nation can no longer afford health care for seniors and that they should be left to fend for themselves for that portion of health care no longer covered by Medicare. Most Americans, though, reject such a notion. We reject the notion that the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world cannot take care of the health of its seniors. This is an affront to those who have worked all of their lives. It is also not based on fiscal reality. By undermining the concept of a universal insurance pool for all seniors, these cuts actually will increase the inequities and costs in the system. The so-called unrestricted fee-for-service plan which removed the cap on what providers are allowed to charge and the Kyl amendment, which would allow providers to contract directly for services outside Medicare are direct attacks on the concept of a common insurance pool. While we debate the future of Medicare, and I would note that a one- half of 1 percent increase in the payroll tax would extend the Medicare program another generation to the year 2032, but we have turned away from real solutions and the impact of our hospitals is exploding like a bombshell. The 5-year impact of the balanced budget amendment will amount to $2.7 billion. Large urban hospitals will absorb more than $2 billion of those cuts in the State of Illinois alone. The State of Illinois has 20 congressional districts. Thus, each district accounts for 5 percent of Illinois' population. However, my district, the 7th District, will absorb $468 million of the Medicare cuts. That is 16.9 percent of all the cuts in the State. Over the next 5 years, in my district, hospitals will absorb cuts that are equivalent to more than 75 percent of their 1997 base year Medicare payments, and tertiary teaching hospitals will absorb more than a billion dollars in cuts over the 5-year period. So, I would say to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), this problem exists all over America and as we move towards finding a solution, the solutions that the gentlewoman has articulated, the legislation that she and others of us have cosponsored, provides a tremendous opportunity to move ahead and arrive at real solutions to these problems. So, again, I commend the gentlewoman for the leadership that she has shown, for bringing us here this evening to discuss this issue, and I trust that America will follow the lead of the gentlewoman and help us find solutions to this very serious problem, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I agree that small businesses need help for their employees. As a matter of fact, all consumers of health care need help. The 44 million uninsured in this country need help. Patients need access to primary care and to physicians. What this country needs is a national health insurance, a national health policy that takes care of the needs of all the people. But what we need right now is to reform managed care. And the only bill that provides any real help for managed care reform, for real access for physician-patient communication, the only bill that moves us seriously in the direction of taking care of the immediate needs of millions of people in this country is the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill. I would urge that all other items before us, while they may contain meaningful elements, really do not do the job. The only way to do the real job is to vote for the Dingell-Norwood bipartisan bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation that purports to provide access to health care for those who need it most--the uninsured. I know this is the month that we celebrate Halloween, but it is way too early for these gimmicks and tricks. The American people expect treats not tricks and this bill represents a trick for two reasons. First, at a time when we are experiencing unprecedented economic growth the number of uninsured individuals has risen more than one million over the past year to 44 million Americans. This legislation that purports to help the needy does more by way of giving tax breaks to help the wealthy--that the needy would hardly benefit from this bill. According to the General Accounting Office nearly one-third of all uninsured Americans do not pay income taxes. These families would not benefit under this bill. Instead the greatest benefits under this bill would go to the 600,000 families that make almost $100,000 per year. Secondly, this bill expands medical savings accounts--a special tax break for the healthy and wealthy that threatens to increase health insurance premiums for everyone else. This provision was added to an important health portability bill in 1996--and this provision drew a veto from President Clinton--ultimately killing the bill. Here we are again, a chance to do something meaningful to improve the quality of life and health care for those who do not have access, but yet we would attach provisions that effectively make the bill DOA (dead on arrival). The effect of merging this bill with the Norwood-Dingell bill is to kill meaningful managed care legislation. I support improving access to health care, in my congressional district 175,000 people live at or below the poverty level. It is a district that has pockets of poverty and great need. Unfortunately, this bill does not help to alleviate the hurt and pain of the uninsured in my district. If we are serious about providing access then we need to pass a universal health care bill. A bill that allows individuals to go to the doctor when they need to go, a bill that allows them to see a specialist, a bill that allows them prescription drug coverage. That is what access is all about. This bill is a trick, a sham, and not a treat for the vast majority of Americans who need health coverage. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this gimmick laden legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Dingell-Norwood bill, in support of this bipartisan managed care reform legislation, a bill that puts patients ahead of politics and allows us an opportunity to address American's concerns regarding health maintenance organizations. This bill provides important patient protections such as ensuring that medical judgments are made by medical experts, not insurance bureaucrats, ensuring that individuals have access to emergency medical services, clinical trials, prescription drugs. In addition, this bill ensures that individuals have a right to see a specialist, access to out-of-the-network providers, and holds HMO plans accountable when their decisions to withhold or limit care injures the patient. We have an opportunity today to listen to the over 80 percent of the individuals in health plans who have cried out for reform of HMOs. We have an opportunity today to make sure that women do not have to see a gatekeeper before seeing their OB/GYN specialist. We have an opportunity to improve the quality of health care individuals receive. In my congressional district we have 22 hospitals, three VA medical facilities, countless community health centers, half a dozen HMOs all providing quality health services throughout Illinois. This bill will facilitate opportunities for doctors and patients to form a strong relationship and make important decisions regarding their health treatment. Let us take a historic step forward. Let us vote in favor of Dingell- Norwood. A vote for Dingell-Norwood is a vote for real reform of managed care.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, we have had a tremendous debate all evening on managed care, and we will continue to do so even tomorrow. I received a letter from a physician in my community that I think reflects the position that Americans should take on this issue. It comes from a Dr. Elizabeth Burns, medical doctor, professor and head, College of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago. Doctor Burns said: Dear Representative Davis: As a practicing family physician in your district, I want to ask you to support meaningful management care reform when it is considered in October by the House of Representatives. Your support for the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999, H.R. 2723, or the Health Care Quality Choice Act of 1999, H.R. 2824, would be responsive to the needs of my patients and your constituents. Meaningful, comprehensive managed care reform is greatly needed right now in your district. Below are the principles I see as important in any managed care reform proposal: Reforms need to cover all health care plans, not just self- funded plans. Patient protections should protect all patients. Gag clause protections need to be extended to all physicians. Physician patient communication must be protected and extended to health insurers' contracts. Unfettered medical communication is undeniably in the best interests of patients, all patients. Any final bill needs specific language stipulating that any provision of a contract between a health plan and a physician that restricts physician- patient communication is null and void. Physician advocacy must be protected. Managed care reform must include provisions to prevent retaliation by a health plan towards physicians who advocate on behalf of their patients within the health plan, or before an external review entity. Family physicians, as primary care physicians, play a pivotal role in ensuring that their patients get access to the care they need. Health plans should not have the power to threaten or retaliate against physicians they contract with to provide needed health care services. Independent external review standards must be truly independent. Managed care reform must contain a fair, independent standard of external review by an outside entity. It makes no sense to pay an outside reviewer to use the same standard of care used by some health plans which may limit care to the lowest cost option that does not endanger the life of the patient. All of our patients deserve better. Patients need the right to seek enforcement of external review decisions in court. Managed care reform must allow patients to seek enforcement of an independent external review entity decision against the health plan. Without explicit recourse to the courts, the protections of external review are meaningless. Patients need access to primary care physicians and other specialists. Managed care reform must allow patients to seek care from the appropriate specialist, including both family physician and obstetricians/gynecologists for women's health, as well as both family physicians and pediatricians for children's health. Primary care physicians should provide acute care and preventive care for the entire person, and other specialists should provide ongoing care for conditions or disease. And so you see, Mr. Speaker, from patient to physician, from consumer to provider, those who want serious reform and serious change know that the Dingell-Norwood bill is the way to go.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I use this occasion to recognize this week as Latex Allergy Awareness Week, October 4 through 10, 1999, and to talk about an important health issue, an issue which directly affects a constituent of mine, 9-year-old Jimmy Clark of River Forest, Illinois, whose parents have become leading crusaders to make the public aware of this problem. Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Clark lives with an ailment that is virtually unrecognized by most Americans and the medical community. Jimmy is latex sensitive. Yes, Jimmy is latex sensitive. He is at risk for serious and potentially fatal allergic reactions when exposed to products made from natural latex. It is critical that we become fully aware and acknowledge the broad and problematic scope of this issue which the American Academy of Dermatology has called the next major health concern of the decade. Something as simple as eating lunch in his school's cafeteria could be fatal to Jimmy, since latex gloves are commonly used in the food service industries. Jimmy and others like him are allergic to thousands of items ranging from the balloons at his best friend's birthday party to the examining gloves in an ambulance or at a doctor's office. It is heartbreaking to know that for thousands of American citizens like Jimmy, that exposure to even these seemingly harmless items could cause him to die. He cannot even receive needed medical treatment or enjoy eating lunch at school without fear of exposure to potentially deadly latex particles. Reactions to exposure include immediate allergic reactions from skin contact resulting in itching and hives. Reactions to the airborne latex particles include inflammation of the eyes, shortness of breath, asthma, dizziness, and rapid heart rate. The most severe cases can result in severe blood pressure drop and loss of consciousness. Latex allergy develops most commonly in people who have frequent or intimate exposure to it. At high risk are those who have had frequent surgical procedures, particularly in infancy and workers with occupational exposure, especially to latex gloves. A history of allergies or hay fever also may be a significant risk factor. Some studies suggest that some individuals who have had dermatitis or rash and wear latex gloves may be at greater risk. Although the American public knows little about latex allergy, the last 5 years have shown increasing evidence that latex allergy has become a major occupational health problem which has become epidemic in scope among highly exposed health care workers and among others with significant occupational exposure. This is largely because the use of latex rubber has increased, especially in medical devices, because latex is used as a disease-prevention barrier. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting who or what is at fault. Nor am I suggesting that latex is not an effective instrument in protecting humans from life-threatening diseases. I am suggesting that we need to increase research in this area and find ways to spare the citizens of this country from unnecessarily developing latex sensitivity. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that an increased awareness will go a long ways towards helping find a solution to this problem. Mr. Speaker, it is important that our researchers work cooperatively to achieve the right solution, a solution not influenced or marred by special interests from different sides of the spectrum, but a solution developed for those most affected by the disease. Latex allergy organizations and support groups across this Nation have successfully established a State Latex Allergy Awareness Week in several States. I believe once this awareness of this disease increases, our Nation will see with sincere satisfaction the positive results from research and care for those who suffer from its effects. Hopefully, next year as this same time approaches, both Houses will see fit to declare this week National Latex Allergy Awareness Week. Mr. Speaker, I close by thanking Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Jimmy for stepping up to the plate to help make Americans more aware of a health problem and a societal need. They embody the real spirit of democracy: if not I, then who? If not then, when? I thank both Jimmy and his parents and say to them that River Forest as well as all of America are proud of them.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleague from the Virgin Islands for, first of all, organizing this important special order to discuss the importance of increasing funding for HIV/AIDS research, treatment and prevention in minority communities. Her performance has been stellar as she has led the Congressional Black Caucus Brain Trust and as she continues to lead us towards finding a way to make sure that there is equity in health care services and treatment for all of America. I have joined with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in urging a minimum of $349 million in HIV/AIDS to address the pending health crisis in communities of color. Today we are experiencing vast economic prosperity. These are said to be the best of economic times since the 1970's. Unfortunately, as our prosperity has increased, so too have our disparities in health care. It is, to quote a phrase from Dickens, the best of times and the worst of times. Economic prosperity is up, but so too is the number of uninsured in America, rising from 43 million to a total of 44 million today. In communities of color we see vast disparities and gaps in health care. African Americans represent 13 percent of the population but account for 49 percent of AIDS deaths and 48 percent of AIDS cases in 1998. One in 50 African American men and one in 160 African American women are infected with HIV. In 1997, 45 percent of the AIDS cases diagnosed that year were among African Americans as compared to 33 percent among whites. AIDS is the leading cause of death for all United States males between the ages of 25 and 44 and for African American males between the ages of 15 and 44. These are valuable years not only in the lives of these individuals but for all of America. When we do not act to provide for research, treatment, education and prevention strategies, America loses. America loses young, vibrant taxpayers. America loses great minds and workers. If we do not address this epidemic, it can have dramatic consequences on our economy and our ability to compete globally. While deaths from HIV/AIDS diseases have been reduced over the last 3 years due to advances in drug therapies, we have not seen a dramatic reduction in communities of color. The Centers For Disease Control reported that the AIDS death rate dropped 30 percent for whites, the majority of whom had access to new drug therapies, but found only 10 percent for African Americans and 16 percent for all Hispanics. It is no doubt that the $156 million provided by the Congress last year has assisted in our efforts; however, more resources are needed. In Chicago we have witnessed a rise in the number of HIV cases. For example, reported cases of HIV/AIDS among African Americans in Chicago increased from 46 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 1997. AIDS is the major cause of death for African American men in Chicago ages 15 to 24, the second leading cause of death for Chicago's African American men ages 5 to 34, and the third leading cause of death for African Americans in Chicago males aged 35 to 44. In addition, the proportion of AIDS cases in Chicago occurring among women tripled from 7 percent in 1998 to 22 percent in 1997. African American women represent about 39 percent of the Chicago's women, and they account for almost 70 percent of the cumulative AIDS cases among women in that city. This is truly an emergency, and it warrants the attention and resources of the Federal Government. As we head into the new millennium, it is essential that we increase not only aid but also education and information. It is essential that we provide resources so that people can understand transmission and be educated which becomes a real factor in reducing the advent and onset of this terrible illness.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of former Alderman Fred Roti of the old first ward which included the downtown loop area of Chicago. Alderman Roti or Freddie as he was known was one of eleven children born in an apartment over a store in Chinatown. His father, Bruno, was known as Bruno the bomber for his work as a small time gangster under Al Capone. Fred Roti was reported to have ties to organized crime throughout his life, yet he was elected and served as Alderman of the 1st ward from 1968 to 1990. Several members of Alderman's Roti's political group were convicted of crimes and ultimately, Alderman Roti was indicted in 1990 and convicted of fixing a murder trial, zoning case and a civil court case. Notwithstanding, his alleged and ultimate criminal conviction, Fred Roti remained a popular figure in Chicago civic, political and social circles until his death from lung cancer at the age of 78. Fred Roti was convicted of corruption and was probably corrupt. He was eventually caught, convicted, went to jail, served his time, came home to Chinatown and died. He never stopped being witty, he never stopped living in Chinatown, and he never stopped expressing a love for Chicago

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for the comments that he has made because what he has said actually is the same thing that I am hearing from constituents of mine each and every day. In my hand and in my office are actually thousands of cards that I have received from constituents of my district asking that we provide for them some relief. They are very active people who understand what is going on, who recognize when they hurt that they need to cry, and who recognize that if they do not cry chances are nobody will even know that they are hurting. I can say that the people of the 7th District are crying. They are crying out for relief from the Balanced Budget Act. They are crying out to make sure that their hospitals, that their health centers, that their skilled nursing homes, can continue to exist and provide for them the greatly needed services that they so richly and rightly deserve. So I thank the gentleman for being where the people are, and I appreciate his comments. Not only, though, are we saying it, I mean the Members of Congress are saying it, but also I am looking at editorials, and I would put these entered into the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker. [From the Peoria Star Journal, Aug. 31, 1999] Medicare Reductions Threatening Hospitals If these are the good years, then why are hospitals administrators so blue? The answer is that they're seeing red. Medicare cuts being implemented now are ``the most serious reductions in the history of the program,'' says Ken Robbins, president of the Illinois Hospitals and Health Systems Association. Hospitals operating on a slim margin, or dependent on Medicare for almost all of their revenues, will close, he says. Those which stay in business will cut staff, eliminate unprofitable programs and increase prices charged paying patients, forcing insurance rates up. Teaching hospitals, which will lose more assistance than most, will cut residency slots. That will threaten medical specialities and charitable care, which depends heavily on resident physicians. Already OSF St. Francis has trimmed seven positions and is considering eliminating an entire residency program. In the 26 years he's been looking Robbins says he's never seen a more critical threat. It seems peculiar that hospitals are ringing this alarm as congressman fan out across the land to tell of a federal treasury overstuffed with surplus dollar bills. The timing is not accidental. The federal surplus owes its existence not just to a booming economy but to the domestic spending cuts mandated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. About half of them will come from Medicare and Medicaid. The American Hospital Association anticipates that by 2002, hospitals will lose $71 billion, a little more than one of every 10 Medicare dollars they take in. OSF St. Francis figures it will give up $27.6 million; Methodist, $22.6 million; Proctor, $18.2 million. To appreciate the size of the losses, and the steps necessary to compensate, consider that Methodist and Proctor derive 50 percent of their income from Medicare, while St. Francis gets 40 percent. By the end of 2002, Robbins says Illinois hospitals will be treating more Medicare-dependent patients for fewer inflation-factored dollars than they get now. He says everybody who needs hospital care will feel the effects. The hospital association wants legislation that will restore $25 billion, a little more than a third of what hospitals lost. To get the money, it will have to fight off those who would spend the surplus on tax cuts and those who would pay down the federal debt. Members of both camps say they want to make sure the anticipated surplus isn't used to increase spending. That is an understandable goal but an inaccurate description of the alternative. The third choice in the surplus arguments is not whether to expand federal programs with the extra money but whether to maintain the present level of service. Permitting spending to grow at the rate of inflation would cost nearly $750 billion, or three-fourths of the predicted 10-year non-Social Security surplus. Assuming that defense spending will not be reduced, the Balanced Budget Act will require domestic spending cuts of about 20 percent over five years. If Congress boosts military spending, as it has indicated it would like to do, then bigger reductions in domestic spending will be necessary. The hospital lobbyists would seem to be at vanguard of those who will feel the pinch. Earlier this month Peoria officials said they anticipated a 10 percent cut in Community Development Block Grant funds for neighborhood-based programs. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo warned last week of budget cuts that would leave 156,000 people without affordable housing. The nation's parkland preservation program is due to be reduced to one- tenth of its 1978 level. Congress has put out feelers about taking back from the states $4.2 billion in welfare reform money. Cuts of this magnitude may have made sense when the nation was battling to control deficit spending and the threats it posed. The case for them is not as strong now that it's been declared the post-deficit era on Capitol Hill. Certainly maintaining Head Start participation and national park dollars and environmental enforcement at present levels, rather than slashing them, deserves an equal platform with tax cuts and debt reduction as decisions are made. So do the hospitals' concerns. It is particularly irksome that the facts of the issue have been so poorly laid out and that the budget cuts which lie ahead have claimed so small a stage in the national debate. Perhaps the hospital lobbyists will help.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, who represents a district that certainly has one of the most outstanding hospitals and academic medical centers in the Nation in it, the University of Chicago.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentlewoman and commend the gentlewoman again for the tremendous advocacy that she displays consistently on the part of rural America, and especially as she crusades right now to try and find relief for that part of North Carolina and for all of those thousands and thousands of people who have been uprooted by recent Hurricane Floyd. Certainly, our hopes, our prayers, and our thoughts are with the gentlewoman and all of the people in North Carolina as they try to work their way out of this disaster.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during the last several months we have had a tremendous amount of discussion about managed care, patients' bill of rights, different kinds of indicators of disease and problems with our health care delivery system, trying to find a way and trying to find solutions, answers, to many of these problems. Group of us come this afternoon because we want to talk about another problem, and that is a problem facing the hospitals in the State of Illinois and especially facing tertiary care teaching hospitals as a result of our passage of the Balanced Budget Act. Health care, as all of us would agree, is one of the essential elements of a great society, and unless people have access, have the ability, unless people have the assurances of knowing that they can find the care that they need in times of stress and difficulty and in times of physical pain and disability, then that society is missing something. As a member of the Illinois delegation, I am going to share some concerns about the fate of Illinois' teaching hospitals and academic medical centers unless we get some form of relief from reimbursement cuts authorized in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. While we all recognize that cost containment, trying to manage the cost of health care, is important, all of us recognize the concerns that have been expressed over the years about unregulated, unbridled, unchecked cost overrunning our ability to pay; and so while we recognize that certain sacrifices must be made in order to achieve Balanced Budget Act objectives, we strongly believe that the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act threaten the viability of these valuable health care resources. As envisioned, the Balanced Budget Act was intended to cut $104 billion from Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. However, the Balanced Budget Act, if implemented as enacted, will result in nearly $200 billion in reductions. Now, the people of Illinois have come to expect, and they have every right to do so, the high quality medical care delivered by our teaching hospitals and academic medical centers. The benefits derived by residents of every region of our State are incalculable. These teaching hospitals and academic medical centers are the primary providers of complex medical care and high risk specialty services, such as trauma care, burn care, organ transplants and prenatal care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. In fact, the 65 tertiary care teaching hospitals in Illinois provide approximately 63 percent of all hospital charity care in the state. Aggressive Balanced Budget Act cuts are jeopardizing their ability to fulfill their vital mission of maintaining state-of-the-art medical care and technology, providing quality learning and research environments, and serving as a safety net for those unable to pay. Not only do these institutions enhance our health and physical well- being, they are also some of our largest employers and consumers. As a matter of fact, they are an integral part of our overall economy. In total, our Illinois teaching hospitals and academic medical centers employ more than 56,000 of our constituents and add almost $3 billion to the State's economy in salaries and benefits alone. Yet, despite the great benefits that Illinois residents derive from our teaching hospitals and academic medical centers, these institutions suffer disproportionately under the Balanced Budget Act. In total, Illinois teaching hospitals face 5-year reductions of more than $2.5 billion. I will say that again. In total, Illinois teaching hospitals face 5-year reductions of more than $2.5 billion. Consequently, while teaching facilities comprise 27 percent of Illinois hospitals, they will bear the brunt of 59 percent of the Balanced Budget Act reductions. These cuts are compounded by increasing fiscal pressures from managed care companies and inadequate Medicaid reimbursements on the State level. We believe that we must act now, that we really cannot wait. I represent a district that has 22 hospitals in it. I have four academic medical centers, four of the best in the Nation, in my district. Not only do they provide greatly needed care, but they are also the primary trainers of medical personnel, not only for Illinois, but all over America. I have three Veterans Administration hospitals in my district that are linked to these medical schools. So not only are we looking at the provision of greatly needed care, but we are also looking at the overall economic impact on a community if the individuals cannot work, if they have no place to go. Then, obviously, the status of health for the community worsens, worsens, and worsens. Also with me this afternoon, one that I know is greatly interested in this problem and this issue and has concerns not only about the ability of hospitals to serve but the ability of our society to function as it is intended to do, it pleases me to yield to the gentlewoman from the 9th District in the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).