Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Chesterfield Smith, a man of the highest principle, who in his long legal career has touched the lives of countless Floridians and left his mark on our state's and Nation's legal system. After receiving a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in World War II, Chesterfield returned to Florida to study law. He quickly rose to partner of Holland, Bevis and McRae and helped lead the firm through a successful merger with Knight, Jones, Whitaker and Germany in 1968. Under his watch, Holland & Knight LLP grew to become the Nation's eighth largest law firm. Chesterfield had a passion for his work. Whether his client was rich or poor, as partner of Holland & Knight, he worked long hours fighting for justice with irrepressible conviction. Born and bred in a segregated society, Chesterfield was a leader in integrating the legal profession by hiring women and minorities. In addition, Chesterfield, who strongly believed in the need to give back to one's community, pushed to incorporate pro bono work as regular practice for attorneys. Donating countless hours of service to Floridians in need helped earn him the nickname ``Citizen Smith,'' as well as the Laurie D. Zelon Pro Bono Award, which was presented to him in 2002 by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Chesterfield also served as president of the Florida Bar Association and chair of the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission, which drafted what became the new state Constitution of 1968. In 1997, former Gov. Lawton Chiles and the Cabinet, recognizing this work, named Chesterfield Smith one of the state's ``Great Floridians.'' However, Chesterfield may best be remembered for his service as president of the American Bar Association. Shortly after Chesterfield took the helm of the ABA in 1973, President Nixon dramatically fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox, assigned to investigate the Watergate scandal. The next day, Chesterfield became one of the first national leaders to publicly call for the President's resignation. In an ABA statement Chesterfield stated, ``No man is above the law,'' and bravely refused to back down from the legal principles that he so cherished. I am proud to have called Chesterfield a friend. I believe Justice Ginsberg said it well when she described Chesterfield as ``among the brightest, boldest, bravest, all-around most effective lawyers ever bred in Florida and the USA.'' Chesterfield was a wonderful person. On behalf of the Tampa Bay community, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Chesterfield's family. The people of Florida and of the Nation will always remember his enormous contributions.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1793.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Singapore trade agreement. As we debate trades agreements, it is terribly important that we try to work off the same set of facts, even though we will disagree on the interpretation of those facts and, ultimately, opinions. But this is a solid trade agreement. It is important not to overstate the impact of this agreement. While this agreement is terribly important to Singapore, our relationship with Singapore is terribly important, this trade agreement and its implementation will not have a dramatic impact on the United States in terms of imports or exports. But it is an important stepping stone for the future. It is increasingly clear that the Far East, Asia, is a very important part of our future in terms of national security, in terms of our political relationships, in terms of the world economy. The situation in North Korea underscores the need for us to be developing friendships with countries with whom we have much in common. Singapore is a democratic society. This is a model we should be holding up throughout the world of a country that has values they have implemented in a manner that makes them compatible with us and a model that we would hold up to other countries. Singapore has a middle class. This is a critical ingredient to having a level playing field in terms of the rights that we guarantee and sometimes take for granted with respect to our workers and protection of our environment and natural resources here. This agreement achieves a level parity in that regard, because Singapore has adopted forward laws on both labor and environment. We need to hold that up as a model as well. We would be mistaken, though, if we were to conclude that our work is finished once this trade agreement has been adopted. Because as has been mentioned by some of the speakers in opposition to this bill, there will be parts of the country, there will be sectors of our economy in which people will face increased competition, whether it is in the Singapore trade agreement or others we have debated or will debate on the floor of Congress. And it is critically important we recognize that ultimately this is about equipping our workers with the tools they need to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy. Now, that means that as we begin to debate spending in this Congress in the weeks ahead, to support the States that are struggling to continue job training programs, strong community college, State university educations, even Head Start programs, we must be terribly mindful that if we do not fulfill our responsibility to equip our workers with the tools they need to do their jobs, the global economy ultimately will not work for them, it will work against them. So let us adopt this trade agreement today; but let us fulfill our ultimate responsibility, which is to make sure the people we are here to represent have the tools they need to compete in this increasingly competitive global economy.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the argument which we just heard in opposition to the amendment is that as a matter of public safety we should not continue to follow the Clinton roadless rule. I would like to share some facts which I think undermine that argument. Ninety-eight percent of the fires that have occurred in roadless areas have been controlled while they are small. On the other hand, the Forest Service has found that fires are twice as likely to occur in roaded and log areas. Only 14 percent of roadless areas are considered at high risk for potentially devastating wildfires. There is no public safety argument to justify not having restrictions on building roads. What really is at stake here, as was outlined by Taxpayers for Common Sense, is that our tax dollars throughout the United States are being used to subsidize the creation of these roads and national forests not for safety purposes, but to subsidize transportation for the timber industry that is harvesting timber in these parks. Now, those of my colleagues who represent parts of the country whose economies benefit from harvesting timber do not need to apologize to fight for those jobs, but what my colleagues are not entitled to is to ask the rest of the country to subsidize those businesses.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am referring to commercial logging; and I know the gentleman, who is an expert in this area, can perhaps use more appropriate terminology, but here is the final point I want to make. The statistics suggest that there is between a $13 million and a billion-dollar backlog in terms of what we need to do to construct and maintain roads in these parks. And instead of concentrating on that, we are going to be subsidizing commercial logging by building roads not for public safety. For those reasons, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. The motion to instruct represents an attempt to identify two areas that must be addressed if there is to be a compromise, if there is to be a prescription drug benefit under Medicare in this Congress. I daresay virtually every Member of this body has promised to find a way to provide Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. There is a basis for consensus among Republicans and Democrats to operate within the constraints of the budget. This is not the budget many Democrats would have chosen but out of a desire to solve this problem immediately and begin to provide some coverage for the seniors at home that are desperately struggling to meet their drug bills, there is a desire to work together. The two issues the motion to instruct addresses are very simple. The first is whether or not our seniors are forced to rely exclusively on private plans to get drug coverage. Since this bill was introduced weeks ago, I would say there is not a single private insurance company in Washington or the United States that has come forward to the Federal Government and said, we want your money, we want to provide this private drug benefit you have created. As a matter of fact, in the committee one of the responses that was made by the esteemed chairman to the apparent lack of interest among the private insurance companies was, if necessary, we, the Congress, will subsidize over 99 percent of the cost of these drug benefit plans to encourage the private companies to come in. That not only is a waste of taxpayer dollars, it is an insult to our seniors. Because unless we adopt the Senate fallback provision which says that if two private insurance companies will not provide the drug benefit, traditional Medicare will, we are holding up a false hope for our seniors. So the first thing the motion to instruct does is take the Senate position that there will be a fallback, traditional fee-for-service drug benefit if two private plans fail to do so. The second issue addressed by the motion to instruct is the issue of the voucher. Under 2010 in this bill, Medicare as we know it ends. Medicare is converted to a voucher program. Under the voucher plan if you are, as many people are at the age of 65, not entirely healthy, you can safely assume these private insurance companies will not want to insure you. You will not be a good risk. You will not be sufficiently profitable. Under this bill, unless the motion to instruct is adopted, people who cannot get into a private plan are left with a voucher. The Medicare actuary has estimated that could result in as much as a 25 percent increase in the cost of Medicare to people that have the voucher. We are going to leave people over 65 with health problems without access to Medicare unless this motion to instruct is adopted.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 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 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), who has been a leader on this issue in the House.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and the ranking member on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the only defense in support of a voucher was a misstatement on the other side that there is a guaranteed issue that even seniors with health problems over 65 are guaranteed HMO coverage. That is a false statement. There is no guarantee with respect to the level of coverage. There is no guarantee with respect to the price or affordability.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. What we are left with is any senior over 65 that has a health problem at all under the statement of the chief actuarial of Medicare, this is not a Democratic or Republican statement, can experience up to a 25 percent increase in price and is left with a voucher in no way to afford traditional fee-for-service Medicare. There are seniors in this country, they are not just Democrats, Republicans or Independents, they are senior citizens. They have outlived their good health, their savings. They tried to plan responsibly for their retirement. Unless we adopt the motion to instruct and defeat this voucher, we will leave these seniors in the cold. I urge adoption of the motion to instruct.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Dr. Israel ``Ike'' Tribble, Jr., a remarkable man who dedicated his whole life to equipping African-American young people in our community, our state and our country with the educational tools they need to succeed in their personal and professional lives. Ike had an amazing ability to see the good in everyone, and he knew that education was the key to fully unlocking everyone's God-given potential. After earning a masters in school administration and a doctorate in administration and policy analysis, Ike began a career focused on promoting higher education opportunities for all people. Ike first blessed Floridians with his talents in 1982 when he moved to Tallahassee to serve as associate vice chancellor for academic programs for the Florida Board of Regents. From there he was recruited to start the Florida Education Fund, a program designed to help African-Americans earn doctorates and law degrees. During his 17 years leading the Fund to new heights, Ike helped thousands of young people on their path to higher education. When Ike was not working long hours at the Fund, he was devoting his energies to a host of other civic boards and committees. He served on the Advisory Committee on the Education of Blacks in Florida and as Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Tampa Housing Authority. As the first African-American chairman of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, Ike was responsible for making the board more representative of our diverse business community and focusing business and community leaders on the virtues of educating our young people. In 1999, Ike was diagnosed with acute leukemia. Ike faced his illness with the same courage and positive attitude that he applied to all other facets of his life. Through chemotherapy and multiple transplants, Ike fought to the end, and he never stopped giving back to his community. I consider it the highest honor, privilege and joy to have called Ike Tribble my dear friend and a mentor. Ike's passion and commitment to improving the lives of those around him was unsurpassed. Like so many touched by Ike, I will forever be inspired by Ike's compelling example, his wisdom and his zest for life. On behalf of the Tampa Bay community, which so greatly benefitted from Ike's life work, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the Tribble family.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we can all agree upon here today is that there ought to be an open and honest debate in our country and with our seniors as to exactly how to accomplish writing a prescription drug benefit. There are Democrats here who recognize that we have to live within the budget constraints that have been forced upon us, and we are ready to take the first step, even though it would not be the final step we would take. We are ready to work with Republicans. This bill that is being forced on the House of Representatives today with a minimum amount of debate is a sham. There are many ways to illustrate the point. Probably the best is the private insurance companies who are being asked to provide this drug benefit are saying, once again, we do not want to do it. We do not want your money. There are not many people here in Washington who tell the government we do not want your money. These private insurance companies do not want to write this drug benefit. This bill is a sham. The bill sets no details on premium, no details on the scope of the coverage. What are seniors getting under this bill? They do not know because we honestly do not know. The Dooley bill deserves a debate here today. It represents a compromise between what the Senate and the House is trying to do here and what the Democrats are proposing in the substitute. We deserve to have a debate on the Dooley bill. Mr. Speaker, the rule should be defeated, the motion should be defeated, and we should debate the Dooley bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to agree upon tonight is that we owe our seniors truthfulness. We should be very clear and honest with them and ourselves as to exactly what is happening. Our failure to do so is a cardinal sin because it is ultimately to disrespect our seniors. This bill offered by the House Republicans is based on a remarkable fixation with private insurance companies. Private insurance companies throughout the country in Washington have said once again they do not want the money that is being offered under this bill to write these private insurance plans. The distinguished chairman of the committee's response to that is we will subsidize 99 percent of this cost as necessary to get private insurance companies to sell this benefit. How often in Washington, D.C. do you hear somebody turn down that type of money the government is offering them? Something is wrong with this plan. I salute the Republicans on the committee who acknowledge they were concerned about whether private insurance companies would offer this benefit to seniors. Some of them are going to vote against the bill tonight based on that concern. A number of Democrats have said to those Republicans and others, we will work with you on a bill that fits within our budget constraints but let us have a traditional Medicare benefit that provides drug coverage. What does this bill do? It does not set any maximum premium. It does not set any maximum deductible. It has a doughnut that almost 50 percent of seniors will experience after they have spent $2,000 on drug costs. During that time period they will be forced to pay a premium for basically nothing. I would like to bring a chart up here to also show you just how complicated this plan will be that is being foisted on seniors. This represents a relatively detailed description of what this bill attempts to do. Would somebody on the majority please explain to me how this bill works and how any senior at home, Democrat, Republican or Independent, is expected to understand how to use this drug benefit? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional hours to explain the chart.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. The tax cut that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) referred to, for which there was a bipartisan consensus, was a tax cut that evenly spread the benefits out and provided a true stimulus. The tax cut that was passed on an extremely partisan basis, only 5 percent of it will take effect immediately as a stimulus, and the rest results in this exploding difference the gentleman is describing.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. In my home State, Florida, the historically low interest rates have contributed to prosperity for so many more than any tax cut I have ever heard promised in Washington. What has Chairman Alan Greenspan said in front of the Committee on the Budget about the impact on low interest rates and student loans and credit card debts and mortgages if we continue with this level of deficits?