Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. During the past two years, the American working families have experienced some success in defending the minimum wage increase, protecting Medicare/Medicaid, saved Federal job safety protections, threw anti-worker legislators out of office and held back the Fast Track proposal that would have made it easier for jobs to leave for overseas. Many of my colleagues and their corporate allies opposed every one of those victories for working families because they put more value on profits than on people. Now, it seems as though some of my Republican colleagues and their anti-union allies say it's payback time. Madam Speaker, a million dollars and one year later the Republican Members of the House have devised another devious plot to destroy the unions and the people who they represent--our Nation's working families. The Republican Members passed out of committee a resolution to allow the Education and Workforce Committee to take depositions behind closed doors, without a Member of Congress present as a part of the Teamsters Union investigation. Actions such as this have only been implemented during threats to national security. Madam Speaker, this resolution is duplicative in nature and is an abuse of congressional power that tramples the civil liberties of our Nation's working families. This is a simple backdoor attack on unions and working families. This is an unfair and unjustified attack on democracy; but I was told at an Acorn rally in Milwaukee this past week that, a people united will never be defeated. I urge that we unite on behalf of working families, I urge that we unite and defeat this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. My father used to tell us that half a loaf is better than none. I would say that that is all right, except we are not talking about bread, we are talking about the census. And we are talking about counting all of the people. I can tell Members when it comes to counting the people, one-half is not enough. Three-fifths is not enough. None is not enough. Somebody is going to be miscounted, disenfranchised and left out. I wonder who those are going to be. It is already clear. They are going to be the poor, those in big urban centers, those in rural America, those who need every dime, every cent, every penny, those communities that are on the verge of collapse, who need all of their entitlement moneys, all of their entitlement programs, but even need representation more than they do anything else. We can cure this defect and we can cure it with the Mollohan amendment. We can cure it because we want to say to every American citizen that your dream of citizenship rights does not need to be deferred. I know what it means to be uncounted, three-fifths of a person. Women know what it means not to count, not to be able to vote, not to be looked at on the landscape. I would urge that we vote for the Mollohan amendment and count all of the American people so that they will know that they do indeed count.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Those who would take this amendment lightly or who would sit on the sidelines of this debate, I would warn them, because it reminds me of the words of Martin Niemoeller commenting on Nazi Germany. He said that, they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, I did not speak. I was a Protestant. Then they came for me. And no one was left to speak up. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak up for those individuals who would be affected by this amendment. It is the City of San Francisco today, could be New York tomorrow, Los Angeles next week, New Orleans next month and even perhaps Chicago next year. I rise against this amendment because I agree with those who have suggested that it is indeed a mean- spirited maneuver that is designed to punish a certain group of individuals in one particular city. This amendment would bar the City of San Francisco from using HUD funds to execute its entire city ordinance against discrimination in city contracts. If enacted, the well-being of tens of thousands of veterans, disabled people, children, victims of natural disasters, individuals with HIV and AIDs would be jeopardized in order to punish a locality. I agree with those who have stressed the issue of local control, home rule, citizenship, meaning that people can decide what it is that they will and will not do. I would hate to see us move back to the days of witch-hunting, back to the days of trying to determine what others should and should not do. But I simply close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I strongly oppose any measure that seeks to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let America be America, the America that it has never been but the America that it can and must become.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 3396 and H.R. 1515.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to two individuals who have given to this country their last measure of devotion, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. They reinforce for us the fact that America, ``My country Tis of Thee,'' is the land of the common woman and the common man. It is composed of people who struggle each and every day to make ends meet, put food on the table and provide for their loved ones. We often hear of the great leaders, star entertainers, athletes, musicians and others. But in a real sense history is made by ordinary people whose names are often forgotten or unknown. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Chestnut are indeed unsung heroes. They are part of a group of men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day. They are the people who have made America, and so, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Seventh District of Illinois, I humbly salute these two heroes and pray for their families as we pray for America. And as we re-look at the gun laws and mental health needs of our country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to two individuals who have given to this country their last measure of true devotion: Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. They reinforce for us the fact that America, my country t'is of thee, is the land of the common woman and the common man. It is composed of people who struggle each and every day to make ends meet, put food on the table, provide for their loved ones. We often hear of the great leaders, star entertainers, athletes, musicians and others, but in a real sense history is made by ordinary people whose names are often unknown or forgotten. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Chestnut are indeed unsung heroes. They are part of a group of men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day. They are the people who have made America. And so, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Seventh District of Illinois, I humbly salute these two heroes and pray for their families as we pray for America and as we relook at the gun laws and mental health needs of our country.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Dingell- Ganske bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo the sentiments that have already been expressed by all of my colleagues, that Lou Stokes has no peer when it comes to service, dedication, and generosity. We have already heard of all of his accolades. I guess Kipling must have been thinking about him when he penned those words that said, ``If you can walk with kings and not lose the common touch, if all men matters with you, but none too much.'' And finally Lou, ``If you can feel the unforgiven moment with 60 seconds worth of distance run, yours will be the world and all that is in it. And what is more, you are a man, my son.''

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my disagreement with the proposed rule. But first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois who, for 48 years, has consistently fought for citizens' access to the arts. His dedication and assistance have been essential to the preservation of the NEA. I have heard many miscalculated and illusory statements from those who want to destroy the National Endowment for the Arts. The arts and humanities are an important component to American life. The NEA brings the arts to communities all across America regardless of geographic location. The arts and humanities can speak of things that cannot be spoken of in any other way. They foster a sense of community by advancing an understanding of history, culture, and ideas. It instills social values by helping people identify common bonds and connections. While not large in terms of budget, these programs serve as an important catalyst and source of recognition for artists and programs throughout the country. Back in my own community, they are many: The West Side Cultural Arts Council, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Black Ensemble Theater Corporation, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Black Ensemble's Little City Program, the Museum of Contemporary Art, Illinois Arts Alliance, and Field Museum. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote for the preservation of, not just the arts, but the preservation of a way of life.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to any measure that seeks so-called citizenship verification. At a time when voter turnout is lower than low, we must encourage rather than discourage citizens of this great Nation from voting. Clearly, the history of discrimination against voters in this country should admonish this Congress that State and local governments may interpret Federal laws differently. Yet this amendment would allow States the privilege of requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and a Social Security number when registering to vote. I ask is this flawed process of verifying citizenship just another version of modern day Jim Crow? How many of our citizens are supposed to provide proof citizenship when neither the INS nor the Social Security agency kept naturalization records until 1978? So I ask this Congress since when has a citizen's honor not been enough? When a person swears that they are indeed a citizen of the United States of America, they do so with the understanding that if they are incorrect they are perjuring themselves. I say let us go forward, Mr. Chairman, and not backwards. Let us vote down this amendment and move America into the 21st century with democracy, equality and justice for all.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today to underscore the need and the importance for real managed care reform. Today in America, insurance companies are making life-threatening decisions regarding patient care. Those same insurance companies that denied medical procedures and treatment are immune from suit. The horror stories are all too familiar: John, a middle-aged man in need of a liver transplant, his doctor contacts the HMO, and the bureaucrats decline coverage. John appeals, and by the time he works his way through a time-consuming process and the HMO agrees to pay, he is too sick to receive the transplant and dies. The health care choices must be made by patients and their physicians, not the insurance companies. The Democratic Patient's Bill of Rights is a plan that puts people ahead of politics. It holds managed care corporations and companies responsible. Let us do real reform. Let us do the Democratic reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, same old wine, new bottle; same lemon, new twist; same target, new weapon; same poor people of America being attacked again, taking away opportunities for the very poor to their demise. What people really want and need in public housing are jobs and the opportunity to work. If we give them jobs, they do not need to volunteer. Five thousand families in Chicago working; 108 new businesses; $52 million generated last year; 2,000 in a program. Give them jobs. They do not need to volunteer. Same wrong premise, same conclusion, we need to teach people in public housing the value of work. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion. Let's further attack the poor. For some irrational and incoherent reason there seems to be serious preoccupation with fostering attacks upon the poor, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the disavowed and the disconnected. Those citizens who receive a form of public subsidy and live in public housing are continually being harassed. Sounds logical, sounds rational, sounds corrective; but in actuality it is discriminatory, oppressive and regressive. It is tantamount to slavery or at the very lease, involuntary servitude. Let's look at what is being proposed, let's take a hard look at what we are being asked to do. Of all the subsidies which are given out in this country, farmers, developers, manufacturers, private colleges and universities, other institutionally based activities and corporations, ranches--big business programs, we are being asked to single out public housing recipients and say that you must, if you live in public housing, volunteer some services as recognition of the public largesse of which you have become the beneficiary. If this is the case, then those who receive the 150 billion dollars in corporate welfare should be providing some serious volunteer services. H.R. 2 demands public service from public housing residents. But let's also demand public services from those receiving corporate welfare. We've been down this road before, I voted against the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act then and I shall vote against it now. H.R. 2 targets an inadequate number of housing units for people with the least financial means and unfairly imposes duties on public housing residents that other Americans do not have to perform. I believe that we should not endeavor to create zones and pockets of poverty within our society and that public housing sites should consist of residents who have diverse and mixed income levels. However, we must not set our target income level quotas in a manner that does not sufficiently accommodate the needs of those who can least afford housing in the private market. Moreover, in light of cuts in welfare benefits and social security payments to beneficiaries, it is imperative that the rent payments required of public housing residents be reduced in a manner that reflects this loss of income. H.R. 2 requires that public housing residents, who are not on welfare or working must perform eight hours of community service. While I believe in community service, I do not believe that residents should be evicted, as this provision would permit, for failing to perform a job for which they are uncompensated, volunteerism simply cannot be compelled. Moreover, no other individuals or groups must volunteer because they receive a subsidy from the government. Current law targets 75-85% of housing units for those with income at 50% of median, while H.R. 2 targets only 35% of units for those at 30% of median income, with the remainder being allocable to those making no more than 80% of median income. This will push a lot of low-income families into homelessness. In Chicago, there is a viable work program for residents of the Chicago housing authority. 1. Approximately 5000 families participate in the Resident Employment Program. 2. There are approximately 108 resident owned businesses. 3. Resident owned business grossed approximately $52 million in business last year. 4. Resident owned businesses employ approximately 2000 people and resident owned businesses include: 1. Custodial Services 2. Landscaping Services 3. Childcare Services 4. Laundry Services 5. Extermination Services People in public housing need and want jobs. When we provide the opportunities, they will do the work.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to testify to the need for HMO reform. By now we have heard the endless list of reasons why HMO reform is necessary, but none are as meaningful as the story I will share with you today. Chicago residents Barbara and David Smith were vacationing in Hawaii when Barbara noticed that her body was badly bruised. At the hospital she was diagnosed with aplastic anemia and needed an immediate bone marrow transplant. However, her HMO refused to pay for the transplant in Hawaii, insisting instead that she return to Chicago for the operation. Seeing that she had no other choice, Barbara boarded a flight to Chicago, but suffered a stroke in midair. As a result, Barbara Smith died 9 days later, at the age of 55. The restrictions of Barbara Smith's HMO cost her her life. Not only did David Smith lose his wife, but he is unable to file a lawsuit against the responsible HMO. This is a devastating situation, and unfortunately, these situations are all too common. Too many lives have already been lost. Too many families have already been broken. Too many individuals have seen their health decline. The good news is we can stop this now. We can stop it by passing meaningful HMO reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, although perhaps a more fitting title for this legislation would be, the Teen Endangerment Act. I will tell my colleagues why. This bill threatens to isolate a young woman from friends, extended family, and other advisors who may help her to make a difficult decision. Regardless of our political views, we can agree that during trying times, every young woman should be surrounded by caring people who will provide comfort, support, and advice. Ideally we all agree that parents should be directly involved. However, we must understand that many young women are not fortunate enough to have one, let alone two, concerned parents. Yet, this bill would effectively tell these young women that honorable men and women who may not be family, but are as compassionate as family, cannot care for them. Now, supporters of this bill cite the need to protect young women from overreaching adults who may attempt to assist them, against their will, in traveling into other States where there is no requirement of parental notification or consent. If this was the case, then I would be in support of this legislation. However, a closer look at the facts show young women in this Nation are not under attack from such ruthless adults. In fact, most young women involve one or both parents in decision-making, and in those cases where a parent is not involved, women turn to trusted relatives or family friends who often provide guidance to them during a very difficult period in their lives. Yet, this bill would criminalize the actions of these compassionate people. I am troubled, because if we are serious about teaching young women to make rational decisions, then why is this Congress proposing a measure that does little more than complicate an already delicate situation? It is our job, Mr. Speaker, as I see it, to ensure that there is no element of coercion in this very serious decision. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, which would punish those people who would coerce those people to travel across State lines, where there is no requirement, and oppose H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, which in actuality, instead of actually helping, does in reality hurt and harm our children.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the most honorable gentleman from Utah for his most gracious concession speech. Those of us in Chicago spent a lot of time on the edge of our seats. As a matter of fact, we had to put our hospital emergency rooms on alert because so many of our people were about to have heart attacks thinking that Utah might win. Well, the fact of the matter is that they are both great and outstanding basketball teams who gave America many delights and many thrills. So we want to congratulate the Utah Jazz for being superworthy opponents, and we want to acknowledge their great contribution to the game of basketball. We want to thank Scottie Pippen, who happens to be my home boy. We both grew up in the State of Arkansas, 12 miles from each other, and I want to thank Scottie for this basketball. But I also want to make a presentation to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) so that he will always remember that the Chicago Bulls are indeed number one and that Chicago is a first class city and a world class town. So on behalf of the Chicago Bulls and all of the people of Chicago, I want to present to the gentleman this Chicago Bulls cap to keep forever and forever and I thank him so very much.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Neumann amendment to the farm bill which puts a price support level of $550 per ton on peanuts. This amendment represents a modest step in the direction of reform. It does not end their program or pull the rug out from under peanut farmers. However, it does send a message to the peanut, confectionery and bakery industries in districts and States like mine, Illinois, that they need not continue to pay an inflated price for peanuts as they operate in more than 50 locations, employ over 15,000 people and generate more than $600 million in annual payroll compensation to workers. It is difficult to find anything unique or in the national interest which demands that peanuts get special preferential treatment over other commodities such as wheat, corn, grains, sorghum, barley, oats, soybeans, rice and cotton, all of which have been transitioned to the free market. Mr. Chairman, the area that I come from, Chicago, is the hub of confectionery and peanut product manufacturing. I urge that this amendment be supported. It is good for business, it is good for America.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman very much.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. While I understand that not every project that is requested can be funded, the AGD project is an extremely important one. Congress has already recognized the critical role plant genomic research plays in the improvement of crop production and increased productivity. I am hopeful that projects like the AGD, which received such vigorous support for funding from so many Members of this body but were not specifically funded in this bill, be given special consideration for funding as we move to conference. I would appreciate a response, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, first of all, let me commend them for the outstanding work they have done on bringing this bill to the floor, and also especially for recognizing the unique problems and needs of African-American farmers. I would like to bring to the Members' attention and to the attention of the floor a project that has significant support but was not included for funding in this bill. The AGD project is a plant genome sequencing project being undertaken by Loyola University of Chicago, in conjunction with the University of Illinois at Chicago. This is an important project that has positive implications for agriculture and agribusinesses, both in the United States and abroad. Back on March 16 Members of this body, both Republicans and Democrats, even members of the Committee on Appropriations, requested that specific funding be made available for this project. However, it is my understanding that except in very limited circumstances, no new projects were funded under the research and educational activities account. I would ask the gentlewoman, is that correct?

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend and congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and actually all of the members of the committee for the outstanding bipartisan manner in which we arrived at bringing this legislation to the floor today. As a matter of fact, many people throughout America recognize drug use and abuse as having gotten out of hand and as a real menace to society. Therefore, I rise in support of this legislation, and I would note, Mr. Speaker, first of all, that this is a voluntary demonstration project which provides opportunities for small businesses to be meaningfully engaged in efforts to reduce drug use and create safe work environments. This program is obviously no panacea. However, it is a positive step in the right direction. Therefore, I urge support for it. It provides testing for not only workers but also for managers, for supervisors, for everybody in the workplace. Therefore, no one can accuse it of being discriminatory. We know that drug use and abuse continue to plague America, and we need bold efforts to really rid it. There are those who would say that this is a minor approach, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every step that we take moves us closer to the goal and the goal is to have a drug-free environment. I commend the sponsors. I commend again the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and all of my colleagues for an outstanding piece of work and a meaningful piece of legislation:

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

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

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague may very well have captured the real spirit and essence of where the sense of this House might be. I would be the first to agree that the Postal Service has been operating with a level of efficiency, a level of effectiveness, and has, indeed, been turning a profit, which is what we would like to see all businesses do. By no stretch of the imagination would I want to suggest that I or any of my colleagues would be seeking an increase, as a matter of fact, especially when we talk about not-for-profits who are hard-pressed and hard hurt, even especially when we are talking about some of our businesses and commercial interests that also must, in fact, thrive as well as survive. I agree with my colleague that setting the rates is a very complex matter. I would have been pleased to hear the dialogue, the discussion. I would have been pleased to hear from the Board of Governors if they were to make such a decision, or from the Rate Commission, their rationale for even making such a proposal. Knowing full well that it was nothing more than a proposal, I would have appreciated that dialogue and that information. The power of this House reminds me of a discussion I heard the other day about three umpires who were discussing how they call close balls and strikes. The first umpire said, well, let me tell you, all of the close ones, with me, are balls. The second umpire said, well, let me tell you, with me, all of the close ones are strikes. The third umpire said, well, let me tell you, as far as I am concerned, none of them ain't nothing till I call them. I think that is the way it is with this House. We can hear proposals, we can hear ideas, we can hear what others would have to say, but the bottom line or the final word is, indeed, ours. So I am not in opposition to the concept to the idea or even the bottom line. We would have just appreciated more opportunity to engage in the dialogue in our subcommittee and to have had an opportunity to more thoroughly explore the concept.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The gentleman mentioned SEIU organizing, and I am reminded of an incident that recently happened in my community where I was just totally saddened. There was an effort to organize a group of hospital workers. Some members of the African American community took the position that why should blacks join a labor union. They sort of launched a campaign by saying, well, the unions have not done anything for African Americans. I was pained, because I was saying to myself, ``How little you actually know. How little you really understand.'' A. Philip Randolph, who put together the Sleeping Car Porters, who became a group of very dignified individuals who traveled all over America taking not only information, not only doing their work, but oftentimes taking black newspapers to parts of the country where there were not any, taking the Chicago Defender, the Pittsburgh Courier, the Chronicle, papers and information. So I just want to commend you, again, for putting together this opportunity for us to continue to raise our voices, to continue to recognize the need to implement those men and women who are on the firing lines every day, working to raise the quality of life and the level of living not only for themselves, but for all of America. I certainly am pleased to join with the gentleman. I want to see the minimum wage raised to what becomes what we call a livable wage. I think America will flourish as we continue to organize and develop our people.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. As I listened to you and the gentlewoman, you just sort of sparked some memories of mine. And especially as we talked about how much a part of our democracy union organizing and the development of labor unions is. I am reminded that Benjamin Franklin, one of the fathers of the country, father of the Constitution, Franklin organized the printer's union and one of the very first unions that existed. I mean Benjamin Franklin, even then, understanding the need for people to come together. Then we go down the line, Franklin Delano Roosevelt etched the right to organize into the legal component of our country, of our country. Martin Luther King was actually organizing sanitation workers in Memphis when he was killed. So there has always been a relationship between the quest for overall freedom and development of all people in this country and the organization of labor unions. Actually, Benjamin Franklin was also an abolitionist, so there was an easing merging of the recognition of both. One of the reasons, I think, that other nations with all of our problems, with all of our needs, but one of the reasons that other nations often seek to emulate us is because we have this ongoing component of struggle, never ending, always becoming, always recognizing, yes, we have made a lot of progress, we have come a long way, but there is still great distances to go. We see plant closings all over America. We see individuals who have been displaced by the hundreds and thousands. An interesting statistic, the individuals who are displaced, generally, many of them never ever reach the point of earning the same amount of money afterwards that they were earning before they lost their basic job.