Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my community is in mourning. We are saddened by the passing of Roland Manteiga, one of the most prolific, influential and admired chroniclers of politics and history in my hometown of Tampa. For decades, you could count on walking into La Tropicana in the morning and at lunch and seeing Roland dressed in his trademark white suit sitting at his private table chatting with leaders of our community. Without fail, he always knew what was going on in Tampa politics and he faithfully shared it with his readers every week in his newspaper, La Gaceta. His ``As We Heart It'' column was a must read for thousands. If you wanted to know the pulse of the town, you read Roland. The passion for the news business grabbed Roland early and hooked him. As a young boy, he started working for the paper his father, Victoriano, started in 1922. Except for his distinguished service in World War II, he spent his life at the paper and became its owner when his father died in 1982. He transformed the paper into the only trilingual weekly newspaper in the country. In addition to political news, Roland's paper was the voice of the Latin community and reported on it better than anyone. La Gaceta thoroughly documented the story of the immigrants who came to Tampa and contributed so much to the fabric of our community. Roland's work won him many awards and recognitions, including Citizen of the Year and Hispanic Man of the Year. But typical of his self- effacing style, he always downplayed his importance to our town. His genteel manner made him equally as comfortable with presidents and governors as he was with store clerks and construction workers. And that's just one of the qualities that endeared him to so many people. I think Ferdie Pacheco, the ``Fight Doctor,'' summed up Roland's contributions to our community best when he wrote, ``Years from now, when we are all gone, the historians will know exactly how we were and who we were because of the lifetime of dedicated work of one man.'' Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for everyone at home when I say that we will miss our dear friend, Roland. May he rest in peace.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4579, this year's Taxpayer Relief Act and in support of the Democratic alternative which includes all of the tax cuts in the Republican bill but which commits Congress to saving Social Security first. Today's debate is not about whether we support tax cuts. Most of the provisions in this bill are supported by a broad bi-partisan majority of this House. Rather, today we are debating whether this House is going to abandon the fiscal discipline which has been instrumental in balancing the budget and whether we are going to commit to reserving the projected surpluses until we have addressed the long-term solvency of Social Security. The rule adopted yesterday flies in the face of fiscal discipline by waiving the pay-as-you-go budget rule for this tax bill. PAYGO forces Congress to identify specific offsets for new spending or tax cut initiatives. PAYGO was adopted precisely because of the tremendous temptations that exist here in Washington to dole out election-year spending or tax cuts. We need only to look back to the days before PAYGO to see what happens when these temptations go unchecked--deficit spending and a massive Federal debt. Finally, this year, for the first time in 30 years, we have eliminated the budget deficit and have the first surplus in three decades. Now, before the ink is even dry, the Republicans are abandoning budget discipline and proposing tax cuts, just weeks before an election, paid for only with the projected budget surpluses which may or may not materialize. This is simply irresponsible. Yes, the tax cuts included in this package are popular and meritorious. I support reducing the marriage penalty in the Tax Code, increasing the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, raising the Social Security earnings limit, creating additional ``renewal communities,'' raising the private activity bond cap, and many of the other provisions included in this package. There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to provide additional tax relief. Last year, as part of the bipartisan balanced budget agreement, we enacted tax cuts the right way. When we passed $149 billion of tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which I voted for, we identified specific offsets including a combination of spending cuts and revenue raisers allowing us to provide responsible tax relief. This year, the Republicans have proposed tax cuts the wrong way. This $80 billion tax cut bill is not paid for and requires a special waiver from budget rules just to be brought up on the floor of the House. There are no offsets, no identified cuts, and instead Republicans propose using the projected surpluses which are comprised entirely of surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. On the other hand, the Democratic alternative, which I support, will enact each and every one of the tax cuts in this bill but will postpone enactment until after Congress has addressed the long-term solvency of Social Security. Today, Congress should be reaffirming its commitment to fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, this bill sends a signal to the world markets that Congress is perfectly willing to waive budget process rules and revert back to the days of fiscal irresponsibility. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unwise bill which undermines the budget process and sets a terrible precedent for the future.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule which not only allows Congress to drain the first budget surplus in thirty years, but also, and perhaps more importantly, abandons the fiscal discipline which has been critical in achieving a balanced budget. This rule allows for the consideration of two bills addressing Social Security and tax cuts. While I will speak at greater length about the shortcomings of these two proposals, I want to focus my comments today on the procedure which I believe sets a dangerous precedent for this House. This rule flies in the face of the fiscal discipline which has been instrumental in bringing our budget into balance. The project surpluses in the unified budget, which exist solely because of the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, are primarily the result of budget rules and budget discipline which has forced Congress to make tough decisions. We all know the temptations that exist to spend money up here in Washington. This year's massive transportation bill is a testament to the powers of the purse. I opposed the House version of that bill precisely because it did not identify adequate offsets for the new spending and threatened to drain a portion of the projected surplus. We also know how tempting it is to dole out tax cuts, particularly just two months before an election. While I support many of the tax cuts included in the bill brought up under this rule, as with the transportation bill, I will not support it until offsets are identified. To curb these temptations which, when left unchecked, led to massive deficits and a national debt of over $5 trillion, Congress enacted tough budget rules. Among these rules is the so-called Pay-As-You-Go rule or PAYGO which forces us to identify offsets for each new spending or tax cut proposal. The rule before us today waives this requirement and allows Congress to cut taxes using as an offset the projected surpluses which may or may not materialize. Given the growing uncertainties of the global economy, now is not the time to abandon fiscal responsibility. Instead, we should be building up the budget surpluses, retiring a portion of the massive federal debt, addressing the long-term solvency of Social Security, and conforming to the budget rules which were renewed just last year as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Today, Congress should be reaffirming its commitment to fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, this rule sends a signal to the world markets that Congress is perfectly willing to waive budget process rules and revert back to the days of fiscal irresponsibility. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unwise rule which undermines the budget process and sets a terrible precedent for the future.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 437, H.R. 4382, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 381 expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should renegotiate the Extradition Treaty with Mexico so that the possibility of punishment by the death penalty does not interfere with the timely extradition of criminal suspects from Mexico to the United States. At this time, I would like to commend my fellow Floridian, Mr. Miller, for introducing this legislation. As you have all heard, this legislation was introduced after the brutal murder of a mother in Sarasota, Florida. The evidence in this case immediately led to the accusal of Jose Luis Del Toro, a citizen of the United States from Texas. However, when the warrant was issued, Del Toro had already illegally fled the country into Mexico. Mexican officials captured Del Toro and should have extradited him to Florida immediately to stand trial for the murder of Ms. Bellush. Under the Treaty with the United States, however, they do not have to return individuals, even those who enter their country illegally like Del Toro, when capital punishment remains a possibility. This case should be of concern to those of us who represent border states. Easy access to Mexico provides the potential of enticing even more criminals to flee the United States in an attempt to avoid punishment for the crimes they commit. Mr. Chairman, the most disturbing point about this case is that it tarnishes the integrity of our criminal justice system. At a time, when there is a backlog of court cases and our prosecutors are already overloaded, this case has resulted in the unnecessary delay in what prosecutors believe would have been an open and shut case. In addition, our current treaty allows foreign countries to flagrantly disregard the laws of a state because it does not agree with the punishment provided in that state. I was appalled to learn that the United States actually allows Mexico to interfere with our state judicial systems through the Extradition Treaty signed in 1978. Allowing Mexico the right to continue to deny extradition if the suspect in question is subject to the death penalty is wrong. Our states' laws must prevail in these cases, particularly in murder cases. I strongly encourage the President to renegotiate our Extradition Treaty with Mexico so that more criminals are not allowed to escape the laws of our states. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 381.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today lifts limits on campaign giving. What an outrage. What is at stake here are the rights of citizens at home who simply sent us up here to do our job. Why should they have to compete with all the people who choose to actively participate by giving unlimited sums of money in the campaign system today? If the public knew more about what we know, about the level of giving, the amount of unlimited contributions that are going into the campaigns of both parties, they would be outraged, they would be sickened, they would ultimately be saddened. The public expects less money going into campaigns today, not more. The strategy on campaign finance reform, which will fail here today on the floor of the House, has first been to do nothing, then to do little, then to delay. Today here is the ultimate tactic. It is a surrender. It is a surrender to the growing cancer in this city and across the country of the disproportionate amount of money that is flowing into campaigns and is swamping and competing with those people who simply want us to do our jobs, they want to speak with us, they want to lobby us on issues and they want to vote. They should not have to compete with the growing and inordinate sums of money that are getting into our campaign system. The Doolittle bill is a surrender to this problem. We need to defeat this bill, we need to get to meaningful campaign finance reform, we need to pass it today on the floor of the House.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as soon as the 42 Democratic freshmen arrived in Washington we chose as our highest priority to reform the campaign finance system in this country. And we knew there were two things that had to be done to accomplish that: First, the bill had to be bipartisan; and, second, it had to be incremental. So the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen) is the leader on our side, working hand-in-hand with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Asa Hutchinson), and a few other Republican freshmen who wrote a bill attacking two of the most gaping loopholes in our campaign finance system: Soft money, unlimited contributions given to political parties, not for good government, I would submit in many cases. And anonymous, and often misleading and inflammatory political ads run by third-party groups from outside the congressional districts, in most cases, where the ads were being run. And that bill was opposed. Matter of fact, at least one group said that the courts had upheld their rights to run political advertising. In fact, they went on to admit that if they were forced by our bill to put their names on their political ads, they would not run the ads. That is exactly why we were doing the bill. If somebody is not willing to put their name on a political ad, they are not willing to stand behind the representations they are making to voters in attempting to influence the outcome of an election. Now, many of us who supported this bill have voted for Shays-Meehan, and we will continue to do so. And we will continue to adopt as our highest priority to reform this excessive and out-of-control campaign finance system. I want to say one thing about the freshmen who did this. We did so not because we were concerned about the risk as to who was going to benefit, Democrats or Republicans; we were concerned about the risks of continuing with a system out of control. We will continue to push, when this bill passes the House today, for meaningful campaign finance reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the tragic loss of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson serve as a painful reminder that every day the men and women of the United States Capitol Police put their lives on the line, prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were called upon to make that sacrifice without any second thought. They simply did that to protect others. So much of what is said and done in these Halls is a symbol for communities across the Nation. Sadly, the service and sacrifice of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson represent the 91 law enforcement officers who have given their lives just this year alone in the United States. Three of these slain officers served in the community I represent, the city of Tampa in Hillsborough County. When we lost Police Detectives Randy Bell, Ricky Childers and Trooper James Brad Crooks, it dug a hole in our heart and took our breath away. That tragedy also brought our community closer together, and it deepened our respect and appreciation for the men and women who serve as law enforcement officers and their families as well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a poem that brought comfort to our community at that time of tragedy. It was read at the funeral of the slain officers in Tampa. It is an anonymous poem, it is entitled, ``Miss Me, But Let Me Go.'' When I come to the end of the road And the sun has set for me, I want no rites in a gloom-filled room, Why cry for a soul set free? Miss me a little, but not too long And not with your head bowed low. Remember the love that was once shared, Miss me, but let me go. For this is a journey we all must take, And each must go alone. It's all part of the Master's plan, A step on the road to home. When you are lonely and sick of heart, Go to the friends we know, And bury your sorrows in good deeds. Miss me, but let me go. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these courageous officers. May they rest in peace. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the disapproval motion and in support of renewing normal trade relations with China. The question is whether renewing normal trade relations with China is really a false and antiquated choice. We can no longer afford to ignore this superpower. We need to maximize our lines of communication. Where we can agree with China on matters of trade, we need to agree; where we disagree with respect to human rights or national security, we should fight like the dickens to protect our interests, and we certainly can assume they will do the same with respect to their interests. It is fair to say that a trade deficit exists with China that we need to aggressively tackle. It is estimated that about 400,000 well-paying jobs are created in this country as a result of trade with China, but it is not nearly enough. But make no mistake about it, the solution to that problem does not lie in revoking normal trade relations with China, it lies in hard-nosed negotiating at the bargaining table. In my State of Florida there are many nontariff barriers that exist with respect to importation of agriculture into China, and at the bargaining table where we have a voice is the best way to effectuate that change. Much has been said about human rights violations in China. Billy Graham wrote a letter last year to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) citing the work of his son, Ned, with churches in China, in which he advocated improving our relationship with China and having a stronger relationship. The best way for us to effectuate positive change in elevation of religious freedom and other democratic values we so deeply cherish is by exposing that country to our values and doing so by a more aggressive relationship with China where there is more interaction. That happens by normal trade relations; it happens by sending more of our religious leaders and other leaders concerned about human rights into China to bring about change from within. We cannot ignore this superpower. We need to continue to have normal trade relations. It is in the best interests of our country in terms of trade; it is our best way for effectuating positive change within the borders of China.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1689, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. This bipartisan initiative is narrowly tailored to address a problem which has arisen since enactment of the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. While the 1995 Act was designed to help end abuses in Federal securities class actions, these reforms have been subverted through the use of State courts, undermining the potential benefits to investors, consumers, workers, and the overall economy. This bill prevents plaintiffs from circumventing the reforms enacted in 1995 by creating a uniform standard for class action lawsuits involving nationally traded securities. The principle behind this legislation is simple. Nationally traded securities, which are primarily regulated by the Federal Government, should be subject to Federal securities law. By establishing fair and consistent rules, Congress not only will protect companies from abuses in class action lawsuits but also will improve the climate for greater forward-looking disclosures for investors. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation and reinforce the reforms that Congress passed by an overwhelming majority in 1995.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skaggs amendment on energy efficiency and conservation programs. I appreciate the difficulty in balancing the critical needs of our country in preparing the Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. However, today I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment to restore much needed funding for our country's energy conservation programs. Of particular interest to my home state of Florida is the recommended $10 million increase in funding for building technologies. The windows and glazing programs, which is funded through the Building Technology Category, provides funding for a promising new technology with enormous energy saving potential for the commercial windows market. I am hopeful that the Skaggs amendment will lead to a funding increase in the windows and glazing programs, which 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 of 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 over $1.2 million toward the advancement of PECVD techniques for electrochromic applications. 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 partnership. The Florida program is consistent with industry priorities and goals of the Department of Energy's windows program. Earlier this year, twelve other members of the Florida Congressional Delegation joined me in sending a letter to Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates in support of PECVD funding to help further the development of this important technology. A significant portion of our country is experiencing the hottest summer on record, I believe this only helps illustrate the importance of our conservation programs. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Skaggs for his commitment to energy conservation in his years in this House, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce the publication of Doris Weatherford's book, A History of the American Suffragist Movement. Doris Weatherford, who is a constituent of mine from Tampa, is a professor at the University of South Florida and is known for her accomplishments in the area of women's history. The summer of 1998 marks the 150th anniversary of the Seneca Fall's Convention. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton authored the Declaration of Sentiments. The Declaration became the primary agenda for women's activism. Weatherford's book discusses women's history as one of the most dramatic political battles ever fought. Beginning with Anne Hutchinson and ending with the final ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, her book is a complete depiction of the struggle for women's equality in the United States. The women's suffrage movement was a multi-century struggle that extended freedom to half of our nation. Strength, courage, and passion are the reasons why these women battled for what they so rightfully deserved, freedom. Her other publications include the following: Milestones: A Chronology of American Women's History, American Women's History: An A- Z of People, Organization, Issues, and Events, American Women in World War II, and Foreign and Female: Immigrant Women in America, 1840-1920. In 1994, she received the National Order of Women Legislators Hall of Fame Award. Also, in 1995 during Florida's Annual Civil Rights Conference, she received one of five awards commissioned by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. I would like to ask all of my colleagues a join me in celebrating Doris Weatherford's contribution to the continuing legacy of women's history.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4060, the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Given the limited resources available to the Committee in this era of increasingly tight budgets, this legislation is a balanced bill which represents a bipartisan effort to meet the important energy and water development needs of our Nation. One area in which I must express concern and disappointment, however, is the funding for the critically important Everglades restoration projects. During last year's historic balanced budget agreement, Everglades funding was held up as one of the few protected domestic discretionary spending priorities. Unfortunately, just one year later, this legislation is unable to meet the critical needs of this restoration effort. The Everglades National Park is truly one of our Nation's natural treasurers and provides tremendous resources which are vital to the environmental health and quality of life in the State of Florida. While we have made great progress in raising awareness of the fragile nature of this diverse ecosystem, much work remains to be done to restore and protect the park for this and future generations. My hope is that as we move this process forward and begin to work in conference with the Senate, that we will recede to the Senate levels of funding for this work, specifically for the Army Corps of Engineers construction efforts in Central and Southern Florida, the Kissimmee River, and the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration projects. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with Members from both side of the aisle to secure adequate funding for these Everglades restoration projects.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation may sound great on a bumper sticker but it has no place on the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would simply terminate the tax code without any guarantee that it will be replaced by a simpler, fairer tax system. I understand the frustration with the current tax system and wholeheartedly agree with those who believe it is overly complex and in desperate need of reform. We all know that the current tax code results in extreme bureaucratic costs, unintended loopholes, and headaches for every American taxpayer. But the answer is to reform the code. The answer is to hold substantive hearings on alternative proposals. The answer is to take responsible action to improve the system. This bill is neither responsible nor substantive and it is neither reform nor the answer. As elected representatives we have a responsibility to govern. Rather than sitting down together and discussing alternative tax systems and their relative merits, this legislation takes the approach that if we set up a train wreck down the line, we are going to be forced to come together and make decisions. Well, we all remember how well the train wreck approach worked during the government shutdowns of 1995. Unfortunately, the consequences of this game of chicken are far more sweeping, putting at risk the entire American economy. Mr. Speaker, we should not put our economy at risk for the sake of political posturing. We all know passage of this bill will not move us one step closer to real tax reform. Let us reject this legislation and instead begin a serious dialogue on how best to reform our Nation's tax code.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are voting here today on a rule. Let us be clear what that rule does. That rule allows over 100 amendments that are nongermane, which means unrelated to the bills we are about to take up. This is a sham. It is an attempt to defeat the real proposals that are before this House. We have already adopted a rule that allows germane amendments, that means amendments related to the bill, to come up in an unlimited number. So why should we be allowing unrelated amendments now to come up? And what exactly are the merits that are not being addressed here today in substance, but being addressed in an attempt that drown it in extra amendments? A ban on soft money, those unlimited sums of money that are given both to the Democratic and Republican Party that should cease and which cannot be, in my judgment, rationally defended on the floor of this House. Secondly, outside interest groups running political ads in congressional districts around the country. Anonymous political advertising. Groups that have maintained that the courts say they have a right to do anonymous political ads. Ridiculous. These are the merits of the issues. This is what we need to debate. We do not need to adopt a rule that allows unrelated issues exceeding 100 in number to come up and cloud the facts. Mr. Speaker, we should get to the facts, get to the merits. Ban soft money. Say that anybody that cares to run television commercials in congressional districts around the country must put their names on those ads. People are entitled to know who is at work. Let us defeat the rule.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this second rule on campaign finance reform. I think it is ridiculous that we are spending this time debating a rule when we could be spending this time debating the merits of the issue--meaningful campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money. The rule we are currently debating makes in order an unprecedented 258 NON-GERMANE amendments. Amendments that do not relate to the underlying Substitute Amendment. We do not need this rule. The House has already approved a rule governing debate that provides for a fair and open debate. That rule allows the consideration of an unlimited number of germane amendments. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments offered must relate to the underlying Substitute Amendment. That is a fair process. This new rule and the huge number of amendments in makes in order is unnecessary. In my opinion, it is also designed to prevent this House from ever completing consideration of campaign finance reform. Earlier this year, I opposed the Leadership's efforts to limit the debate on this very important issue by bringing up bills under Suspension of the Rules thus prohibiting members from offering amendments. The Leadership responded to member defeat of that proposal by bringing forth a rule which made Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act (the so-called Freshmen Bill) in order. That rule also made 11 substitute amendments and unlimited germane amendments in order. This Mr. Speaker is a fair and open process, and we already have that rule. The Rule before us now is not a fair process because it allows non- germane amendments. An outrageous number of them at that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to defeat this Rule. Let's put these delay tactics behind us and get on with the real business at hand-- meaningful campaign finance reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which, although not perfect, is a strong step in the right direction. The principle behind this legislation is simple. If you can afford to repay some of your debts, you should be required to do so. The fact that in this booming economy there has been a meteoric rise in bankruptcy filings is simply unacceptable. Yes, there are credit companies which unscrupulously dangle credit in front of high-risk consumers; however, the individual must ultimately take responsibility for his or her spending habits. Protecting the status quo is tantamount to telling all consumers, including low and moderate income families struggling hard to pay their bills, that they will have to continue to pay for the unpaid debts of others, even if those filing for bankruptcy are more affluent and actually capable of paying off some of those debts. Last year, a total of $44 billion in consumer debt was erased through bankruptcy filings. Of course, erasing these debts means transfering that burden to every other consumer--a burden which amounts to roughly $400 for every American household. While I have concerns over certain provisions included in this legislation, such as the preemption of my home state's constitution with respect to the homestead exemption, I believe it is important to move this process forward and work with the Senate to craft a strong bi-partisan bankruptcy reform bill which returns a sense of personal responsibility to our Nation's bankruptcy system.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Neumann amendment and to the Kasich budget resolution. We would like to talk about the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). As has been pointed out already today, without any disagreement to the contrary, there is approximately $25 billion in the Kasich budget that is unaccounted for because it has already been spent to pay for the transportation bill. This is the same grave omission that caused many Democrats and Republicans to vote against the transportation bill when it left the House, because it threatened to spend the surplus. That is the grave sin we commit here today. The budget resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) takes us down the road of spending the surplus. Now, the argument has been made this amounts to a 1 percent cut in spending. There has also been an admission that we are going to spare defense and Medicare. There has been absolutely no response to the very specific points made about how deep the cuts will have to be made in Medicaid, education and other important core functions because of the way the budget resolution has been written. This is not a day for speeches. This is our day to put a very detailed plan on the floor of the House, and those details are not forthcoming. There is a reason why Republican and Democratic governors are opposing this budget resolution, because those details are missing and because the best work we do here when we are balancing the budget is working with the States. We are ignoring them. One of the important lessons we should have learned from 1995 is that we are not just talking about numbers here today. We are talking about people's lives, and we are failing to address the impacts these cuts could have on the lives of the people we represent at home. One thing is perfectly clear, whether this budget resolution passes or not, and that is, it is going to leave us rudderless. We have chosen not to work with the Senate, not to work with the President. As a result, this budget resolution becomes irrelevant. What is the price we are going to pay for that? The price we are going to pay is, as the pressure begins to rise to spend money and to cut taxes, we are going to do it without regard to protecting the surplus which we should be using to pay off this massive Federal debt and prepare Social Security for the future. We have an opportunity to protect that surplus. We are going to blow it, and that is why we need to defeat the budget resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Garry Freid, a constituent of mine in Tampa who will celebrate his eightieth birthday on Monday, June 8th. Mr. Freid has contributed tirelessly and selflessly to his country, state, community, and family. His patriotism and citizenship continue to shape the face of our nation and are held out as examples to all Americans. As a soldier, businessman, and father, he helped mark many milestones in the history of the United States. So now, it is with great respect and thanks that Congress and I acknowledge his personal milestone today. As a child of immigrant parents, Mr. Freid and his family represent the earnest fabric of our country. He endured the Great Depression and World War II; his service record is a source of great pride to his family. With his wife Hannah, he prospered, raised four children, supported public education, became a part of the workforce, and helped grow the city of Tampa. Therefore, with thanks and reverence, we mark his personal triumph by saying congratulations.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is both unwise and unnecessary. We have heard time and time again anecdotal evidence from the proponents of this amendment. That evidence only highlights the need to set the record straight as far as what the establishment clause currently allows in the United States Constitution. There were hearings held on this issue as identified in the committee report. One of them was held in my hometown of Tampa in which some children were under the misunderstanding they could not carry their Bibles to school, which of course is incorrect. Our focus here should be on educating principals, teachers, parents and students about what rights they currently enjoy to protect their religious freedom in schools. The United States Department of Education has issued guidelines which clearly state that students have the opportunity to voluntarily pray privately and individually in school, to say grace at lunchtime, to meet as religious groups on school grounds, and to read the Bible or any other religious text during free class time or study hall. These are rights we should jealously protect. This amendment has the opposite effect. It will introduce the government into policing and refereeing the competing faiths among children in our schools. Far from clarifying the religious freedoms of Americans, this amendment would lead to greater confusion, more court cases, and further misinterpretation by schools and the courts. Is this body ready to endorse the taxpayer funding of religious schools? Are we here today voting to allow judges to lead a courtroom or a jury inprayer before a trail? And ultimately, are we endorsing public school prayers over public address systems? If so, how can we possibly accommodate the diversity of faiths that exist in our society without so diluting the prayer's content that it becomes a watered-down, homogenized recitation? That indeed would trivialize religion and ignore the robust tradition of religion and diversity which has enriched and strengthened our Nation for over 200 years. We do not need to inject the government into this very intensely personal and private exercise on the part of each individual. We need to use those rights we have, and we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today also in support of the freshman bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. One of the issues that we address in our bill, as well as is addressed in the Meehan- Shays bill, is the third party ads that are typically run by groups outside of Congressional districts. Our bill provides if you are going to attempt to influence the outcome of an election, you have to associate yourself with that ad. We have had groups here in Washington D.C. that have told us if you force us to put our names on our ads, we will not run them. They further said the courts have ruled they have a right to run anonymous political advertising. This is crazy. What is at stake here is not a right like that; it is the right of the voters not to be deceived, but to be informed. One of the purposes of this provision is to stop the type of misleading and inflammatory ads that people will refuse to run when their names have to go on the ad. We have carefully written this freshman bill in a way that is constitutional. It preserves the rights of groups to speak. But if you are going to stand up and say something about a candidate and attempt to influence the outcome of an election, you are going to put your name on the ad. That is going to assure that the rights that are really at stake here are protected, and that is the rights of the voters to make informed judgments and to understand who is trying to influence the outcome of the elections that determine their elected representatives.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his leadership on this matter.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, James Brad Crooks, a brand new highway patrol trooper in Florida engaged to be married; Randy Bell, a Tampa police detective, a 20-year veteran of the force described as a hard worker with quiet ambition; Rick Childers, a Tampa Police Department detective, another 20-year veteran, who in 1990 bravely went into a creek and saved a young girl who was drowning in a car. These law enforcement officers have solved hundreds of cases, saved many lives in the Tampa Bay area that I represent. Yesterday, each of them died in the line of duty at the hands of a gunman who later took his own life and also at a time when his 4-year- old stepson died under questionable circumstances. I stand here on the floor of the House today to express our sorrow to the families of these 3 slain law enforcement officers, to express gratitude for their lifetime commitment they made to protect our community and to salute them for their efforts, and to say that we will try to learn from the terrible lessons of this terrific tragedy that struck the Tampa Bay area yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and with all of their colleagues who are grieving.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Riggs- Roemer amendment and against the mandate we are debating here this afternoon. This is a well-intended provision in the bill. It has, as its sponsor has mentioned, the goal of encouraging students to participate in intercollegiate athletics, team sports that teach teamwork, individual sports that teach self-esteem and confidence. But the provision does not have the intended effect and indeed it will have the opposite effect; that is, it will risk hurting students. As has been mentioned, if enrollment were to drop at an institution, if student interest in participating in a particular sport were to decline and the budget dropped for that particular sport, this bill could have the effect of eliminating Federal funding that is needed to run that university or college and eliminating sorely needed financial aid. Let us focus on what the real issue here is. The real issue is that we should adequately fund our universities and colleges, not just intercollegiate athletics for women but for men as well. They should not have to compete against each other. Secondly and most importantly, as the sponsor of this provision alluded to, we need to strongly fund financial aid, because the greatest threat to participation in intercollegiate athletics is the time of our students who are increasingly being forced to work, as the sponsor was, and attend school and are robbed of the opportunity for extracurricular activities outside the classroom. By funding financial aid to meet these rising tuition increases around our country, by freeing our students up to have time to participate, this is what we should be focused on. This is why I would urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act. In short, this bill will reform our 1960's era satellite telecommunications policy and promote competition in satellite services and technology. Over thirty-five years ago, when Congress passed the 1962 Communications Satellite Act, it was believed that only governments could finance and manage a global satellite system. Today, the rapid advances and growth within the telecommunications industry far surpass anything we could have imagined in the early 1960's. Today, there is no longer a need for a privileged international organization to provide satellite communications services in competition with private commercial services. Passage of this legislation will break up the last lawful telecommunications monopoly in the United States and bring greater competition, innovation, and efficiency to the international satellite industry. This bill embodies the belief that open competitive markets will result in greater benefits to the industry, the economy, and most importantly, the consumers. While over 85 other nations have allowed direct access to INTELSAT and Inmarsat services, the United States market remains monopolized by COMSAT. The result is that U.S. satellite consumers pay inflated prices. A recent study showed that the privatization called for under H.R. 1872 would save consumers $2.9 billion over the next ten years. Furthermore, this legislation will save U.S., taxpayers $700 million by cutting the costs of government communications. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today will finally bring satellite communications policy into the modern era. It recognizes that the current system distorts the marketplace and takes reasonable and modest steps to ensure competition bringing lower prices and higher quality services for satellite users. This bill is good for consumers, good for businesses and workers, and good for the United States taxpayer. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1872.