Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 818, the Small Business Disaster Mitigation Coordination Act. This is a $15 million effort to help small businesses in disaster-prone areas to take preventative measures to avert and minimize damage due to natural disasters. This bill, as we have already heard, will further assist FEMA and the SBA in reducing disaster losses by focusing the energy of these departments on the importance of helping small businesses prepare and recover from natural disasters. By passing H.R. 818, Congress will help FEMA and the SBA provide more disaster assistance to one of the most vulnerable segments of our society, small and very small businesses. For instance, on August 16th, 1997, severe thunderstorms released heavy amounts of rain in a short period of time. The National Weather Service reported that over 4 inches of rain fell in less than 2 hours on the West Side of Chicago and in neighboring suburban communities. As much as 6.1 inches of rain were recorded in some areas. The rate of rainfall produced flash flooding that severely overloaded the stormwater drainage system. With nowhere else to flow, the rainwater backed up into literally thousands of basements in the city of Chicago, destroying homes and businesses alike. This bill will enable these businesses to apply and receive loans to prepare before disasters like this one strike. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent proposal put forth by the Committee on Small Business. I think once again this committee has risen to the occasion. It saw a need, recognized a problem, and got in front of it. So I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for making sure that we as Congress do our part to prevent disasters from devastating the small businesses of our Nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidability absent. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 22-27. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' on rollcall 22; ``Aye'' on rollcall 23; ``Aye'' on rollcall 24; ``Aye'' on rollcall 25; ``Aye'' on rollcall 26, and ``Aye'' on rollcall 27.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for not only yielding but also for her leadership and tenacious manner of jumping into the activities of this Congress even though this is her first term in office. While we are all going to miss Mr. Stokes and all of the work that he did from that district, I think those of us who have had the good fortune to interact with his replacement know that Lou Stokes is probably sitting someplace smiling, saying, ``I am so glad that this lady was elected to take my spot.'' So thank you so very much. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with those who are paying tribute to the concept of African American History Month, and it is a time to reflect, it is a time to share, it is a time to appreciate the tremendous ideas of Dr. Carter G. Woodson as we look not only into the past but also to the present and into the future. But I am going to read a poem that I was asked to read by a gentleman from the State of Utah. He is not from Illinois. He is not from Chicago. As a matter of fact, he lives in Congressman Merrill Cook's district and, through the Congressman, asked me if I would read this poem that he has written. Mr. Harris is a 32-year-old teacher at the Salt Lake Community College and also does biomedical research at the school. He is originally from Columbus, Mississippi, and is active in the Salt Lake chapter of the NAACP, and he wrote this poem to commemorate May 14, which was declared African American Creed Day in Mississippi. He says: I, the African American, man, woman, child, son and daughter and great grandchild of slaves, descendant of Africa and child of God, no longer have to search to find my place in this world. I, the African American, have a responsibility, to my forefathers and foremothers whose struggles I must continue to ward off hatred and bigotry. I, the African American, descendent of Ishmael and Abraham, have a responsibility, to help my brothers and sisters when, and after, they fall by the wayside. I, the African American, descendent of great kings and queens of Africa, am obligated to teach my children about our ancestors and their customs. I, the African American, of dark complexion, have a responsibility for keeping my dark beautiful armor shined with Christ-like luster in my daily walk. I, the African American, whose ancestors were great warriors, must become a great warrior against such things as drugs and gang violence. I, the African American, come from a race which was so powerful, to cause a nation to change its views on segregation and rethink its views of desegregation. I, the African American, great grandchild of great chiefs in Africa, have a responsibility to become the head of my family and to raise my children in such a manner that will enable my children to become great leaders. I, the African American, have come from a race which helped build this country, have a responsibility to keep the talent alive and to build great buildings that will stand alongside the great pyramids of Egypt. I, the African American, whose forefathers came from a land rich in vegetation and animal life, have a responsibility to preserve that beauty so that my children will have the same opportunities to bathe in the beauty of nature that God has created for all to enjoy. I, the African American, whose ancestors used as a part of their culture great dances, am obligated to pass this tradition and the history behind the dances on to my children. I, the African American, come from a race where such powerful men and women laid down their lives so that I may be able to get a fair education. Therefore, I am obligated to attend a school of higher learning. I, the African American, whose forefathers have been spit upon and smitten, all in the name of equality, just so you and I could stand here today, must be willing to display in return the same equal kindness that we have demanded, not just to men and women of the African American race, but to men and women of all races. I, the African American, whose fathers and mothers can now become men of science, medicine and law, am obligated to follow in their footsteps ensuring the best possible care, in order to preserve my history. I, the African American, whose forefathers have died in wars when they were not allowed to drink from the same drinking fountain, yet were equal enough to share the same bullet, but couldn't be buried in the same cemetery, am obligated to become a great general of the Armed Forces and even to become a President of the United States of America. And so I say, my country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, let it be known that if any changes are to occur, it must start with me. Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of every man's pride, from every mountain side, we shall let freedom ring. And let me just say that I am pleased to have had the opportunity to share this all the way from Salt Lake City, Utah, by way of Mississippi, and I do not represent either one of those, but certainly the thoughts and ideas that have been generated by Mr. Harris are worthy of an entire Nation to consider.

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 Waxman amendment to the Mandates Information Act and echo the sentiments of those who believe that some of the greatest legislative efforts of this Nation, some of our finest moments and hours of promoting social and economic progress, have come from this body and, oftentimes, right off the floor of this House. We have legislated in the public interest cleaner air, cleaner water, enforced civil rights, protected public health and safety. We have come a long way, and obviously we have made some progress in these areas. But we still have a long way to go. It is my hope that during this session of Congress we will debate issues like the Patients' Bill of Rights, an increase in the minimum wage, defense of the environment and other important measures. However this bill, this bill provides a legislative vehicle, a opportunity for Members to maneuver around, kill or delay important health and safety protections without directly voting against them and without a full and fair debate. Mr. Chairman, this bill inappropriately raises expense concerns above health and safety in the public interest. So I ask my colleagues: At what expense are we talking when we talk about the cost of gambling away the health and safety of our Nation's children, our Nation's workers, our families who rely upon basic protections? We cannot put a cost on improving living and working conditions. How high is high? How low is low? Finally, this bill concentrates on the hardships placed on businesses, but it completely ignores the benefits of feeding the hungry, or looking after the needs of those who must have their health and safety preserved, or improving the environment and our Nation's precious natural resources, protecting public health and safety and enforcing the rights of all of our citizens. Yes, we need to make sure that we provide opportunity for businesses to grow and develop and thrive, but we also need to make sure that we have the tools to vote on these basic proposals on the basis of merit rather than hiding behind a procedural vote or dealing with the process which oftentimes does not let the public know exactly what it is we have done or what positions we have taken. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the Waxman amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding this time to me. I would also like to thank the committee for entertaining the idea that resources and technical assistance should be made available to what I call micro businesses, that is small barbershops, beauty parlors, restaurants, and other businesses that may not have the resource on site to file electronically. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent). Two years ago Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act, which mandated fixed percentage cuts in paperwork burden over the next few years. We passed that legislation to unleash our Nation's small businesses from the colossal amounts of paperwork which we know that they face. H.R. 439 intends to lessen some of the burden. Today, technological advances have improved our travel time to and fro and made trade and money almost effortless. I ask why not apply the same technology to help our Nation's 22 million small businesses? This legislation urges the Federal Government to disseminate and receive information electronically, where appropriate, thereby increasing responsiveness. It will minimize the Federal paperwork burden of individuals, small businesses and State and local governments. It will maximize the usefulness of information collected by the Federal Government, and will minimize the costs carried by the Federal Government of collecting, maintaining, using and distributing information. Again, I join with those who are in favor of this legislation. I think it is obviously an idea whose time has come, and I am certain, without a doubt, that all of the small businesses in America, especially those who labor spending as much time filling out forms as they do trying to make money, will rise up and say to this Congress, well done.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I join with those who maintain that we must save Social Security, we must save it for the 46,481 households in my district back in Illinois who currently receive it, and we must save it for the millions of workers and their families who need the economic security and protection which it provides. Since its inception, Social Security has provided benefits to more than 160 million workers and their families. Without our Social Security system, half of the Nation's elderly would live in poverty. We must save Social Security for the unmarried and elderly widowed women who rely upon it for more than half of their income. There are over 53,000 female head of households with no husband present in my district alone. Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to cut and experiment. We know what works, we know how it works, and we know why it works. Let us keep it working for all of the people.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 440, the Microloan Program Technical Corrections Act, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for moving quickly to pass this important legislation. As a matter of fact, I would further note that it is a pleasure to serve on the Committee on Small Business because of the leadership provided by the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and that of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). These changes are important for small entrepreneurs because they will allow lenders to make more loans and increase technical assistance. In my district, the Seventh District of Illinois, there are many small businesses eager to take advantage of these resources which are being made available to them. Everyone agrees that the challenge facing most entrepreneurs is access to capital. However, it is often far more difficult, if not impossible, for many small and very small businesses to get the financing they need. Microborrowers are either very small, start-up, or growth-phased businesses which are unable to meet a lender's collateral or credit requirements. For this reason, many private lenders consider these borrowers too risky for loan consideration, thus leaving these businesses without the capital to grow and expand. To address this problem, the Small Business Administration launched the Microloan Pilot Project in 1992. This program was designed to help underserved, start-up, and existing small business owners that did not have access to financing. Since its beginning, the microloan program has helped countless businesses to start up and to grow. Today, with over 100 participating intermediaries, the small business microloan program is the largest Federal program of its kind. It has a proven track record of giving small businesses the support they need to succeed. One of the most important aspects of the microloan program is its ability to reach women and other minority groups. This population may need just a small loan to create or expand a business. Often women and minorities do not have the credit history or necessary capital to get a loan from a bank or other traditional channel. This is where the microloan program steps in and provides the necessary tools to help these business owners achieve the American dream. In fact, the microloan program has become a traditional funding source for women entrepreneurs. This legislation is straightforward. The first thing the Microloan Program Technical Corrections Act of 1999 would do is remove the State formula caps. The caps were put in place in order to ensure equitable distribution of funds, but resulted in just the opposite. By removing the cap, we will be ensuring that all States have access to the program. By allowing lenders with successful loan portfolios to make more loans and to provide additional technical assistance, today's legislation will only help more microenterprises grow. Providing additional technical assistance to businesses will enable entrepreneurs who are on the threshold of moving forward the opportunity to do so. Finally, the microloan program has proved invaluable in helping America's small businesses to grow. This bill will give those businesses in these communities access to increased resources to help them grow and further expand. I am indeed pleased that we are moving quickly to pass this crucial legislation, and that we are looking for ways to improve this important program. Mr. Speaker, I think this is indeed a tremendous piece of legislation that has been brought to us very early in this session. Again, I would commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for the expeditious manner in which they have acted. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I rise today in support of H.R. 68, the Small Business Investment Company Technical Corrections Act. Congress created the Small Business Investment Company program to ensure that independent small businesses have access to long-term financial and venture capital resources. In my district as well as districts throughout America, there are many small businesses eager to take advantage of these resources, resources that have been made available to them by SBICs which offer a wealth of opportunity, such as long-term loans of up to 20 years, all funds for working capital and equipment, or help for companies to expand or renovate their facilities. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will add another layer of financing for our Nation's budding small businesses. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it. We all know that small businesses are the foundation of our economy, and any effort to keep them alive, viable and thriving is worthy of our support and the support of all Members of this distinguished body. Therefore, again, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the Committee on Small Business. Again, I commend and congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, There is no greater experience than to serve with the honorable men and women in pursuit of equality, justice and the making of a better world. Such has been my experience with the Honorable Glenn Poshard who is leaving this body to return to the land of Lincoln where he will be welcomed with open arms. Congressman Poshard has been an exemplary Member of this body for the past 10 years and such has championed the causes of the poor, veterans, senior citizens, those living in rural America, those in need of good schools, human services, good roads and the opportunities to pursue a good life. Glenn Poshard has represented the best of what it means to be an elected official, fierce loyalty to his constituents, acute understanding of the political process, a willingness to stand on principle for that which he believes in and to continue standing even if it puts him at a political disadvantage. Not only are the people of the 19th District of Illinois going to miss having Representative Poshard to represent them, all of America is going to miss a true public servant. Therefore, I and the people of the seventh District of Illinois extends best wishes to Representative Poshard and his family as they move to new vistas, new challenges, and new opportunities.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call this the nightmare before Christmas. And the American people find it difficult to believe that here we are on this day talking about impeaching a president who just came back from the Middle East almost with a peace accord. This is not about impeaching Bill Clinton. This is about trying to roll back the clock. This is about impeaching affirmative action, impeaching women's rights. This is about taking America back rather than moving it forward. I know how I am going to vote. My people have told me. I will not disregard the people who elected me. Seventy percent of them have said to me, protect the President, vote to keep this President in office. So, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this nightmare before Christmas, I will not vote for this lynching in the people's House, I will vote against these resolutions. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time for our country. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and I ask that history be kind to us. I rise in strong opposition to the articles of impeachment presented by my colleagues from the Judiciary Committee. This resolution is an attempt to do through parliamentary means what could not be done in the last two elections: unseat the President of the United States of America. I ask my fellow colleagues, is this a high crime or just an act which lacks moral judgement? Did he really abuse his power. Let me state here on the floor of the House what most Americans already know. The impeachment of a sitting President of the United States of America is an ominous and sober predicament that we as Members of Congress face. This formal expression of the United States of Representatives should not be about sexual indiscretion. We have allegations of Presidential sexual indiscretions, some going back 200 years and involving slave women who certainly had no defense against predatory relationships. But no such impeachment inquiry has been initiated before. This is not about lying. We have had allegations of Presidential lying about the trading of munitions for covert foreign aid and Presidential lying about personal federal income taxes. But no such impeachment inquiries were initiated in response. Mr. Speaker, there are some in this House who have campaigned for the impeachment of this President for more than six years. Their campaign, fueled by $40 million spent by the Office of Special Council, tens millions of spent by private sources, and millions more spent by assorted Congressional Committees, and the inevitable accompanying leaks have yielded us only a sad, sordid marital infidelity and an endless supply of headlines. These relentless campaigns to impeach the President now hold their sponsors hostage to their own rhetoric. Having failed to find an impeachable offense, there is now relentless pressure to make do with the $60 million scandal--to make the scandal fit the bill. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution contains a number of examples of purposely ambiguous language in addition to the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Consider such language as ``due process.'' It is precisely such elegant and flexible language which has enabled our democracy to develop, to encompass ever broader sectors of Americans, in ever deeper and more empowering ways. It is reasonable to expect that as the process of electing our chief executive has become more and more democratic, enfranchising more Americans, more and more directly, that the process for removing that chief executive, of undoing the will of the people, would demand higher and higher standards. It is reasonable to expect that the Congress should not take unto itself the power to limit a President, in James Madison's words ``. . . to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' When we ``dumb down'' the Constitution to meet the needs of partisan politics we inflict deep and lasting harm on our political and Constitutional system. This is the real Constitutional crisis. I do not believe it is accidental that all of our nation's encounters with Presidential impeachment come following periods of great national turmoil--either the executive or legislative branch attempting to use extra-constitutional means of imposing its will on the policy of the nation. Like the attempt to impeach President Johnson in the wake of the Civil War and the debate over how to incorporate African Americans into the body politic or the attempt of President Nixon to undermine his political opponents in the closing days of the War in Vietnam; current attempts to undo the results of two Presidential elections will leave deep, lingering wounds on our nation, but, in the long run, will fail in their attempt to make an end run around the will of the people. Undoing our Constitution will not advance the search for solutions to the great national and international problems facing America: global economic crisis and growing economic inequality, the undoing of decades of struggle for racial equality in America, the resurgence of national strife around the world, the need to address fundamental problems in health care, education, environment and housing, preserving social security and a host of other critical issues. I urge my colleagues to oppose this insidious attempt to use, or rather misuse, the power of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, to the horror, outrage and disbelief of America, this Congress is about to molest, to assault, the central pillar of our Democracy, the right of the people to choose their representatives in government, and vote to remove the President of the United States. Why? I am convinced, and the American People are convinced, that there are those who want to impeach the President as a means of containing, delaying or terminating his efforts to carry out the mandate which the American People have twice given him. Those driving the process to remove him are frustrated by his mandate, and obsessed with their fanatical desire to block programs from affirmative action to energy assistance, to de-fund programs from summer jobs to one hundred thousand new teachers. I reject, and more importantly, the American People reject, the pious hand wringing and piteous mutterings about the crime of perjury. Read the articles of impeachment as closely as you want. You won't find the actual words alleged as perjury with a divining rod. Why? The American People know that the allegations do not rise to the level of impeachment. We do not allow such unspecified charges on the floor of this House. Any Member of this body who would accuse another would have his words taken down for judgment by the body. Why weren't the President's words taken down so they could be judged? Because the process is not meant to be fair. The process is meant to destroy. Every month, every week, indeed every day, brings new examples of the hypocrisy of these charges. When, in the name of this House, secret grand jury testimony was released, in contradiction to every understanding we have of individual rights and due process, the claim was made that we had to inform and involve the American People about the process. But now, when the American People demand an end to the outrage of this impeachment process, their voices are ignored. Suddenly their informed opinion is no longer relevant. Why? Because the process was never meant to be fair or democratic. The process was meant to destroy. I reject, and the American People reject, the pathetic whining about upholding the rule of law. An unchecked prosecutor, accountable to no one, with an unlimited budget, and a witch-hunting committee have shredded any semblance of rule of law. They have undermined, in a few short years, the protections that have taken our nation over two hundred years to perfect. And, in using and abusing the law on sexual harassment, the witch hunters have created gaping holes in the law protecting women from harassment. How ironic that President Clinton who brought together the people of Northern and Southern Ireland, who brought together the people of Israel and Palestine is a victim of rending and division of the American political system. But he is not the only victim. We are perverting and destroying the American constitutional system, based on the wisdom of the people--a system we should be using to solve our real problems: saving social security; creating jobs with a living wage; lifetime education; accessible health care for all. This is our last chance to stop the ``Nightmare Before Christmas.'' Some 50 years ago in the last days of Joe McCarthy, Senator Fulbright stood in the Senate and reflected on the fact that a small group had set a prairie fire which rapidly grew out of their control and destroyed everything in its path. Today, we have a chance to stomp out another prairie fire, another witch hunt, which threatens to grow rapidly out of control. Mr. Speaker, the American People are calling on this Congress, on every member of this Congress, to rise above the shrill voices of partisanship. Therefore, if I might paraphrase Winston Churchill, let us feel the wisdom of the people, and the strength of our ancestors. Let us stop the madness of those who seek to use impeachment to impose their political will. Let us undertake our duty, and so bear ourselves, that if America lasts for a thousand years, men and women will still say, ``This was their finest hour.'' Projected Proceedings before the United States Senate If the House Votes To Impeach the President The proceedings in the Senate on the articles of impeachment that the House exhibited against then United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings provide the most recent and comparable precedents to guide the Senate in the proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton that will take place if the House adopts articles of impeachment. The following outlines projects how the proceedings against the President would unfold if the House impeaches him based upon the proceedings in the Hastings case and the materials released by the Judiciary Committee during its inquiry into the President's conduct. Weeks Min. Max. I. Preliminary Proceedings A. The First Step. The House Managers would exhibit its articles to the Senate and the Senate would issue a summons to the President requiring him to respond within fifteen to thirty days and would ask the Committee on Rules and Administration to consider and report issues that need to be addressed and special rules that should be adopted for the conduct of the proceedings...................................... 1 1 B. The Rules Committee. Since the Senate has not conducted proceedings against a President in the past century, the issues would be substantial. At least five steps would have to be taken before the committee could submit its report and recommendations to the Senate.................... 1. The committee meets and authorizes the Chair and Ranking Minority Member to send a letter asking the parties to file memoranda addressing issues identified by the Committee and other issues that either believes the committee should consider, probably allowing twenty to thirty days for initial memoranda and ten to twenty days for responses......... 1 2 2. Each of the parties file memoranda......... 4 6 3. Each of the parties file memoranda responding to the other...................... 6 9 4. The committee holds hearings on the issues raised....................................... 7 11 5. The committee deliberates and prepares its report and recommendations and any necessary resolutions.................................. 9 13 C. Pleadings and Motions. 1. The President. It is hard to anticipate the defense strategy the President will adopt, but the House Judiciary Committee's proceedings and recommended articles of impeach suggest that counsel for the President would file: a. Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Counsel for the President will raise at least one and probably two affirmative defenses--(i) the articles fail to allege facts sufficient to state an impeachable offense; and (ii) the misconduct of Independent Counsel Starr and the House's reliance upon the products of that misconduct require that the articles be dismissed................................ 3 4 b. Motion to Dismiss. The motion would enable the Senate to consider whether it should dignify the President's improper conduct alleged in the articles of impeachment by classifying it as ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under the Constitution............................. 6 10 c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The majority on House Judiciary Committee appear to shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to specify the precise statements made by the President that they claim were perjurious. If the pending articles are adopted, counsel for the President will demand and the Senate will almost surely order the House Managers to provide a bill of particulars. The real effect of the lack of specificity will further delay........ 6 10 d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular Allegations. If the Senate does not dismiss the articles in their entirety, counsel for the President are likely to ask that the Senate, after the bill of particulars has been filed, strike specific allegations in the article that remains.................................. 6 10 2. The House. The House managers would be required to file a Replication to the President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and responses to the motions. If they opposed the demand for a bill of particulars, there would be a second round of briefing and further argument before the Senate after the House had complied with the Senate's order, adding an additional two weeks to the process...................................... 8 14 3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the President would file a reply and any supplemental memoranda made necessary by the House's bill of particulars.................. 10 16 D. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate would be likely to set aside two days to consider and act upon the report from the Rules Committee and to hear arguments on and decide the pending motions.......................................... 12 18 II. Trial Preparation In Hastings, the Rules Committee recommended that the Senate appoint an Impeachment Trial Committee to regulate the preparation for evidentiary hearings and to conduct those hearings. If the House adopts articles here, the evidentiary hearings will be conducted before the full Senate. It is likely that the Senate and the Chief Justice will agree that the trial preparation duties that were performed by the Impeachment Trials Committee should be assigned to the Rules Committee (or to a special impeachment committee appointed for that purpose). Although the counsel for the President would request that trial preparation be deferred until the Senate had ruled on the President's motion to dismiss, the Rules Committee might determine that necessary preparation should proceed concurrently with other trial matters. However those duties were exercised, the steps would likely be the same. A. Discovery Proceedings: The need for discovery would be far greater in this case than it was in Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the report and materials transmitted to the House by another branch and upon the testimony of the investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it did in Hastings, the committee did not call and subject to examination and cross-examination the fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral or those who might testify on behalf of the accused or obtain from the Independent Counsel or elsewhere documents other than those included in the materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive that the Senate here would not afford the President the time and the use of its subpoena power to take depositions and obtain relevant documents. Based upon Hastings and the materials available here, discovery would proceed in three stages. 1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles remained after the motions to dismiss or strike had been decided, the Senate or a committee would have to decide whether and what discovery should be permitted. a. Counsel for the President would promptly submit a memorandum identifying witness and sources of documents that were likely to produce relevant evidence and explaining why the President should be permitted to subpoena each of the witnesses and other source to obtain that evidence. At a minimum, it seems almost certain that the counsel would seek to depose (i) lawyers for Paula Jones about their initial conversations with Linda Tripp and with members of the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii) the members of the OIC staff and FBI agents who met with or interviewed Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky; and (iii) other technical witnesses, such as those reconstructed materials from the hard drive in Ms. Lewinsky's computer. It also seems certain that they would want access to the documents that the Independent Counsel did not transmit with his referral................................. 12 20 b. The House managers would be directed to file a response agreeing with or objecting to the President's requests.... 14 22 c. The Senate or its committee would examine the president's request and the House's response and hold hearings and enter the appropriate order directing the issuance of appropriate subpoenas........ 16 23 d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones' lawyers, or others subpoenaed might object to some or all of the subpoena, in which event time-consuming enforcement proceedings would be necessary, at least three months............................. 36 e. The depositions would be conducted and the documents produced and examined...... 16-24 36-44 B. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings: 1. The House managers and counsel for the President would propose stipulations or submit requests for admissions. The Senate or its committee would encourage the parties to stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or admissibility of various documents and other potential exhibits. Responses would be exchanged and negotiations would proceed..... 12 20 2. The Senate or its committee would direct the parties to file and exchange ten days after the close of discovery, pre-trial memoranda identifying witnesses each intended to call and exhibits each intended to introduce.................................... 25 45 3. The Senate or its committee would enter a final pre-trial order establishing the date for and procedures to be followed at trial... 26 46 III. The Trial of a President Rules XII and XIII of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provide that, unless otherwise ordered, the proceedings shall commence at 12:30 p.m. on the first day and at 12:00 noon thereafter. In order to make it possible for the legislative and executive branches to tend to some of the government's business and to enable the Chief Justice to participate in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Senate would not schedule the evidentiary proceedings to begin before 12:30 or would permit them to extend beyond 6:30 p.m. on a regular basis. A. The Presentation of Evidence by the House Managers. The managers presented the testimony of thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty- seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial Committee. The managers were permitted to introduce transcripts of prior testimony for the other ten. The House managers are likely to call most if not all of the 120 witnesses whose statements or testimony are included in the materials transmitted by Independent Counsel Starr. Depending upon the success of pre-trial negotiations, it might have to call several more to establish necessary foundations and the like. Forty to fifty would appear to the minimum number necessary to support the allegations the proposed article have borrowed from the Starr Report. No prior testimony will be admitted. The videotaped deposition and the videotaped grand jury testimony will be shown in there entirety, and many of the Tripp tapes will be played given by the president. The examination and cross- examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the House presented in Hastings consumed more than ten full days. If the President is impeached by this House, the presentation of testimony and other evidence will consume twenty [if forty witnesses called] to forty [120 witnesses] partial trial days before the full Senate........ 27-30 47-40 B. The President's Case. It is impossible to project the number of witnesses that the President's counsel would call for his defense with any confidence. The Starr Report was not a balanced presentation of the available evidence. It seems clear that the number would be substantial and would include many of the 120 persons whom were identified in the Starr Report, but were not called by the managers. They would present all of the Tripp tapes that the managers did not introduce. They would call witnesses whose conduct might have influenced the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and other House witnesses and witnesses who had knowledge relevant to Ms. Lewinsky's credibility. Twenty witnesses and ten days seems a safe minimum........................ 31-32 51-52 C. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, it seem likely the House managers would want to try to rebut the President's case, no matter how tired and angry the American people may have become. Might we hope for only a day or two?............................................. 33 53 D. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given the nature of the issues and the length of the projected trial, it seems likely that Senate would allot at least four hours to each side for closing arguments. Past precedent dictates that the Senate would close its doors to deliberate in executive session until its members have expressed their views. The vote would follow. With luck, the denouement might be completed in less than a week................................. 34 54 I call this the nightmare before Christmas and Mr. Spaker, it is difficult to believe that we are here today; But we are debating whether or not to bring charges of impeachment against the President who has just returned from the Middle East where he was able to bring together Palestinians and Israelis, where he was able to bring together Netenyahu and Arafat. This President who was able to bring together Northern and Southern Ireland, India and Pakistan. A President who has opened up new avenues and relationships with the African Continent, with China, and with other nations throughout the world. During these proceedings we have heard a great deal of legal argument but I submit to you that this is as much about politics as it is about law. It's not just an attempt to impeach the President, it is an attempt to undermine and dismantle the policies and programs of this administration. This is an attempt to impeach and hold back Affirmative Action, women's health rights, new teachers, summer jobs for disadvantaged youth, energy assistance for low income people, community health centers, treatment programs for victims of aids and HIV, clean air, and raising the minimum wage. No Mr. Speaker, this is not just about Bill Clinton it is about dashing the dreams and the hopes of one growing up in a small state, an average citizen, in an average family, no pedigree, no major wealth, but growing up with hope, drive and determination, growing up with the idea that you can rise to the top and that you can make a difference. This vote today is a prime example of the contradictions with which we operate. We talk justice and operate in an unfair and unjust manner. We talk democracy and disregard the will of the people. We talk forgiveness and practice retribution. We talk unification and practice division--we talk about morality and commit the immortal act of fundamental unfairness. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to disregard the will of the people, I am not prepared to say that their feelings are irrelevant. I am going to vote my conscience. I am going to vote with my people. I am going to vote against impeachment. I am going to vote against this nightmare before Christmas. I am going to vote against this attempted lynching in the people's house.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in the district on October 13th and 14th. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 527-531. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 527, ``nay'' on rollcall 528, ``aye'' on rollcall 529, ``nay'' on rollcall 530 and ``aye'' on rollcall 531.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that budgets are about priorities, where the taxpayers' money should be spent, and where the goals and objectives which we hope to accomplish can be approached in an effort to meet them. The $500 billion omnibus appropriation bill which we just passed and I voted for contains funding for many of our governmental agencies which provide a glimmer of hope for the poor, elderly, and disinherited of our society. While this bill is not picture perfect, it does in fact contain some real victories for many people throughout America. The defense appropriation is too high, but we fought off attempts to cut the summer jobs program for disadvantaged youth. They now have hope again. We resisted attempts to cut low-income home energy assistance programs. Now seniors and others on fixed incomes will not have to choose between staying warm in the winter or buying food to eat. When the hawk comes to the windy city, to Chicago, and the wind off Lake Michigan drops temperatures to zero, 5, 10, and 15 degrees below, low- income people will have some help to try and keep warm. We prevailed in getting $1.1 billion as a down payment for 100,000 new teachers, which means that we will be able to reduce class size. Unfortunately, we did not get the money needed for school construction, which absolutely makes no sense, because what is the use in having teachers if we do not have schools? The bill contains a significant amount of money for health care, which pleases me greatly. The $100 million increase for federally qualified community health centers will go a long way toward serving the large number of uninsured Americans in rural and inner city communities. It has $10.6 billion for the National Institutes of Health budget, which provides much needed money for medical research; $110 million to address HIV-AIDS in the African American community; $1.4 billion for the Ryan White AIDS program, and $105 million for the Healthy Start program. This bill also contains needed funding for education: $1.2 billion as a down payment to reduce class size; $125 million for the school-to- work opportunities programs, which help ease the transition from school to work; $600 million for TRIO funding; $995 million for adult job training, which would fund about 386,000 participants. But in reality, this bill is a testament to the will of the American people, who have indicated that they place substance over rhetoric, and that they appreciate real leadership. I commend my colleagues, and I commend President Clinton for his political acumen and skill in orchestrating this compromise. It is good for my district, and it is good for America.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Homeownership Act; but first of all, let me commend and congratulate Chairman Lazio, Ranking Member Kennedy and all Members of the Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor. Home ownership is a real part of the American dream. Unfortunately, thousands of low and moderate income citizens have not been able to experience the joy and the benefits of home ownership. I represent a district where 175,000 people live at or below the poverty-level: therefore, for many of them home ownership has not been an option. This bill provides greatly needed resources and puts manufactured housing full square in the mix of housing development, especially in low and moderate income communities. Again, I commend and congratulate Chairman Lazio and Ranking Member Kennedy. In addition, as Mr. Kennedy prepares to leave us, Joe, you have given your voice and your talents to the needs of the poor, helpless and hopeless members of our society. We're going to miss your voice and your passion and as you leave, go in peace.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me commend and congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the ranking member, and all of the members of the committee for bringing this important legislation to us. The American dream, for many, have not been realized because they have not been able to experience the ownership of a home. This legislation opens up opportunities for individuals to receive mortgage assistance, but also for manufactured housing to really come on-line. I think it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have seen and will see. I represent a district that has 175,000 people who live at or below the poverty level. This will go a long ways, Mr. Speaker, towards providing them with opportunities to experience homeownership. Again, I commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and certainly the ranking member and say that we are going to miss the voice of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) as a voice for the underrepresented, the dispossessed, and all of those in America who are still looking for the American dream. Go with peace.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of those unsung heroes or sheroes who go through life consistently giving of themselves without the glare of television or newspaper headlines. Such has been the life of Ms. Wynel Parker, a resident of the West Garfield Park Community in Chicago. Ms. Parker could be characterized as what some would call a busybody, because she was always busy doing things in her community, doing things for friends and family and doing things for humanity. For many years, Ms. Parker was a staff person for the City of Chicago's Department of Human Services where she became an expert. If you had a problem or need, if you needed information, call Wynel Parker, if you needed to help somebody, call Wynel Parker. Ms. Parker was politically astute and politically involved, she was a precinct worker and during her heyday she was not only formidable, she was virtually unbeatable. She did her work and did it well. Finally, the Good Lord had a need, another soul was needed and the call went out to Wynel Parker. You have worked hard, you have given of yourself, you have helped your neighbors, you have helped your friends, you have done your best, come home now my servant and be at rest.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is with exceeding regret that I advise my colleagues of the death of a great American and one of the most socially conscious bankers in Chicago. A former Chicago public schools teacher and a 1960's city planner with a focus on urban renewal, James Fletcher with three other extraordinary individuals established America's first community development bank--in 1973. Soon after, Mr. Fletcher became president and chief executive officer of South Shore Bank in 1983. He served on that post until 1994 and was elected chairman of the bank in 1996. With the logic of a philosopher, the passion of a preacher, and the precision of a banker he helped redevelop communities who have long been forgotten by all of the major banks in Chicago. Indeed, in the hands of James Fletcher, community development was a creative act. With his foresight, community development is an encounter between socially conscious bankers and private investment. Slowly, step by step, they proved that a strong, independent banking presence in the neighborhood could help get a community back on its feet again. Beyond his many professional accomplishments, James Fletcher was one of those rare and wonderful individuals who relished being a mentor, role model and always a generous father. We cherish his memory as his work touched the lives of whole communities: men, women and youth alike. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the United States House of Representatives and to the American people the life and service of James Fletcher.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the reauthorization of this important program. The ongoing debate on national health care has focused largely on the problems of access, costs, and quality. These issues, however, cannot be addressed without dealing with the need to train qualified health providers and insure that underserved rural and inner city communities have the professional resources which they so greatly need. The reauthorization of this program insures that minorities from disadvantaged backgrounds would have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams and desires of becoming health care professionals. Currently, African Americans make up 12 percent of the population, but only 2 to 3 percent of the Nation's health professionals workforce. Likewise, Hispanic Americans make up 9 percent of the population, but only 5 percent of the physicians and 3 percent of the dentists. The underrepresentation of minorities in the health care profession has reduced access to our Nation's needy citizens. This bill seeks to increase the number of health care professionals in shortage areas, and increase the number of minorities in health care. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 1998, I was unavoidably detained from casting my vote on Roll Call number 448. However, if I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 2560 to present Gold Medals to Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Dr. Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Minniejean Brown Trickey, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed-Wair, and Melba Pattillo Beals, collectively known as the Little Rock Nine. I was a 16-year-old college freshman at Arkansas A.M. of N. College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and on a daily basis we waited with baited breath to hear or see what had taken place on that day at Central High School in Little Rock. The nine young people gave all of us a sense of pride and fulfillment as we observed their strength, courage, and determination. They were all outstanding; however, I was particularly struck by the fact that my mother, a very soft-hearted and genteel woman, declared Minniejean Brown as her hero. These were indeed heady times for all of us in Arkansas and especially so, for those of us who were Black. Daisy Bates, president of the Little Rock NAACP became a goddess for those of us who were liberation hungry and searching for equality, equal justice, and equal opportunities. Attorney Wiley Branton, Dr. Cleon Flowers, Attorney Flowers, Dentist Mazique, President Lawarence A. Davis, Dean J.B. Johnson, Earl Evans, and others became in my mind great civic and community leaders. I am indeed pleased to see this recognition provided to the Little Rock Nine as evidence of the significant role which they, their parents and leaders like Daisy Bates and Wiley Branton played in the school desegregation and Civil Rights Movement in this country. They were Golden Children and deserve Gold Medals. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to comment on House Concurrent Resolution 254 which passed the House on September 14, 1998. I inaccurately voted in favor of this bill when I should have voted ``no.'' The bill calls upon the Government of Cuba to expatriate to the United States Ms. Joanne Chesimard as well as all other individuals who have fled the U.S. from political persecution and received political asylum in Cuba. I wish to officially go on record as opposed to this measure. Unfortunately, the bill was placed on the suspension calendar, which is usually reserved for non-controversial measures. Furthermore, none of the many advocacy groups that monitor this vote informed my office of their concern. I oppose H. Con. Res. 254 because I support the right of all nations to grant political asylum to individuals fleeing political persecution. The United States grants political asylum to individuals from all over the world. Other independent nations have the same right, including Cuba. I strongly believe that the right for various governments to grant political asylum should not be disturbed. I am aware of the fact that this body often does not agree with the particular decisions made by other independent governments regarding political asylum. However, I have stood before this house many times defending and advocating for the rights of immigrants and refugees in the United States. Just as we maintain our right as a nation to welcome those from other shores, whether immigrant or refugee--we must respect the Cuban Government's right to grant political asylum for individuals from the U.S. fleeing political persecution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution presented by my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, to initiate an open ended, unlimited impeachment inquiry of the President of the United States of America. This resolution is an attempt to do through parliamentary means what could not be done in the last two elections: unseat the President of the United States of America. Let me state here on the floor of the House what most Americans already know. This inquiry is not about sexual indiscretion. We have allegations of Presidential sexual indiscretions, some going back 200 years and involving slave women who certainly had no defense against predatory relationships. But no such impeachment inquiry has been initiated before. This is not about lying. We have had allegations of Presidential lying about the trading of munitions for covert foreign aid and Presidential lying about personal federal income taxes. But no such impeachment inquiries were initiated in response. Mr. Speaker, there are some in this House who have campaigned for the impeachment of this President for more than six years. Their campaign, fueled by $40 million spent by the Office of Special Council, tens of millions spent by private sources, and millions more spent by assorted Congressional Committees, and the inevitable accompanying leaks have yielded us only a sad, sordid marital infidelity and an endless supply of headlines. These relentless campaign to impeach the President now hold their sponsors hostage to their own rhetoric. Having failed to find an impeachable offense, there is now relentless pressure to make do with the $60 million scandal--to make the scandal fit the bill. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution contains a number of examples of purposely ambiguous language in addition to the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Consider such language as ``due process.'' It is precisely such elegant and flexible language which has enabled our democracy to develop, to encompass ever broader sectors of Americans, in ever deeper and more empowering ways. It is reasonable to expect that as the process of electing our chief executive has become more and more democratic, enfranchising more Americans, more and more directly, that the process for removing that chief executive, of undoing the will of the people, would demand higher and higher standards. It is reasonable to expect that the Congress should not take into itself the power to limit a President, in James Madison's words ``. . . to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' When we ``dumb down'' the Constitution to meet the needs of partisan politics we inflict deep and lasting harm on our political and Constitutional system. This is the real Constitutional crisis. I do not believe it is accidental that all of our nation's encounters with Presidential impeachment come following periods of great national turmoil--either the executive or legislative branch attempting to use extra-constitutional means of imposing its will on the policy of the nation. Like the attempt to impeach President Johnson in the wake of the Civil War and the debate over how to incorporate African Americans into the body politic or the attempt of President Nixon to undermine his political opponents in the closing days of the War in Vietnam; current attempts to undo the results of two Presidential elections will leave deep, lingering wounds on our nation, but, in the long run, will fail in their attempt to make an end run around the will of the people. Undoing our Constitution will not advance the search for solutions to the great national and international problems facing America: global economic crisis and growing economic inequality, the undoing of decades of struggle for racial equality in America: the resurgence of national strife around the world, the need to address fundamental problems in health care, education, environment and housing, preserving social security and a host of other critical issues. I urge my colleagues to oppose this insidious attempt to use, or rather misuse, the power of impeachment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. When the Little Rock Nine walked in the door, I was a 16-year-old college freshman at Arkansas AM&N College. It is so delightful to see an opportunity, they are contemporaries of mine. Ernie Green. Mrs. Patillo actually was a teacher at the Scipio A. Jones High School when I did student teaching. That is Melba Patillo's mother. Minnie Jean Brown was my mother's favorite of the nine. Each day after the news, she wanted to find out, what did Minnie Jean Brown do that particular day. Daisy Bates really ought to be in this group, because she emerged as a leader among leaders at that time. Attorney Wiley Branton from Pine Bluff who ultimately became an attorney for the national NAACP. Dr. Flowers, Attorney Flowers, all of those who played a role, I am simply pleased to join with others who feel that the time has come to say to the Little Rock Nine and all of those involved in that particular situation, that they too played a major role in the civil rights development in this country during the 1950s and 1960s which have brought us to this point today.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to express my strong support for House Concurrent Resolution 334 calling for Taiwan's participation in World Health Organization (WHO) activities because it is good policy. It is my hope that the United States will support this bid. It does not matter where people live. They may live in the Chinatown area of my district, the 7th Congressional District of Illinois, or on the West Coast in Seattle, Washington, or overseas in Taipei, Taiwan. Regardless, the humane thing to do is to care for ill children, the elderly, all people. Are we playing politics with the 21 million people that reside in Taiwan? I am a firm believer in that the people shall not suffer as a result of government policies. If women and children are ailing, we need to assist in whatever way possible that is within our means. The bottom line is that the people of Taiwan can access better healthcare if the country is allowed representation in the World Health Organization. Moreover, in recent years the people of Taiwan have successfully defended their participation in a number of multilateral groups, including, but not limited to the Asian Development Bank, the Pacific Basin Economic Council. Although the composition for their participation varies from group to group, their pragmatic importance is inevitable. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the country of Taiwan in the global arena and support their entry into the WHO.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hyde resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) in bringing to the House floor H.R. 2348, legislation naming the United States Post Office located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, as the Mervyn Dymally Post Office Building. A Member of Congress from 1980 until his retirement in 1992, Congressman Mervyn Dymally represented the 31st Congressional District with both distinction and honor. During his time in Congress, he served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chairing the Subcommittee on International Operations, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and the District of Columbia Committee. He also served as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congressman Dymally sponsored legislation advocating the causes of many human rights groups and devoted particular attention to United States policies toward nations in Africa and the Caribbean. A few days ago, I had the pleasure of meeting his son, who is following in his footsteps as a public servant as a member of a local commission. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the former mayor of the City of Compton, California, the honorable Congresswoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).