Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, tonight several of us are gathered to talk about the budget resolution we passed today, how we got to where we are, and where we need to go in order to protect our Nation's priorities. I will start by yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), as soon as he is set up; but we also have joining us tonight the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, to talk both about how we got to where we are, exactly what we believe the facts to be, because at a minimum the American public deserves to at least have the facts before we debate our different opinions about how we achieve the Nation's priorities; and then to talk a little bit at the conclusion about some of the solutions we have proposed that were rejected. These solutions were not even allowed to be debated today on the floor of the House of Representatives. But we are confident they will be brought up in the Senate and, hopefully, will be part of a bipartisan solution, because we cannot achieve a solution in this body, working with the President and the Senate, unless it is truly bipartisan. So at this time I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a leader of the Blue Dogs, a paragon of fiscal responsibility among Democrats and Republicans, and a leader on budget issues since he arrived in Congress in 1997.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. It seems to me that it is important to understand how we got to where we are to avoid repeating history and going deeper into this hole. I know the Congressional Budget Office which is widely regarded as a nonpartisan, apolitical office analyzed what caused the reversal you have just referred to, how we went from surplus into deficit. Many people believe it is entirely based on the events of September 11 and the money that we understandably have spent and will continue to spend to deal with security at home and abroad. But could the gentleman elaborate a little bit on what the Congressional Budget Office has explained is the cause of this sudden change from surplus to deficit?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. If the gentleman will further yield, as I recall there was a Democratic tax cut proposal last year that differed in the size from what was ultimately passed as the Republican tax cut and one of the reasons for that was the Democratic tax proposal also included a plan to more aggressively pay down the massive Federal debt and also built in a cushion to be more conservative, is that correct?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to further elaborate that just a couple of years ago that interest payment figure the gentleman cited was closer to $225 billion, and, just to put that in context for the folks at home, that was almost as much as we spent on Medicare for the entire country for that year. The good news was we were starting to reduce that interest payment, but now, as I think your chart points out, we are going to actually start borrowing more money again, driving up that interest payment, wasting money and potentially jeopardizing these historically low interest rates that consumers have been enjoying, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has said.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman, where does that leave us on two critical challenges we face: first, assuring there is a reasonable and fair rate of reimbursement to doctors and hospitals in rural areas and overcrowded other hospitals; and how do we begin to credibly fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit, given those numbers?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. If I could inquire further of the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, the biggest fear I have with what happened today is that we have failed to adopt a credible blueprint. The budget resolution is supposed to be our blueprint. For those of us elected to Congress because we extolled the virtues of the balanced budget and paying down the debt because it was the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren and contributed to lower interest rates and helped preserve Medicare and Social Security, we measure every act we take here, whether it is a tax cut or spending proposal, by how it affects our ability to have a balanced budget and pay down the debt. Having adopted a budget resolution today which I think clearly fails the test of being an honest yardstick as we go forward, I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I am terribly concerned as we start to debate spending proposals and tax cut proposals over here, we are not going to know where we are in relation to whether it is driving us further into deficit and how we are going to get into it. Does the gentleman have that fear?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has referred to probably one of the most devastating aspects of the budget resolution, and that is the Medicare feature. As the gentleman has mentioned, if we were to have used the true set of numbers that have been relied upon for years, roughly the amount of money available to spend on Medicare would be about $100 billion less than is projected today in the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I would just like to close by saying we have attempted tonight to identify in what we believe to be a credible way the problems facing this Congress, Madam Speaker. Earlier today we had the debate on beginning to talk about the solutions. One of the solutions that were proposed by a number of us that we hope the Senate will take up on a bipartisan basis is a trigger which would force the Congress to confront the painful fact that we are going deeper into deficit spending, and that once we do manage to get control of this war on terrorism and we pull out of the recession, that the Congress would be forced to develop a 5-year plan to balance the budget, to begin to use an honest set of numbers so we can again begin to prepare for the Social Security and Medicare, for the retirement of the baby boomers, to credibly talk about how we fund a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and to get back to paying down the debt, reducing our interest payments as a Federal Government, and contributing to lower interest rates for consumers at home. Madam Speaker, that concludes our presentation tonight.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 360, 107th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of David C.G. Kerr, a deeply respected lawyer in the Tampa Bay community who recently lost his battle with Lou Gehrig's disease. David, a veteran of the Korean War, worked at Tampa's Macfarlane, Ferguson and McMullen for nearly 40 years, specializing in transportation, admiralty and corporate law. He served as lead corporate counsel for a number of key Tampa real estate projects, including Harbour Island, Tampa Palms and the Ice Palace. David quickly became known for his great intellect and dedication to his job. He successfully argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, one of which established a principle in international admiralty law, and he served as his firm's chairman from 1990 to 1993. David also spent 39 years as general counsel and executive director of the National Juice Products Association, the industry's largest trade association. David will be remembered across the state for his work outside of the office. He served Florida's business and legal communities in countless ways, as President of Hillsborough County Bar Association in 1967, on the Florida Bar Association's board of directors in 1971, as president of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce in 1979, and chairman of its Committee of 100 in 1977. Later, at the request of Governors Bob Martinez and Lawton Chiles, David headed the Florida Transportation Commission and served as a member of the commission from 1987 to 1999. In this role, David succeeded remarkably in minimizing politics and moving Florida's transportation projects forward. Closer to home, David was a member of the University of Tampa's Board of Trustees, and was an active member of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church and Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla. I will remember David as a wonder role model for young people who desired to succeed in their business or profession and serve the community. David did everything with a dignity and grace that brought out the best in everyone with whom he worked. I am eternally grateful for the constant guidance and encouragement he gave me starting in my years as a teenager. David similarly touched the lives of hundreds of young people. On behalf of the people of Tampa Bay, I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathies to David's family.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband Deployment Act, which proposes major changes to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill would allow the former regional Bell telephone companies (RBOC's) to provide high speed, broadband Internet access without having to allow reasonable access to their networks to competing providers willing to pay for access. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been instrumental in introducing competition among providers of high-speed, broadband technologies like digital subscriber lines (DSL). These competitive developments have increased access to the Internet and its wealth of information while lowering prices for retailers and consumers alike. On the assumption that this competition was developing, many States, including Florida, my home, have repealed regulation of many aspects of the telecommunication industry. In 1995, as a State Representative, I strongly supported this deregulation based on my belief, then and now, that competition and choice was a far superior form of protection for consumers than the old system of regulation and monopoly service. However, many consumers still remain at an economic disadvantage because the RBOC's do not offer DSL service at all or offer it at an affordable rate, and potentially competing providers do not have reasonable access to the RBOC networks. H.R. 1542 would remove significant incentives for the RBOC's to open their markets to local competition by allowing them to provide broadband services without having to first demonstrate that their local telephone markets have been opened to competition. The further effect of this bill, should it become law, would be to constrain the ability of State and local governments to take steps to reasonably protect consumers' access to telecommunication service through competition or regulation. I believe that this bill would stifle any hope for free and open competition and if it were to become law, consumers would see less competitive choice when it comes to their Internet access. H.R. 1542 is bad for consumers and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return control of the time on this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) control 3 minutes of the time allocated to me and have the ability to yield time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. There has been a lot of debate, a lot of speculation on the floor of the House today as to who benefits under the bill. Is it Republicans, Democrats, labor unions, corporations, the media? The truth of the matter is we really do not know how this law is going to be used in the endless contest between the parties and all the competing interest groups; but the one thing we do know about this bill is it will reduce the amount of money that has infected and taken over politics, and it will begin to shift control back to the people for whose benefit this institution was founded. It will give them more control over the outcome of elections. This bill is not a panacea. It is not perfect. What it attempts to do is to close the two most gaping loopholes that exist in our campaign finance system today, the uncontrolled issue ads that are influencing the outcome of elections today and soft money. The story that was just told I found incredibly offensive about the ad that was used against a Republican Member of Congress, making up blatant lies about a member of his family. One of the best things we could do to protect the voters against that kind of trash is to force people to put their names on these ads because right now there are people running ads in this country on every end of the political spectrum that refuse to put their names on their ads. We had a hearing in which some of these groups said, if you force us to put our names on these political ads, we will not run the ads. Our response was what is wrong with that, if you are not willing to publicly associate yourself with the inflammatory and often deceitful content?

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Shays- Meehan proposal subjects those people who attempt to influence the outcome of an election to the same requirements that congressional candidates face now when they spend money to influence the election. There will be meaningful full disclosure that will allow the voters to judge who is making the statement and I believe will force people to discontinue making these inflammatory, deceitful actions. The second point that this bill addresses is incredible proliferation of soft money. I think it is fair to say there are thousands of people who are being forced or choosing to make campaign contributions of unlimited amounts to both political parties, and this is not for good government. Soft money was created to support political parties to encourage people to get the vote out and that will continue under Shays-Meehan. It was not intended to take over control. I just want to conclude by saying the amount of soft money was $86 million in 1992, $260 million in 1996; over half of a billion dollars in the year 2000, a half a billion dollars. We need to put a stop to that. We need to adopt this bill. It is for the good of the people. It is not for the good of a particular political party, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the Shays-Meehan bill.