Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is important we have an open and honest debate about how we assure the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. I think it is terribly important we work off the same set of facts as we debate that. But our first order of business has to be to use the proposed surplus to repay the massive Federal debt, starting with that portion of the debt that is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Well, how do we do that? We do that by exercising discipline in our spending habits. We resist the temptation to use the surplus to pay for new Federal programs or tax cuts at the expense of the Social Security Trust Fund. If we are going to increase spending and programs or reduce taxes, find the money in the existing Federal budget, but do not use the surplus. And how do we go about doing that? Well, the first step is we need to take up and pass a House budget resolution. We are running almost 2 months behind in doing that for no valid reason whatsoever. The budget resolution is our road map, it is our spending plan in which we limit ourselves as to where we are going to spend money, how we are going to pay for tax cuts, how we are going to pay for existing programs and new programs, and most importantly of all, how we are going to protect that surplus and use that money to begin paying back the Social Security Trust Fund. Without passing that budget resolution, we are in serious danger of passing spending bills in the House of Representatives without appreciating how we are going to pay for them, and with potentially spending the surplus; and, perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, we are in serious danger without passing this House budget resolution of passing spending bills on the floor of the House, spending the surplus without admitting to it ourselves or to the American public. So what we do is far more important than what we say. We need to have a national dialogue, but we need to take up and pass the House budget resolution, and we need to protect the surplus in the budget resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during roll call vote 106, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3130) to provide for an alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet Federal child support data processing requirements, to reform Federal incentive payments for effective child support performance, to provide for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that violate interjurisdictional adoption requirements, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make certain aliens determined to be delinquent in the payment of child support inadmissible and ineligible for naturalization, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in reluctant opposition to HR 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA). Quite simply, this bill is too much of a good thing. Infrastructure funding is critical for the economic future of our nation, but this bill goes too far and in doing so breaks the bi-partisan balanced budget agreement of last year. We should be debating an increase in transportation funding, but we should be having this debate first within the context of a budget resolution where we can analyze transportation needs relative to other critical domestic priorities. Above all, I believe we must keep to the spirit of the balanced budget agreement we passed last year. This year, we have a balanced budget for the first time in 30 years and today the House is being asked to pass a spending bill which blows a $40 billion hole in the budget. Clearly, our states have transportation needs that are significantly underfunded and I agree that we should be increasing federal funding for transportation. For my home state of Florida, this bill does help address the fundamental inequities in the current funding formula. Under current law, Florida receives an average of 77 cents for every dollar sent to Washington in gasoline taxes. BESTEA would increase this return to roughly 87 cents on the dollar. I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their commitment to addressing this issue and I urge them to continue to work on a fairer funding formula to ensuring that every state receives its fair share of transportation dollars. Mr. Chairman, despite this improvement in the funding formula and the fact that this bill funds many worthwhile and important transportation projects, I must oppose it based on the overall levels of funding. I believe we can and must find a way to increase transportation funding without abandoning fiscal responsibility. This bill does not offset the increases in spending, leaving it only to a promise of future, unidentified cuts in other programs. Furthermore, the overall levels of funding under this bill set up a fiscal train wreck in the coming years as Congress will have to make massive cuts in other domestic priorities to maintain a balanced budget. When I was elected to Congress, I was skeptical that this body had the fiscal restraint to balance the budget. This past year, I had hope that things had changed. We worked together to pass a tough balanced budget act in a bi-partisan manner and proved to the American people that we were serious about ending decades of deficit spending. Now, no sooner than the Congressional Budget Office has certified that we have balanced the budget with the possibility of surpluses for the near future, Congress is rushing out to spend tens of billions of dollars that we simply do not have. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reaffirm this Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility and vote no on HR 2400.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have never been so ashamed as I am tonight of the tactic that is being deployed to deprive both Democrats and Republicans from having a serious debate in taking up campaign finance reform. Relegating this issue to a series of very limited debates is depriving both Republicans and Democrats the opportunity to take up and pass the McCain-Feingold bill which closes one of the gaping loopholes in our system today, soft money, and forces outside third party groups to put their names on their ads. Those who have taken control of this process tonight are standing up for the obscene amount of moneys that are flooding into our campaigns today, that really a stop ought to be brought to. Let me give my colleagues an example about the freshman campaign finance reform bill we brought up. These outside third party groups objected to our bill, similarly the McCain-Feingold bill. They said, ``If you force us to put our names on these ads, we won't run these ads.'' Well, that is exactly what the bill was all about, and by adopting this masquerade tonight when we are supposed to be debating campaign finance reform but we are really not, we are depriving the American public of the chance to make sure those ads have their names on them and to ban soft money. The American people are watching, they care deeply about this issue. We need take up and debate campaign finance reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the recent report of the Thompson Senate Committee demonstrates, there is widespread and serious abuse of our Nation's campaign finance system on both sides. One of the most rapidly growing excesses is that of soft money, unlimited amounts of money people can contribute to either political party. And the other is the incredible proliferation of advertising by outside third-party groups. That is why a substantial portion of the Democratic freshmen in this House, together with Members of the Republican freshmen class, have filed a bill calling for a ban on soft money and mandating disclosure with respect to these outside third-party ads. The Speaker said the House will soon take up campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, an increasing number of American citizens are watching closely to see whether we take this issue seriously and whether we are going to do something about it. When we take up campaign finance reform; let us take up a real bill, let us take up one that bans soft money; let us take up one that forces disclosure with respect to these ads by outside third-party groups.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 227. While I commend my colleague from California for his commitment to this issue, I believe that this resolution has highly negative consequences for U.S. policy in Bosnia and does not provide the legal clarity on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act that the sponsor seeks. This resolution harms U.S. policy in several ways. It directs the President to withdraw U.S. forces from Bosnia. By doing so, we would be sending a strong political message to countries throughout the world and would undermine the President's ability to keep U.S. troops in Bosnia. In addition, this resolution hurts the peace process in Bosnia and risks the resumption of war by sending the wrong signal at the wrong time both to our allies and the parties in Bosnia opposed to peace, who are only waiting for us to leave. Withdrawal of U.S. troops would put at risk the impressive accomplishments in Bosnia, including the end to the fighting, demobilization of armies on all sides, the election of local governments and the formation of multi-ethnic governments, among others. By passing the resolution, Congress will send the confusing and unfortunate message that the United States does not have the resolve to stick by the peace process in Bosnia. Furthermore, passage of this resolution, just as we are beginning to see progress in Bosnia, would have a devastating impact and would risk the possibility of the resumption of war. The War Powers Resolution, in my opinion, is designed for Congress to address this issue when we are in the early stages of engaging our troops in hostilities. I do not believe that this applies to Bosnia for two reasons. First, we are in the middle of a mission in Bosnia which has long been planned, designed and implemented, and secondly, this is a peacekeeping mission. This is not the time to address the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. We should do that at a time when the President is considering engaging our armed forces in a hostile situation. We will have the opportunity in the near future to take a stand on our troops in Bosnia through consideration of a Supplemental Appropriations Bill. Now is not the appropriate time to take this policy stand. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against House Concurrent Resolution 227.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly point out that it seems that there is virtually unanimity, if not complete unanimity, on the merits of the resolution before us. It is very pleasing that we can share the fact with the public today that the historic and very delicate and complex all-party talks are progressing in Belfast. These talks will resume next week, with the participation of both Sinn Fein, the major Protestant Unionist Party, and the Ulster Unionists. I also think it is important to point out that there was a better way to have handled this resolution today. It is appropriate and symbolic to have brought it up on St. Patrick's day; but, unfortunately, this side of the aisle had only a few hours' prior notice that this resolution was even coming up, which deprived us of the opportunity to confirm that the administration had been consulted on this. The focus here today has been on how well-executed the plan has been in the all-party talks, and depriving us of the opportunity to work with the administration to ensure that that execution continues is an unnecessary risk. Mr. Speaker, when we violate our own rules, when we circumvent our own process, we make some of our greatest errors. This version of this bill was heard in the Committee on International Relations, wherein lies the expertise of this body on foreign relation matters, which has been so clearly demonstrated today by comments on both sides of the aisle. So I think it is just important to point out that in the future, when we take up significant matters like this, we really should honor our own process to assure that we produce our very best work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. Payne asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 235.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), one of the leading cosponsors of this concurrent resolution.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguish gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution for the reasons that have been so eloquently expressed here today on the floor by both sides. This resolution rightly calls for an end to the violent repression in Kosovo and for the beginning of a necessary dialogue between the Serb authorities and the leaders that will contribute to the return of legitimate civil and political rights for all the people there.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the resolution. Botswana is a success story. It is one of Africa's oldest continuous democracies. It has been active in promoting regional integration in southern Africa. Its military has a very professional reputation; and Botswana has been active in social programs, including conservation efforts. Congress is going on record today in recognition of that success and commending President Masire for his leadership on the eve of his retirement. I hope this resolution will encourage Botswana to continue its democratic tradition and to continue its constructive foreign policies. I would like to urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and me in recognizing Botswana's success by voting yes on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).