Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. It is my pleasure now to yield such time as she may consume to the author of this measure, the delegate from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he might consume to the author of this measure, Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts on this very thoughtful measure, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. It is my pleasure to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), the author of this measure.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlelady for her introduction of this very thoughtful measure, I urge its passage, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. I rise in support of the Richmond amendment and in opposition to H.R. 2584, the Interior and Environment appropriations, and I do so because we cannot afford to make such drastic cuts to programs that benefit our Nation's drinking water, deplete our air pollution standards, and reduce the beautiful landscape. For example, in Illinois, where I live, the drinking water systems face a required investment of $13.5 billion over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities and comply with safe drinking regulations. In 2009, total Federal funding for drinking water was less than $3 billion, which included a one-time $2 billion infusion of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Within Cook County, a large portion of my district, we can take only half an inch of rainwater before flooding takes place. This means sewer water and other contaminants flood both the streets and homes. We cannot afford to reduce the health and safety of our citizens, and we cannot disrupt our environment. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding, urge support of his amendment, and urge that we defeat the overall appropriation bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whenever I hear a Member of Congress proposing austerity as a fix for any or all of our Nation's economic problems, whether the problems are real or perceived, my first reaction is ``austerity for who?'' The fact is that in recent years we've been condemning more and more Americans to austerity then ever before while at the same time we continue to hand out tax breaks and fat government contracts for the wealthiest Americans, and the largest and wealthiest corporations. After getting bailed out, the profits at the largest financial institutions have recovered and then some--bonuses for their CEOs have recovered, and then some, but this Congress refuses to ask those institutions and those CEOs, and others like them, to give back just a little. The latest census data dramatically shows how after African Americans had made significant gains in the 1950s and '60s, progress began to stall in the 1970s. Four decades after the civil rights movement, blacks still earn only 57 cents and Latinos earn 59 cents for each $1 of white median family income in our country. The contrast is even starker for net worth. That is, the total value of investments, savings, homes, and other property, minus debt. Blacks hold only 10 cents of net wealth and Latinos 12 cents for every $1 that whites hold. Out of the 43.6 million Americans living below the poverty threshold, 9.9 million of those are African Americans. Meanwhile, the latest unemployment rates are, to say the least, grim. Overall, African American unemployment, 16.2 percent; African American men, 17 percent; black teenagers, about 40 percent--and this Congress can't find the votes to extend unemployment insurance. I say that our policies must reflect the needs of those who are most vulnerable. We must provide opportunity for the needy and not just the greedy. When I see that the median annual Social Security benefit for a 65- year-old single African American woman is $10,680 which puts the median benefit for African American woman seniors just above the 2010 poverty line for individual seniors, an obscenely low $10,458. And when I couple that with the knowledge that nearly half--45.6 percent--of non- married African American women aged 65 older rely on Social Security for all of their income and 54.1 percent rely on it for 90 percent of their income or more. And, worst of all when I recall that non-married African American women seniors already suffer from high rates of poverty and near-poverty, nearly half--47.8 percent--of African American women living alone have an income under 125 percent of poverty, and one-third--33 percent--have income below 100 percent of the poverty line . . . Well, I just have to say to those who are talking of reducing Social Security benefits, or the annual Social Security COLAs, or raising the age for collecting Social Security ``austerity for who?'' When I pick up the paper every morning and have to read over and over that home foreclosures were two-and-a-half times above the 2001 rate by the end of 2010 and that some 3.7 million homes are in danger of foreclosure and this Congress, instead of addressing the epidemics of unemployment and foreclosure, plays politics with raising the debt ceiling; I can't help but remember that, for all the hubbub about the size of government and Federal spending, the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion between 2001 and 2008 and the two wars begun by President Bush added another $1 trillion to the deficit and Bush Administration's policy of deregulation of the financial markets led ultimately to the bursting of the housing bubble which triggered the Great Recession which not only sapped our federal budget, but have decimated state and local budgets in every corner of the nation. I have to demand of those risking default and tipping the nation into depression ``austerity for who?'' I have to wonder why we aren't talking about the fact that since the recession officially ended in June 2009, private payrolls have increased by more than 1 million workers, still nowhere close to putting 14 million Americans back to work, but State and local government payrolls for teachers, fire-fighters, police officers, public health workers and other critical services have declined by 493,000--cutting the number of jobs created almost in half while the loss of those good jobs reverberate throughout the local economies. My obvious question is ``austerity for who?'' I wonder if some Members of Congress just don't know that Medicaid covered half of all Black children in the United States and nearly two- thirds (64%) of low-income Black children. Medicaid covers over a third (35%) of African Americans in fair or poor health and 59% of African Americans living with HIV/AIDS. Shouldn't we expect and require of those who are proposing to slash Medicaid an answer to: ``austerity for who?'' I am just as concerned about balancing the Federal budget as any Member of this Congress, but there are a lot of ways to do that. The Peoples' Budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus would get us to a balanced budget and would put us on the road to paying down the debt and lay the foundation for a healthy, sustainable and just economy. I've reached the conclusion that we do need a Constitutional Amendment, not a Balanced Budget Amendment, but one that would require Members of Congress who glibly propose austerity as a quick and dirty solution to every challenge which comes over the horizon to explain to the American People, truthfully and fully, in each and every case, ``austerity for who?''

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast votes on the following legislative measure. If I were present for roll call votes, I would have voted in the following manner for the following vote: Roll 534, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Tierney of Massachusetts Amendment. I would have voted ``aye'' on this amendment that would restore U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts to Fiscal Year 2011 levels, offset with a $140,000,000 reduction to Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy activities and a $92,790,500 reduction to Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research and Development activities. Roll 535, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Graves of Missouri Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account by $1.75 million and increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $1 million. Roll 536, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Scalise of Louisiana Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on that amendment that would increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $6.36 million and reduce the expenses account for Supervision and Administration by the same amount. Roll 537, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Woodall of Georgia Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $4,900,000 and increases the spending reduction account by the same amount. Roll 538, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: McClintock of California Amendment I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would zero out all funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in addition to eliminating or severely reducing another 13 accounts in the bill, all of which would cut over 10 percent from the total funding in the bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker: Whereas, the Almighty God has called to his eternal rest, Mr. Willard Overton; and Whereas, Willard Overton was born on April 9, 1935 to the parentage of Arthur Overton Sr. and Osca C. Presley in Chicago, Illinois and was the 7th of 9 children; and Whereas, Mr. Overton received his formal education in the Chicago Public Schools and worked for 31 years at AT&T Western Electric Hawthorne Works and retired at the age of 47, as the youngest person ever to retire from this company; and Whereas, he received many awards and commendations for his outstanding works; and Whereas, Willard was a very talented, bright, accomplished, witty and intelligent person who was committed to protecting and improving the quality of life; and Whereas, he was actively involved with Provident St. Mel High School and was a regular and skilled debater on WVON and other radio talk shows: now be it Resolved, that we pause and pay tribute to Mr. Willard Overton on a very outstanding and productive life. On a personal note, Bill's niece Levogne and my wife Vera were best friends and worked together in the Business Department at Collins High School; brother Ray made my first political sign and Al had a variety store in front of my office on Cicero Avenue and was a benefactor to many of our community activities; and niece Crystal is a community and political activist who is involved with many of the public things that I do. A great family, I am proud to know them.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to thank the gentlemen for accepting the amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment, which cuts funding to subcontractors in the U.S. Defense Department. This amendment would prevent funding from being used by subcontractors hired by the Defense Department who engage in unlawful activities of human trafficking and labor abuses on military bases. At a time where we are going across the board looking for all the budget cuts we can find to help reduce the national debt, it only makes sense to eliminate funding to these nefarious individuals who are performing atrocious acts on our military soil and are not representing what this great country stands for. We as Americans cannot fund human trafficking nor can we allow labor abuse; these abuses are not what this country stands for and it's our job as lawmakers to do everything in our power to put an end to such crimes. We can send a loud message with this amendment that the United States does not stand for such horrible crimes. So I join my colleagues in support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment to H.R. 2219.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Sunday, Father's Day, June 19, 2011, Real Men Cook was once again presented by the nonprofit, Real Men Charities, Inc. for the 22nd consecutive year. Real Men Cook is the largest national service day event on Father's Day in the United States, demonstrating that real men are nurturing: providing sustenance, care, love, and work to build healthy families and communities. It all began when Kofi Moyo and Yvette Moyo were joined by 10 women and 100 men in 1989 to create a commonsense way to increase male involvement, and to celebrate and demonstrate the rewards of family and community service. Real Men Cook family celebrations are the nation's longest-running urban Father's Day family event, featuring male volunteers from neighborhoods in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC, raising funds, and devoting time and resources to cook and serve samples of their favorite dishes to help nonprofit organizations. Real Men Cook has transformed Father's Day globally into an exciting and highly anticipated day, growing the tradition of individual and group service and family celebrations around food. Real Men Cook turns the spotlight on the bonus fathers and father-figures who step in when biological fathers are not involved in the lives of children, and encourages the celebration of those men. Real Men Cook generates national media attention each Father's Day, recognizing fathers and father-figures beyond grandfathers and uncles to coaches, ministers, teachers, neighbors and any man who has donated time and talent to help children and Real Men Cook events have been responsible for raising more than $1 million for the Boys & Girls Clubs, Community Mental Health Council, the South Side YMCA, foundations, museums and family service organizations. In addition, Real Men Cook, through Real Men Charities, presents a Health & Wellness Pavilion in several cities on Father's Day, providing free health screenings, nutritional education, and fresh fruits and vegetables. This year, Real Men Cook is co-sponsored by Verizon, K&G Fashion Superstore, Illinois Lottery, Moo & Oink, Provident Hospital of Cook County, the Urban Health Initiative of the University of Chicago Medical Centers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. I take special pride and satisfaction from my own longtime participation in Real Men Cook and I would encourage all Americans to follow this family tradition of volunteerism, family and community contribution on this Father's Day and Father's Days to come.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2112, because of the deep cuts to the Women, Infants and Children's program. I've always been told that you can measure the greatness of a society by how well it treats its young, how well it treats its old, and how well it treats those who have difficulty caring for themselves. All of us know that there is no way that children, infants, can adequately care for themselves. The WIC program serves pregnant women through pregnancy up to 6 weeks after birth, or after pregnancy ends; breast-feeding women up to the infant's first birthday; and non-breast-feeding women up to 6 months after the birth of an infant or after the pregnancy ends, as well as infants up to their first birthday and children up to age 5. Poverty and an identified medical or nutritional risk are two eligibility requirements. Nutritious foods, nutrition education, and referrals to maternal and child health services are among the program's benefits. WIC serves 45 percent of all infants born in the United States. Now, there is no way that anyone can suggest that any of these individuals, especially the children, had anything at all to do with their level of poverty or the fact that there is not nutritious food available to them. And even if there were not food deserts, they wouldn't have the money to purchase what was available. How one can reconcile taking milk out of the mouth of babes, or how one can suggest that some way or another we are spending money when, as the gentlelady from Wisconsin pointed out, the additional health care cost resulting as a result of the individual's not having basic food and care far outweighs any money that you could possibly spend. And so it's not a matter of spending. It's a matter of investing. How do you invest in America? You invest by providing for those who have the greatest amount of need. I know that we debate whether or not we are spending more than we're taking in. Well, there's a way to rectify that. We just take in more. We just charge people more who can afford to pay. I don't believe in overspending. I don't believe in having huge deficits. But I don't believe in seeing people suffer and die because the society in which they live will not provide for them the basic necessities of life. I urge we vote against this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Foxx amendment and to the underlying bill, H.R. 1216, to amend the Public Health Service Act, to convert funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations. This bill would eliminate mandatory funding that establishes new or expanding programs for medical residents in teaching health centers and unobligated funds previously appropriated to the grant program. Under policies currently being considered by some in the House majority, academic medical centers and teaching hospitals face as much as $60 billion in cuts over the next 10 years to Medicare funding for indirect medical education and direct graduate medical education. These cuts would reduce indirect medical education payments by 60 percent from the current level of 5.5 percent to 2.2 percent, capping direct graduate medical education payments at 120 percent of the national average salary paid to residents. It would reduce Federal funding for medical residency training, as wrong public policy. Given our present situation with the shortage of primary care and family practice physicians, and the expected future growth of our population, it makes no sense for the Republicans to end the present structure of Medicare. In 2010, 47.5 million people were covered by Medicare. We have 39.6 million at the age of 65 and older and 7.9 million disabled. The Republican budget plan is a voucher plan that would raise health care costs and would immediately create higher costs for prescription drugs for our seniors and disabled. This plan would end Medicare's entitlement of guaranteed benefits and promote rationing by private insurance companies, who would make decisions on approving or disapproving treatments for our seniors and the disabled. The Medicare program is efficiently managed, devoting less than 2 percent of its funding to administrative expenses. Medicare has dramatically improved the quality of life for seniors and the disabled. It is the largest source of health coverage in the Nation. Democrats are committed to strengthening Medicare, not tearing it down. Under the guise of reform, Republicans desire to end Medicare as we know it today. Last year, the Republicans promised the American people that jobs would be their number one priority. Well, I ask, where are the jobs? But, instead, they want to make draconian cuts to programs to help seniors and the disabled, the middle class, the poor and the needy, and yet provide tax cuts of over $1 trillion to millionaires and billionaires. And so we ask, where are the jobs and where are the opportunities? The estimated 1-year impact of anticipated graduate medical education cuts for Illinois is $144 million for indirect medical education and $39 million for graduate and medical education, which totals $183 million. If there are no doctors, there can be no medical care. I urge that we vote against these measures.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much. Let me, first of all, commend you for the tremendous leadership that you provide to this effort each Monday evening. As I was thinking about it, I was thinking of the fact that people who observe racing oftentimes describe horses in two ways. Sometimes they're the show horse, and then there's the workhorse. I guess when it comes to working as a Member of Congress, I don't think you have any peer. As a matter of fact, you have led our efforts. We came into the Congress at the same time. We're classmates. You've led our efforts on health care. You've led our efforts on making sure that natural resources were divided in a serious way, and you're leading our efforts as the first vice chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. So I am pleased to join with you this evening. As we consider policies to help Americans and our Nation recover from the worst economic crisis in our history--and I never forget this gentleman--I remember something that Dr. Martin Luther King said at one time. He said that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. I agree with him. This is indeed a time of challenge for our country with a current unemployment rate of 9.9 percent, an expected rate of over 8 percent for the next several years, and record levels of food insecurity and foreclosures. As in many other States, the average unemployment rate in Illinois during 2010 for blacks was above 15 percent, above 13 percent for Latinos. And with persistently high unemployment numbers, the need for Federal unemployment assistance remains a vital lifeline for millions of our citizens. In January of 2011, the share of unemployed workers who had been without work for over 6 months was 43.8 percent--one of the highest percentages on record--translating into about 6.2 million workers remaining unemployed for longer than 6 months. In April 2011, just under 185,000 Illinoisans received extended unemployment benefits, with an estimated 100,000 Illinoisans exhausting the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment assistance in 2010. Although our economy is gradually gaining, we cannot ignore the fact that the economic crisis remains a daily reality for millions of Americans, nor can we ignore the fact that the crisis unevenly affects African Americans and Latino Americans. During times of challenge, I sincerely believe that the mantle of responsibility for caring for the poor and struggling falls squarely on the shoulders of government, not primarily on the charity of individual citizens. In such times of hardship and strife, government leaders should extend help to the needy, not advance the wealth of the most secure. For this reason, I am deeply disappointed in the Republican bill moving in the House that would hurt both our economy and the long- term unemployed, some of the most vulnerable citizens in our Nation. The Republican plan would essentially curtail assistance to Americans struggling with prolonged unemployment so that States could lower their debt to the Federal Government. This approach is bad for the economy and bad for Americans. Unemployment insurance is one of the most effective methods of stimulating the economy, because the unemployed workers spend most of the money that they get on critical purchases, such as food and housing, other than the alternatives offered by the Republican bill. If we allow this $31 billion to go to State debt reduction, there is no new economic activity, and millions of families will not be able to put food on their tables or roofs over their heads. It is not only the 4 million workers who currently receive long-term unemployment benefits who will suffer; it is our businesses as well. The retail sector has been hard hit by this recession. Cutting unemployment benefits for millions of people would take a tremendous toll on these businesses as well. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current law generates approximately $40 billion in economic activity and creates about 322,000 jobs. Enacting the Republican approach would dramatically reduce the economic stimulus of our Federal Government and cut jobs. Unemployment benefits only provide an average of $290 a week, which typically replaces only half of the average family's expenses. This support is not a free ride or boon for families; it is a critical lifeline during a national emergency to help our citizens who are suffering. The Wall Street Journal reported that roughly 1 million people across the Nation couldn't find work after exhausting their unemployment benefits. There are about 7 million fewer jobs now than at the beginning of the Great Recession, and the Department of Labor data show that there are over four unemployed Americans for every job. Needing unemployment assistance is about not being able to find work in a weak economy with limited job opportunities. It's not about being lazy. The Republican bill is not a jobs bill. It is a jilting the jobless bill. It pits States that are struggling with large deficits against the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I urge that we continue the fight to secure improvements in this proposal, to protect the hundreds of millions of hardworking Americans who need the government's help to weather the extended storm of economic hardship. I commend you again for your tremendous leadership. Thank you very much for leading this effort.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Providence St. Mel High School, a small high school on the block where I used to live, that sends all of its young people to college and has been doing so for the last 20 years. I congratulate its principal, Dr. Paul Adams, all of the students and their families. Providence St. Mel, what a way to go.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a member of my church, a devoted wife and mother, a Christian woman and a friend to many. Mrs. Ada Lee Patrick was born in Holmes County, Mississippi, in 1948 and migrated with her family to Chicago, Illinois in 1957. She attended the local elementary and high school on the west side of Chicago. She was baptized at the Mt. Carmel Church and later joined new morning star and ultimately new Galilee MBC where she remained until death. Ada met and married Mr. Frank Patrick and together they became proud parents of five children. Mrs. Patrick was actively involved in her church and was known as a cheerful and upbeat person. Her backing was legendary and she is always ready to share encouraging words with everyone. Mr. Speaker, the world is a better place in which to live because of the life and contributions of Mrs. Ada Lee Patrick. May her soul rest in peace and we extend our heartfelt condolences to her husband Frank and other members of her family.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession. Lawyers serve an important role in our society, and yet the legal profession, like many others, is in need of serious improvement in the diversity of its membership. There are a number of individuals and organizations who are working to change that fact, and, thanks to their efforts, there has been progress. Yet the legal profession, which above all should stand for fairness and equality, is still a long way from being open and welcoming to all irrespective of individual characteristics and background. The Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession, a new group with a promising approach to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession, was established in Chicago, Illinois, in September 2009. The Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession is addressing the contrast between the increasingly diverse society in which we live and what certainly appears to be an entrenched lack of diversity and inclusion. The Institute is working to improve diversity and promote inclusion through comprehensive outreach and innovative programs. For example, the Institute asks hard questions and finds the answers to them. Working with legal, judicial, professional, educational, and governmental institutions, the Institute provides programs and tools to promote equity in the legal field. IILP uses a new and, in many ways, unique approach. Its comprehensive programs include lawyers, judges, and law students to address all facets, all practice settings, and all types of diversity within the legal profession. Beyond working to overcome the barriers facing diverse lawyers, it looks at the pipeline for new legal talent. This aspect is key. By helping diverse students become law students, enter the legal profession, and eventually become successful lawyers and judges, the profession will become more diverse and inclusive. A few examples of the work of the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession include a pledge to the profession where lawyers across the country are being asked to dedicate a minimum of 1 day of service to work with young people to educate them about the legal profession and encourage them to join it; Professionalism in Practice, a program where law students and judges learn from each other about the profession and, in doing so, about diversity and inclusion; the ``Business Case for Diversity: Reality or Wishful Thinking?'' a research project that provides the first hard data examining the impact of the business case for diversity and the state of diversity; and, ``The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession,'' which is an annual report and series of symposia designed to educate the bar about its current state, cutting-edge issues surrounding diversity and inclusion and the most promising programs, efforts, and initiatives aimed at making entry into and success within the legal profession more accessible to all. The mission and work of the IILP is an important contribution to social justice in the United States. I consider it an honor to recognize the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession and invite all Members to join me in recognizing them for the importance of their mission and the great work they are undertaking.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to strike the last word. I oppose H.R. 1214, a bill that would repeal mandatory funding for school-based health centers construction. Funding for the school-based health centers will ensure that nearly 2 million children and adolescents across the country will have access to quality comprehensive medical care, mental health services, oral health services, preventive care, social services, and youth development. These centers typically help children and adolescents who often do not have access to family doctors of their own. School-based health centers have demonstrated their successes and accomplishments in attracting harder to reach populations, especially minorities and males and providing crucial services such as mental health care and high-risk behavior screens. Some analysts have reported that 10 out of 21 adolescents were more likely to come to school-based health centers for mental health services than other types of health facilities. When students have access to health centers to receive counseling, they are less likely to miss school or be tardy to class versus those students who do not receive access to similar services. Students perform better in school when they are healthy and ready to learn. Our school-based health centers are cost effective and provide an ideal setting to administer preventative health care to children. Several research studies have shown that school-based health centers help in reducing Medicaid expenditures related to inpatient, drug, and emergency room use, and improvements in health outcome. It is important that we remain committed to funding these health centers and provide the necessary investments in our children and our nation's health. I urge all my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1214.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Forest Witcraft is reported to have said, ``A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove, but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.'' Children make up one-quarter of our population, and they form the foundation of our nation's future. Every parent hopes that their children will fare better than they did--achieve more, experience greater success, and realize the American Dream more fully. As policymakers, we have the ability and responsibility to provide a strong foundation for our youngest citizens to grow into the achievers and leaders of tomorrow. Today, I introduce the Children's Budget Act. It is a bill that is simple in concept--require the President to provide a detailed account of all the Federal funding for children and children's programs. What funding do we actually spend on children? Are we properly addressing the national needs and problems confronting children? Accounting for Federal dollars in this way will help us understand how well we are making the health and well-being of our children a national priority. Currently, even experienced policy analysts have a difficult time determining how much the government invests in children, and therefore how the needs of our children might better be addressed. A few independent groups--such as First Focus, the Brookings Institution, and the Urban Institute--have worked to understand the Federal investment in our children. It is only through their efforts that we have been able to comprehend how recent Federal funding choices have affected children. For example, the children's advocacy group First Focus recently commissioned a report by the Urban Institute to detail how Federal spending on children has changed over the past 45 years. The results of the Kids Share report were startling. In 1960, the children's share of Federal domestic spending--tax policies included-- was 20.1 percent. In 2009, that share had declined to 14 percent--a 30.3 percent overall decline. Together, the Democratically- controlled 111th Congress and the President substantially increased funding for children by $25 billion. The President's FY11 Budget proposed important increases of $6.2 billion in children's spending. In contrast, the Republican FY12 Budget proposal would eliminate all gains from the last several years. To illustrate, the Ryan Budget would create a $150 billion funding gap in the Children's Health insurance program between 2014 and 2021, resulting in an 80 percent hole in the CHIP program and a loss of coverage for approximately 7 million children. Similarly, children bore 22 percent of the cuts in the second Continuing Resolution this year. If children are a national priority, we need to measure our Federal spending so that we can understand if our choices disproportionately harm or protect our children. Without this analysis, policymakers and the public are limited in our ability to know how children fare in funding proposals. I strongly believe the Federal Government should embrace examining our Federal budget by our investment in children. Already, there are several State and local governments who produce a children's budget annually, including Louisiana, Ohio, the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Oregon, and the Cities of Philadelphia and San Francisco. These budgets provide invaluable sources of information that help us understand whether we are meeting our goals for children. Precedent already exists for examining the Federal budget based on key areas of interest, including spending on programs related to homeland security, meteorology, climate, and drug control. By creating a children's budget at the Federal level, we can bring a renewed attention to children's issues and programs and guarantee a fair look at our national investment priorities. A Children's Budget is critical now more than ever, with so many of our children and youth bearing the brunt of our Nation's economic hardship. In 2009, 20.7 percent of children and 23.8 percent of children under age 6 lived below the poverty line in our Nation. My Congressional District--the Seventh District of Illinois--had a staggering 35.5 percent poverty rate among children in 2009. These statistics reflect the need for a children's budget so that policymakers and voters understand whether our investments match the needs of our Nation's youngest citizens. As our Nation continues to face difficult economic times, we should be able to answer the fundamental question ``Is it good for the children?'' The Children's Budget Act would ensure that children are given due consideration whenever the budget is discussed and would provide policymakers, program administrators, and parents with a clear picture of the overall Federal investment in our children. Careful analysis of our spending today helps us improve our efforts for tomorrow. The well-being of our children should be at the top of our national agenda. I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan plan and in favor of the CBC budget. The CBC budget invests heavily in the education of our youngest citizens, from preschool to graduate school. This investment is necessary to ensure that all children receive the world class education they so greatly need and rightly deserve. This investment is necessary to build the early childhood education system. We need to improve school readiness and reduce achievement gaps among students from different backgrounds. This investment is necessary to teach critical math and science skills, to improve graduation rates, and to provide for crucial college preparation programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, all of which are essential for success in our technological world. Madam Chair, education is a civil rights issue, and unless we educate all of our children, this country will never be what it ought to be. I support the CBC budget.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Madam Speaker, you know, I was thinking we are approaching Mother's Day, and I thought of my mother. When it came to budgeting and appropriating money, she did not always have a great deal to work with, but she was a great budget analyst. She was an absolute wizard at crunching numbers, and she was an expert on knowing what worked and what did not. As a matter of fact, she often told us that an ounce of prevention was worth much more than a pound of cure. And so she knew that when it came to health care, prevention measures are worth much more than their weight in gold. She knew that it would be pennywise and pound foolish to cut or reduce the meager resources which we expend towards health education, health awareness, health promotion, and health screening. If we don't think public health activities work, look for some cigarette smoke or cigar smoke in these Chambers. Look at the difference in the cost of treating lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver versus preventing these diseases from occurring. In Illinois, we have a very proactive public health program, and we don't want to see it reduced, diminished or eliminated. Yes, we do need to cut spending, and we are cutting spending, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let's not be penny wise and pound foolish. Let's vote down this rule, and let's vote down H.R. 1217.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1308, a bill to amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act. The bill would extend the termination date of the Commission by 7 months. The Ronald Reagan Commission Act, which became law in the last Congress, created a Federal commission to honor and celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan. The Commission is composed of Senators, Members of Congress, and other government officials, including the Archivist of the United States. Importantly, in these challenging fiscal times, no Federal funds may be expended by the Commission to carry out its duties. Mr. Speaker, the Commission has been functioning for only 9 months, and there are important international and domestic events planned for this summer and fall commemorating President Reagan in which the Commission's participation would be beneficial. As such, I have no objection to the bill before us, which extends the termination date of the Commission from May 31, 2011, to the end of the year, and I would urge Members to vote for this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.