Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the windows and glazing program, which is funded through the Building Technology Category. This program provides funding for a promising new technology with enormous energy saving potential for the commercial windows market. This program would allow the further development of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques for electrochromic technologies. This technology provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat and light that pass through a glass surface providing significant energy conservation opportunities. The Department of Energy estimates that placing this technology on all commercial building windows in the United States would produce yearly energy savings equivalent to the amount of oil that passes through the Alaskan pipeline each year. In recognition of the importance of this technology, the State of Florida has provided $1.6 million toward the advancement of this program, and has allocated an additional $720,000 in the State of Florida Fiscal Year 2001 budget. The program is being undertaken in conjunction with the University of South Florida and utilizes the expertise and patented technology of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. The State of Florida's program has made significant progress toward making electrochromic windows a reality. This program is an excellent example of successful technology transfer from a national laboratory as well as an example of a successful public/private relationship. The Florida program is consistent with industry priorities and goals of the Department of Energy's windows program. I believe this program only helps strengthen our conservation programs. I encourage my colleagues to support this important program.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House of Representatives today simply says that we should withdraw from the World Trade Organization. If my colleagues have listened to the debate today, the question really is not whether we should withdraw, the question is how should we reform the WTO and what types of reforms we should pursue. And the best example that has been cited today widely is the need to have a more open judicial process that more closely mirrors the process that has served us so well in the United States. So the question before the House today is really what tactic should we take in order to pursue reform. And I would suggest that what we should do is stand up and act like leaders; act like leaders, as expected by other countries and by the citizens we represent here today. What they expect us to do is to take specific action and not just simply support some blanket general withdrawal of the WTO. So let us begin to debate the specific types of reforms we need to undertake, and let us pursue our right in the World Trade Organization to lead an effort for a two-thirds vote, to pursue more openness and the other types of reforms we have debated today. And let us use our time on the floor more wisely. Let us debate how we can expand the benefits of trade for everybody, how we can expand the winners circle, how we can begin to open up the benefits of trade for more small- and medium-sized businesses, so that they too can enjoy the benefits of trade. And let us get back to debate on what we can do to be an important partner with our States and our local governments to fund the types of job training and education programs that American workers need today to succeed and survive in this global economy. There are tax credits available; there are programs we know that can work, that can create partnerships between employers and employees so more of the people we represent can succeed in this global economy. That is the debate we ought to be having today. We ought to defeat this resolution and we ought to get back to work.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, we should be making a national priority today reducing class size, and we ought to take the lead to provide some support to our local school districts that want to do this. Anyone who has visited elementary schools today knows that one of the most fundamentally important things we can do is to support the teacher in developing that personal relationship with the student to really excite and engage them about learning. We face major challenges ahead. We are having a problem now retaining a lot of people who have chosen to go into the teaching profession. And what do teachers need and want more than anything? They want control back in their classroom. And we can give control of the classroom back to them by giving them a workable class size, around 20 students per teacher to teach. The third thing we need to keep in mind is we have to hire over 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade, just 7,000 alone in my home, the Tampa Bay area. We are not going to be able to attract the type of teachers we need and keep them unless we can give them a manageable class size and invest in professional development to give them the tools they need to use technology and the curriculum to excite kids about learning. That is why we need to adopt the Obey amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we face, over the next 10 years, a need to hire over 2.2 million new teachers in this country. In my home, the Tampa Bay area, 7,000 new teachers we will need over the next 10 years. The problem is there is already a cut. School districts around the country are already starting to experience a lot of difficulty in attracting qualified teachers. Well, today we can adopt a solution to that. We can adopt an amendment that is a Transition to Teaching Act, that will allow people who aspire to be teachers to go back to school to qualify for up to a $5,000 grant to cover their tuition and fees. In return, they must meet the same high standards that anyone else would need to be certified in their particular State, and they must spend at least 3 years teaching in a school with a high level of poverty, the schools having the greatest difficulty attracting the teachers we need today. Most importantly, we are finding that around the country people that are prepared to move from the boardroom to the classroom, from the police station on Main Street to the school on Main Street, are valuable teachers. They are using their life experience to reach out to kids, to help them get excited and engaged in learning. This amendment adopts the President's budget proposal of $25 million to start this program. It has bipartisan support. It has passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate. This is something we can do today to begin to equip our school districts and States to deal with this teacher shortage problem; not just to replace teachers, but also to bring more quality in the classroom by allowing these professionals to use their life experience to succeed as teachers. Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, the PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) for China Bill, which will open up new markets for our businesses here in the United States. This bill is about breaking down trade barriers abroad and expanding opportunities for American workers. This legislation recognizes the reality of today's global economy and equips our country with the tools necessary to maintain America's leadership throughout the world. International trade is critical to our nation's continued economic expansion. Over I I million jobs in the United States can be attributed to exports. The simple fact that 96% of the world's consumers live outside of our borders is irrefutable evidence that in order to grow our economy, we must grow our exports. In the WTO agreement, the U.S. has won unprecedented concessions from the Chinese that break down barriers to our goods, services, technology products, automobiles and financial services. Our farmers, who have been economically hurting, will be able to sell their agricultural products in China like never before. In Florida, our citrus and fertilizer industry will benefit immensely. In terms of forcing changes in China, this is also a matter of national security. Once China is admitted into the WTO, they will be subject to the rule of law, which will be enforced by more than 130 countries. As we enter the 21st Century, China is on the verge of expanding its regional dominance. I believe it is apparent that the world's most populous nation is simply too influential to ignore. Thus, I believe that our engagement, rather than disengagement, is essential. I think we have a better chance of encouraging reforms with more U.S. citizens bringing our culture, ideas, and freedoms to China rather than isolating them from the rest of the world. With regard to China's cross straits relations, the Taiwan question continues to heighten tensions in the region. Passage of PNTR would allow our country to continue to play a constructive role in diffusing that potentially destabilizing situation. Even Taiwan's leaders recognize the importance of passing PNTR and China's accession to the WTO. Recently, the newly elected President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, stated that, ``We would welcome the normalization of U.S.-China trade relations . . . We look forward to both the People's Republic of China's and Taiwan's accession to the WTO.'' We must respect and address many of the opposing arguments. Opponents argue that we as a nation must send a strong message to China and in many respects I agree. Let there be no mistake about it, forcing China to comply with their commitments will not be an easy task. China must know that we will be vigilant in our efforts to combat human rights abuses, that we will not tolerate acts of aggression towards its neighbors. That is why I commend my colleagues Sandy Levin and Doug Bereuter for all their hard work crafting legislation that will enable our country to closely monitor China's human rights record and compliance with its WTO commitments. In addition, opponents of PNTR argue that only big business will benefit. I disagree. Today more than ever, U.S. businesses are functioning in a global economy, and thanks to the Information Age and the growth of e-commerce, even the smallest of America's businesses are engaging in and thriving from their interactions in international markets. In fact, a rapidly growing number of small and medium sized companies have already expanded their business to take advantage of the opportunities available in China's marketplace. In 1997, 82 percent of all U.S. exporters to China were small and medium sized businesses. That same year, in my home state of Florida, companies with less than 100 employees accounted for 52 percent of all businesses exporting from Florida to China. Furthermore, small and medium sized companies combined accounted for 67 percent of all firms exporting from Florida to China. These figures continue. China's business cannot begin to keep up with the rapidly growing demand of one-fifth of the world's population, leaving international companies an amazing economic opportunity should China open its trade gates. America's strong economy and its wealth of innovative and motivated small and medium sized businesses poises us to be a leader in meeting the product demand of the Chinese. The benefits of increased trade with China both for our nation and the State of Florida are tremendous. Unless we pass PNTR, our businesses and workers will be forced to sit on the sideline and watch our global competitors take advantage of the agreement we negotiated. The effect would be to exclude many of Florida's farmers, insurers, and manufacturers of microchips, chemicals, computers, and software who would benefit from this entirely new level of access. These industries employ thousands of Floridians and have the potential to employ thousands more, but only if we can continue our strong export growth. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that increased global competition will put some industries at risk and that with the overwhelming number of winners there will be some losers. We will have to work hard to ensure every American worker can participate in our global economy. A vote against PNTR will not create a single new job in America, clean up the environment in China, release a single prisoner, nor improve the standard of living for Chinese workers. It will only signal a retreat from the global economy and a surrendering of our nation's leadership in the international arena. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical for the United States. Refusal to pass PNTR would put American workers at a disadvantage. Furthermore, this legislation represents our nation's commitment to remaining engaged, and a rededication to ensuring expanded economic opportunities for American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on PNTR.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate and adopt some form of estate tax relief today, as we should, as was pointed out by the previous speaker. But we also have an obligation to deal with an immediate problem that has developed in our campaign finance reform system which, we have to admit, is rancid. And that immediate problem is a gaping loophole that has developed that is referred to as the section 527 committee, a committee that solicits funds that are intended to be used to influence the outcome of an election and there is absolutely no disclosure whatsoever. As has been alluded to, this is not just a Republican problem. It has started off that way. I am terribly concerned the Democrats will succumb to the temptation to engage in this abuse. We need to stop that before it happens. What is at stake here? What is at stake here is that, when people go out to vote in elections this fall, they have the right to know who is talking to them. People should put their names on their ads if they are attempting to influence the outcome of an election. What is the only substantive argument against this? There are groups that have said that if their names have to go on some of the ads they want to run, they will not run those ads. If they are not willing to put their name on a message that they are sending to the voters, they should not have a right in this country to be engaging in anonymous political advertising. We can put a stop to that today. We can repeal the gift law exemption. With respect to these 527 acts, we can do that. And we can do estate tax relief. Let us do the right thing. Let us defeat the rule, and let us bring it back at the right time, and let us stop this abuse before it gets worse.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight what the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) was referring to by the 527. A lot of times, when an issue comes before Congress, we need to spend a tremendous amount of time collecting information, conducting a hearing, and then acting. But there are those issues that are so compelling and fundamental, we need to act immediately. This is one of them. It is the incredible loophole that is being exploited. I think a lot of criticism has been directed at Republicans, but I think the Democrats could easily succumb to this temptation one of these days, too. So this is a problem that affects every American. It should not have to be characterized as a Democrat or Republican issue. The point is we should have disclosure. I have sat in meetings where groups that attempt to influence this process, which is their constitutional right to do so, said, do not tell us to put our name on a political ad we want to advertise because we will not run the kind of ads we want to run if our name has to be put on them. That is exactly the point. If one is not willing to stand up and associate oneself publicly with a message one is sending to the citizens of this country, one does not deserve the right to put information out there. Because it is clear one is trying to distort and mislead. So what we are offering in our motion to recommit is a very simple proposition. If one is going to engage in this type of political advertising, there ought to be disclosure of where the money came from. There ought to be disclosure for the good of the citizenry.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention some of the points today about which I think there is not nearly as much disagreement as we have had on others. The first is I think it is perfectly clear that we have to engage China in commerce. These are the ties that bind. This is a country with a population in excess of 1.2 billion people and growing. I think it is terribly important to point out that the Taiwanese, who have been under as much risk as anyone in the world with China's behavior, strongly support the adoption of this bill and view it as a very important step towards achieving a more peaceful resolution of their differences over the next decade. I think it is fair to say that there is no question that the concessions the United States has extracted to further access to China are very, very strong. In Florida, my home State, there will be significant reductions in tariffs on orange juice, grapefruit concentrate, and fertilizer. And the fertilizer industry will begin to privatize over time in China. Who will benefit under this agreement? In 1997, 82 percent of the exporters to China were small and medium-sized businesses. In my State, Florida, in 1997, 52 percent of the exporters to China were small businesses, businesses with 100 employees or less. We are bringing China into the rule of law. One of the things that separates those that oppose this bill from those that support it is how quickly can we do that. It will take time to change attitudes, to change systems. And make no mistake about it, we will have to fight like the dickens to enforce these rules. Finally, in closing, we need to respect and address the concerns that have been raised in opposition to this bill, and I believe the Bereuter-Levin proposal will do that and would strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, somebody very wise once said that everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own version of the facts. We need to get the facts down here today because the one thing we owe to the public is to have an open and honest debate about exactly what we are doing. The major fact here that is going unstated is the 10-year price tag associated with this tax cut. Now today there is the admission that we are talking about $175 billion tax cut over 5 years. Last year we debated a $792 billion tax cut over 10 years that was fiscally irresponsible and wildly unpopular, rejected by the American public. By the math we have done over here, what we are debating today, but we are not willing to say, is an $875 billion tax cut over 10 years. It undermines everything that has been said on this floor about paying down the debt and spending. I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget if he wants to correct me and tell us what the real price tag is over 10 years on this tax cut. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), I would be happy to yield to him if he would like to tell me what the price tag is over 10 years on the tax cut contemplated by this budget resolution we are going to vote on.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this remains the dirty little secret about this budget resolution, that we do not have the 10-year price tag associated with the tax cut, and I stand on my assertion it is an $875 billion tax cut which undermines what should be our Nation's highest priority, paying down the debt. In 1999, we spent $230 billion on interest payments alone on this $3.47 trillion Federal debt. That is 13 percent of our total spending. It is more than we spend on Medicare. It is slightly less than what we spend on national defense. Paying down the Federal debt should be our highest priority. It contributes to lower interest rates. It allows us to preserve the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for the retirement of the baby boomers, and we cannot do that and sustain an $875 billion tax cut. We ought to be willing to talk about it. We ought to be honest with the American public. We ought to do responsible tax cuts, but we ought to pay down the Federal debt first.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, last year the Republicans in the House of Representatives beat their chests mightily to talk about a $792 billion tax cut over 10 years. That tax cut was so fiscally irresponsible that it was rejected throughout the country. We are back this year with the same situation, except now we will not even talk about it. In our Committee on the Budget hearing I asked our chairman, what was the price tag over 10 years for this tax cut? I could not get a straight answer. But today, I understand that number has been put out here before the body. It is $200 billion over 5 years. Now, the question that the public deserves to have the answer to here, and we ought to answer it for ourselves, is what is the 10-year cost of this tax cut? Well, last year the $792 billion tax cut was $156 billion over 5 years. We are talking about $200 billion over 5 years. So the math is pretty simple. We are looking at a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Now, there are those up here that think we ought to use the projected surplus for massive tax cuts and some that want to go on a spending spree, and I reject both positions. We should take the lion's share of the projected surplus and use it to pay down this massive Federal debt. Why should we focus on paying down a $3.47 trillion Federal debt? Consider these facts: in 1999, we spent $230 billion in interested payments, 13 percent of our discretionary spending. That is $3,644 per every family in America with four people. That is more than we spend on Medicare; it is slightly less than what we spent on national defense. Think of the things that we could do by paying down the debt and not having that interest payment. We can do a responsible tax cut. We spent $60 billion last year on education. We spent $230 billion in interest payments. Paying down the debt has also been an offense to our wallets at home. Several economists, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, have said, that as we pay down the debt it has a positive impact on interest rates, as much as 2 points. Take a homeowner in my home State of Florida with a $115,000 mortgage. If his or her interest rate goes down by 2 points, that is a reduction of $155 a month in their mortgage payment. That is a better benefit than most of the tax cuts that are being proposed up here. Mr. Chairman, let us stop playing games with the future of America. This budget is not a responsible step towards paying down the debt and extending the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. In fact, under this plan, the Social Security surplus will be spent as early as 2004. The public does not want gargantuan tax cuts at the expense of paying down the debt and preserving Social Security and Medicare, and we should reject the resolution for that reason.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we have finally reached the point in this debate where we are getting to the facts. And I think we need to start off with the central fact that has finally been established tonight and that is the size over 10 years with respect to the tax cut. Let me start by reminding everyone about a statement that was made during the presidential campaign that we need to honor, both Democrats and Republicans, or it will come back to haunt us. It is a statement by Senator John McCain. He said, It's fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that is based on a surplus that we may not have. To bank it all on unending surpluses at the possible risk of the Social Security trust fund is our fundamental disagreement. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the quote with respect to a presidential candidate, but here is the point. There has been no even attempt tonight to rebut the statement that the tax cut that we are dealing with here over 10 years exceeds $1 trillion. This exceeds the tax cut that we adopted here last year and ultimately failed, and it will fail again ultimately. The reason it will fail is because what the American public expects us to do is to use the lion's share of this projected surplus to pay down the Federal debt, to preserve Social Security and Medicare for the future, to contribute to lower interest rates; and because it is simply the right thing to do, we should not pass this enormous Federal debt on to our children and grandchildren. We can do a responsible tax cut, we can do responsible spending, we can invest in education and defense; but we need to take the lion's share of the projected surplus and pay down the Federal debt. That is why this particular proposal should be defeated. It is why the underlying budget resolution should be defeated.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, no one I know loved Tampa more than Shirley Ryals and no one I know worked harder to make our community a better place. Her passing is a tremendous loss for all of us. I will never forget Shirley's incredibly selfless devotion to countless causes; her courage; her grace; her sense of humor, including her willingness to laugh at herself; and her remarkable ability to relate to people. Shirley did not hesitate to stand up for what she believed in. She often prevailed and got things done because people knew that she respected and appreciated them and that she was always thinking about what was best for our community. Shirley Ryals did not understand the meaning of the word cannot. Such a word didn't exist in her vocabulary. Her approach was simply that anything was possible if you work hard and dedicate yourself to accomplishing a goal. Her work to bring three Superbowls to Tampa is a testament to that, as is the endless list of other good works she did to better our community. Through the Tampa Junior Women's Club, she established the Tampa Oral School for the Deaf, the first preschool program in Hillsborough County that allowed families to keep their children at home instead of sending them hundreds of miles away for an education. The program has helped thousands of children emerge from their sounds of silence and is now a part of the Hillsborough County Public School System. Her achievements, activities and honors are almost too numerous to mention. She was named Tampa's 1995 Citizen of the Year. She served as a trustee for the University of Tampa and the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center and as an executive committee member of the American Red Cross, Hillsborough Community College Foundation and Outback Bowl Foundation. She was also on the Florida State Fair Authority and on the boards of the Boys & Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts of America, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center Foundation and many other groups. One of the amazing things to me is that despite all the demands on her time, Shirley never let any project or any task come before her family. She was a devoted wife to Lester, a wonderful mother to Karen and Les, and a doting grandmother to Caroline and Courtney. She also carved out time each week for a Sunday night dinner with all of the family, a tradition that is becoming more and more rare in our busy society. In an editorial praising Shirley's life, The Tampa Tribune wrote, Shirley Ryals should be an inspiration to us all. She worked hard and effectively for the public good. She never lost sight of the importance of family and friends. And she left an enduring mark on her community, which benefited immeasurably from her wonderful way of helping people work together. It is commonplace in editorials like this to observe that the subject ``will be missed.'' Missed? Shirley Ryals, how are we going to get along without you? Like so many others in our community, I'm going to miss my dear friend, Shirley. May she rest in peace.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to pay tribute to President John Lombardi on his last day as President of the University of Florida. From the very first day that John Lombardi became President of the University of Florida, about 10 years ago, he demonstrated a vision and a passion that would be very difficult to duplicate. He arrived in a 1985 GMC red pickup truck, and it became quite clear immediately that this was a very special person who could relate just as effectively with the students as he did with the academics and the administrators. He truly believed in the greatness of the university and he had a very unique style of communication that allowed him to spread his vision that, notwithstanding the tremendous reputation the University of Florida had, it was far ahead of its reputation. John Lombardi's style of communication was unique; professional, honest, direct and at times blunt, but he said what many people wanted to hear and he took the university through a great deal of progress in a very short period of time. As the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) has elaborated, research dollars increased by double the amount they were when he arrived; the academic credentials of the student body increased dramatically. One statistic I will quote, which is a little daunting for us, the entering freshman at the University of Florida now is a 3.90. Dr. Lombardi also shepherded through the creation of three very nationally well-known centers, the UF Brain Institute, the Engineering Research Center for Particle Science, and the National High Magnetic Laboratory, which is under the auspices of the University of Florida, Florida State University and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 1990s has not been the easiest decade to manage a university. But John Lombardi's creativity and resourcefulness helped the University of Florida thrive in a time of shrinking budgets and bulging enrollments. He created a money management system that gave his deans and directors more control and flexibility of their own budgets. The deans thrived under this system, saving more than $6.7 million in 1996 and 1997, and $12 million the next year. They took those savings and put them directly into student services. In addition to all these achievements, Dr. Lombardi taught us something very important. Something that helps us answer the question, how do we define success in any major State university, not just in Gainesville, Florida? We define success by the value we add to the students that enter the university and ultimately leave there. John Lombardi never lost sight of the fact that a university is only as great as each and every one of its students that attend there. He made a point of doing something that not enough university presidents do today. He spent a great deal of time with the students. Whether it was cheering the many University of Florida sports' teams on to victory, or marching with the student band with his clarinet, Dr. Lombardi showed the students how much he cared about them and their University. Now, Dr. Lombardi, starting tomorrow, is returning to his first love; teaching. He will be teaching history again, and his students will be very lucky to have him there. But this is our opportunity tonight to thank him for his courageous leadership and for his example in the years to come as the University of Florida prospers under his tremendous stewardship.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Kelly-Quinn amendment and want to make two points: The first is the reason I support this amendment, I think one of our highest priorities ought to be providing the tools to our teachers and principals in our most struggling schools to help their students survive. The second point I want to make pertains to a question that was asked which was, do we really know what works, are we really willing to make that investment? Let me offer to my colleagues as an example the State of Florida. In the State of Florida, we are having a terribly hardy debate right now about vouchers. I personally do not support vouchers. But when you look past all the speeches that are being made, what Democrats and Republicans, what virtually all lawmakers agree upon, is that we know what works to help our most struggling students succeed. It is smaller class size, it is giving after-school and before-school programs, it is providing tutor support, exactly the ingredients to success contained in this amendment. We know it works. We do not need to wait. We need to do it. I urge strong support of the Roemer amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act, H.R. 2723. I commend Congressmen Dingell and Norwood for putting aside partisan rhetoric and developing a bipartisan compromise designed to provide strong patient protections and to ensure that managed care companies are held accountable for their decisions. As a member of the Florida House of Representatives, I played an active role in writing the Florida law on managed care. I remain a strong supporter of our managed care system of health care, but I believe that changes are needed to the current system to make the insurance companies accountable to their patients and that medical professionals rather than insurance companies' bureaucrats are making decisions on health care treatment. The Norwood-Dingell bill provides strong patient protections, many of which have already been implemented in states throughout this country, including my home state of Florida. I applaud these very needed protections. However, the focus of this bipartisan bill is by far its emphasis on holding managed care companies accountable for medical treatment decisions through a new independent review process and providing patients access to state courts to ensure the enforcement of the decisions of the independent review panel. The Norwood-Dingell bill is the only option available to this House that will remove the preemption currently given to managed care health plans covered under the Employee Retirement and Security Act (ERISA). Throughout the debate on managed care reform, we have all heard extensive arguments about the impact that providing patients the right to hold their health plans accountable will have on monthly premiums. I do not believe, however, that monthly health insurance premiums will significantly increase as a result of passage of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999. The liability provisions contained in this legislation are very similar to those included in a law passed by the State of Texas. In the two years since the enactment of their managed care law, Texas has experienced only minor increases in health insurance premiums. We have also heard that if we pass any liability provisions our court dockets will explode as patients rush to sue their managed care plans. Again, I refer to the experience in Texas--where in the last two years only five lawsuits have resulted from their law allowing patients to hold their managed care plans accountable. Let me repeat that statistic, from over four million Texans who are covered by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) only five lawsuits have been filed as a result of the Texas managed care law. I think it is commendable that unlike the tactics in this body, the Texas Legislature rose above partisan politics and worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure the safety of their citizens participating in managed care plans. I urge my colleagues to think of our constituents who are being denied treatment for very serious illnesses. I urge you to think of our constituents who are seriously injured or die as a result of an insurance company clerk either denying or delaying necessary medical treatment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support meaningful managed care reform. Support the Norwood-Dingell Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)