Danny Davis

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an icon for human rights.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2792 is a harsh, unfair bill. It would undermine the foundation of American justice, innocent until proven guilty, and it would do so for Americans who are impoverished and already at a severe disadvantage because of age, disability, education, race, and ethnicity. It would strip people of basic income, in many cases all they have to live on, based on a mere accusation. I reject the majority's contention that people in nursing homes, people with dementia and cognitive impairments, and others with nowhere else to turn will not be harmed by this bill because of the very limited authority current law gives the Social Security commissioner to issue good cause exemptions. We know the good cause process is complicated and very difficult to navigate. Not surprisingly, the last time the policy was in effect, only a tiny fraction of the people who lost their basic income were able to follow the instructions in the six-page letter from SSA and apply for relief, the good cause process that the majority repeatedly touts, as few as 10 days before benefit termination. SSI recipients have extremely limited financial resources and are severely disabled, elderly. Resolving errors within the criminal justice system is a long process that typically must be done in the geographic jurisdiction of the court and necessitates legal costs. The goal of H.R. 2792 is the same: raise $2.1 billion by cutting off benefits for tens of thousands of impoverished, elderly, and disabled people, be they cognitively impaired, victims of mistaken identity, facing homelessness, those who committed minor offenses, or those who are too poor to pay their court fees and fines. Mr. Speaker, there are no protections in this bill. There is no reason, no rational benefit, but there are instances where individuals will be forced to suffer even more than they currently do, so let's not cut off their Social Security Income benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, following the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who said it is easier to build strong families, strong children, than to repair broken men, I introduced my first bipartisan home visiting bill over a decade ago, in 2005. Since 2005, home visiting has been uniquely bipartisan--until today. Research is clear. Home visiting makes kids and families stronger, healthier, and safer. In my home State of Illinois, MIECHV improved program coordination, reinforced the emphasis on proven models, and expanded availability of services. Unfortunately, the majority's approach has rejected bipartisanship and made timely reauthorization of home visiting less likely. H.R. 2824 presents substantial cuts to home visiting and threatens the effectiveness of services for vulnerable children and families. Equally bad, the rule under which we are considering this bill conditions home visiting help to vulnerable families on harming seniors and persons with disabilities. Although we are not voting on that provision today, the rule we are considering this bill under makes it an inescapable part of it. I join with over 110 civil rights, disability, and aging agencies to strongly oppose the Republican effort to pay for home visiting services that strengthen vulnerable children by stripping certain low-income seniors and those with severe disabilities of basic income they need to survive. H.R. 2824 also is inconsistent with bipartisan Senate legislation introduced last week, which rejected the most controversial and problematic changes in H.R. 2824 in order to keep what works. So what should the House have done instead of H.R. 2824? 826 organizations urged the House and Senate leaders to ``reauthorize this important program for 5 years, with a doubling of funding from $400 million, annually, to $800 million, annually, to allow States, territories, and Tribes to expand these services to more children and families.'' Yet H.R. 2824 fails to increase funding by even one penny. Currently, MIECHV dollars serve only about 6 percent of eligible families and less than 50 percent of eligible Tribes. I tried to offer a fully paid-for alternative to double funding for home visiting over 5 years without harmful policy changes but was not allowed a vote in committee or on the floor. One of the most harmful policy changes is a new ``State match'' requirement, which would be in addition to the ``maintenance of effort'' requirement already in law. Just as with their failed healthcare bill, this Republican bill pushes their fight to make States pay more for services, while harming vulnerable children and families as collateral damage. There is no doubt that the State match in this bill will reduce home visiting in many States and Tribes, cut services, and harm families. The Republican bill further undermines successful home visiting by changing it from a program to improve child development and parent- child relationships to a failed jobs program. Defining a core outcome of MIECHV as increased employment and earnings will gut Federal home visiting. Not one--not one--of the evidence-based models is a job training program. Not one. This bill says, if any program wants to improve economic self- sufficiency, it shall include employment and earnings. Further, the bill applies stringent, unrealistic outcome standards. H.R. 2824 is failure by design for home visiting. Later today, I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Pascrell's amendment to strike this change. After a decade of bipartisan efforts to increase Federal funds for home visiting, I am deeply saddened that H.R. 2824 now is the House Republican priority list for cutting funding, reducing services, and undermining the infrastructure that so many have worked to build. I unequivocally oppose this harmful bill and its discriminatory pay-for, joining the good company of the NAACP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Justice in Aging, National Women's Law Center, and the Arc of the United States, to name just a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2824 so that we can move quickly on to a bipartisan approach which builds on home visiting's considerable strength. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has long been a champion on these issues.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Chair, we know that home visiting works. There is no doubt about it. It is evidence based. Nobody has spoken anything that one would say it was not needed. It works for families and children in communities across our country. We agree about that on a bipartisan basis. So we should not be here today debating a partisan bill, a bill that home visiting experts say poses a risk to the program's survival. We should be moving forward on a bipartisan bill without policy changes that might shut down home visiting in some communities or set it up for failure. I hope that my colleagues will vote for the amendments being offered today that will improve the bill, but I also have some concerns about the State match. No matter what we say, think of States and territories that have just been devastated by the floods and hurricanes. It is going to be very difficult for them to come up with the match money to keep some programs alive. So I hope that my colleagues will vote for the amendments being offered today that will improve the bill. I regret that there will not be enough of them to make this the bill that we had hoped it would be. Madam Chairwoman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, activism is often described as a theory or practice based on militant action, a state of being active, engaged, participating, dedicated consistent, promoting change, never-ending, always going. All of these words describe teacher, policewoman, law enforcement expert, college professor, friend, humanitarian and much more. I could keep on writing for hours and would not adequately describe what Pat Hill has meant to me and countless others. She was an inspiration, a role model, a serious fighter for freedom, equality, and justice. Pat, has fought the good fight, has earned the victory and may her soul rest in peace.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further strengthen the protections against displacement of current employees. I think it is a goal that we all share to make sure that this bill expands employment, rather than just changing who is employed. I plan to support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support H.R. 2842, the Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act, which is better known as TANF. This important bill modernizes the TANF Contingency Fund to promote effective job training programs, such as subsidized jobs, career pathways, and apprenticeship programs. Research is clear. Subsidized employment, career pathways, and apprenticeship programs successfully engage people in employment, especially those who have been unsuccessful in finding paid employment through their efforts. Further research on past TANF subsidized employment programs document that these initiatives increase employment and earnings both while individuals worked in a subsidized job as well as after the program ended. Also, studies show that States operated these programs that provided tremendous benefit at very reasonable cost. Many States used the TANF Emergency Funds to establish effective subsidized employment programs. Using these TANF Emergency Funds in Illinois, former Governor Pat Quinn implemented the very successful Put Illinois to Work program that directly created over 26,000 jobs, helping close to 5,000 employees in Illinois. Nationally, the TANF Emergency Funds created 260,000 jobs. Good subsidized employment programs have three characteristics that make them an attractive part of TANF: they are able to increase employment quickly; they help some of the individuals who face the greatest challenges enter the workforce and stay there; and, when funded on a large scale, they can help boost local economies. For these reasons, Democrats have proposed subsidized employment within TANF for years. My friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore, initially proposed allowing subsidized employment in TANF via her RISE Act many years ago. I embraced her idea in my Responsible Fatherhood bill, and I am pleased to join with Representative Curbelo on this effort. If we are truly committed to helping families work their way out of poverty, we will need to do much more to strengthen TANF. We will need to ensure that States actually spend TANF money on TANF recipients. We need to improve access to education and training, critical changes that both Republican and Democratic witnesses have emphasized over and over again. We need to improve childcare so parents can actually go to work. This bill is a good bill. It makes a small, positive step forward on our path to more comprehensive improvements to TANF. I strongly support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has worked on these issues for many, many terms and many years.

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the life and the legacy of an outstanding resident of my community who served in World War II, which is a long time ago, but he also became an outstanding citizen, steeped in the Lutheran church, provided resources to the community where he lived and worked, so I commend Mr. Luke Newman, and I just simply say that we have enjoyed knowing him.