Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

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

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), our closing Democratic speaker, a senior member of the Committee on International Relations who just returned from a trip to the Balkans region. (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House has the opportunity to debate these important questions before us today. While I have not supported the first three options before us, I do believe that Congress needs to have a voice in the involvement of the United States in Operation Allied Force. We should stand up and express our support for our troops and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). We must also take this opportunity for Congress to show Mr. Milosevic that we are united in our belief and determination that his campaign of terror must be stopped. We must work with the international community to help restore peace to the region and to ensure that the Kosovar Albanians who want to return to their homes are allowed to do so. We must work with our Allies to force Milosevic to withdraw his military and para-military forces from Kosovo and to provide self-governance for Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, we must work together with our Allies in Europe to achieve a lasting peace in this critical region. To accomplish these goals, we must continue to participate in Operation Allied Force and support the air strikes. We are steadily diminishing the power of Mr. Milosevic and his military forces. For the United States to withdraw from this operation at this time would, in my opinion, undermine the entire NATO effort to stem Milosevic and his campaign of terror against the Albanian population, hand Milosevic a victory and, in effect, validate his campaign of ethnic cleansing. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues how we can in good conscience turn our back on these people and the horrible crimes that are being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians. While I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Campbell, for bringing this issue before the House, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both of his resolutions. We should not withdraw our troops or declare war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I also oppose H.R. 1569 offered by Representatives Fowler, Goodling, and Kasich. This bill would prohibit the Department of Defense from deploying ``ground elements'' in Yugoslavia unless such a deployment is authorized by Congress, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. Passing this proposal at this time is at best premature and at worst is a prescription for failure of our current air strike operation. The Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill is unnecessary. Congress ultimately holds the power of the purse and will continue to have the ability to withhold funding for this operation. In addition, if events change and the President decides that ground troops are needed, he should come to Congress and ask for our support and approval at that time. Furthermore, if this prohibition of funds were to become law, many aspects of the current NATO operation could be imperiled. We would be weakening our own position for future negotiations for a settlement by removing the threat of possible ground troops in the future. We must show Milosevic our resolve. We must make it clear to Milosevic that we intend to prevail and that we are reserving options to accomplish victory. The Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill also puts our current operations in Yugoslavia at risk. For example, MacDill Air Force Base, located in my community, is the headquarters for U.S. Special Operations Command--a unified command that oversees special operations for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Forces housed at MacDill could very well be involved on the ground in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in support of our air strikes. I am concerned that this bill would put their operations and possibly their lives at peril. We should not limit the ability of the troops already in and around Yugoslavia as part of our current operation. Our NATO Allies have stepped up to the plate in Kosovo. Just last weekend, at the NATO Summit here in Washington, DC, the leaders of the alliance reaffirmed their commitment and resolve to maintain the air campaign against Yugoslavia until our objectives are met. Now it is time for Congress to step up to the plate and endorse the NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia. I urge my colleagues to support the Gejdenson Alternative offered in the form of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. This Resolution authorizes the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Passage of this Resolution will express Congress' endorsement of NATO air strikes and send a strong message to Milosevic that we are unified with our allies. Adopting this Resolution will reaffirm to our troops carrying out this mission that Congress supports them. By endorsing the NATO action, Congress will be sending a message that we are unified as a nation and determined to stop Milosevic. Fifty years ago, we formed NATO to work together for the security of Europe. Today, the Cold War has ended and communism has ended. However, there is still a great need to work to ensure the safety and stability of countries in Europe who have been our partners for these 50 years. We have heard a lot about the fear of Milosevic and his forces crossing over the borders. Some thought this might be an unfounded fear. However, we now know that the Serbian forces have crossed over into Albania, proof that Milosevic has no fear and is quite willing to cross sovereign borders to continue his atrocious attacks on the people in this region. The stability of Eastern Europe is at stake and we must stand by our allies in the region. I urge this House to show Mr. Milosevic that we stand behind our military and our allies. Join me in supporting Senate Concurrent Resolution 21.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight one more time what we have been talking about tonight, and that is that there should be no greater priority in this Congress than paying down the $5.3 trillion Federal debt. We are living in a time of uncertainty. We have got a difficult situation. We are going to do our best to manage in Kosovo. We have got an incredibly healthy economy, but we cannot be certain what lies ahead. The most prudent thing for us to be doing right now is to make paying down this massive Federal debt our highest priority. There are three good reasons why we ought to do that. First is, it is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren. We should not force them to inherit this massive debt. The second reason is, it will help us prepare Medicare and Social Security for the retirement of the baby boomers, because those funds that we set aside by virtue of paying down the debt can be used as the baby boomers begin to retire and put more strain on Medicare and Social Security. Finally, it is the best thing we can do here in Congress to assure that this economy will stay healthy. Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, testifying before the House Committee on the Budget, makes it perfectly clear that, as we pay down this Federal debt and the Federal Government competes less to borrow money in the private sector, it has a direct bearing on interest rates. In my home, like many of the homes we represent, Hillsborough County and Tampa and Florida where the average mortgage is about $115,000, when we drop interest rates about 2 points, from 8 percent to 6 percent, that reduces a monthly mortgage payment by $155. I will tell my colleagues that $155 reduction in that homeowner's monthly mortgage payment is better than most of the tax cuts that are being promised here in Washington. They can be taken immediately, and one does not have to call one's accountant to figure out how to do it. That is just one example of the positive impact of paying down the debt, apart from the fact it is the right thing to do, apart from the fact that it is the best thing we can do right now for Medicare and Social Security. So I urge my colleagues to take a second look at this $780 billion tax cut that we just passed here, and let us go back and let us do a tax cut, but let us put first things first. Let us pay down this massive Federal debt. Let us make that our highest priority. It will produce benefits at home for homeowners, for students who have student loans, for people who are trying to pay back credit card debts, and it is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 68, the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution. This resolution should be defeated because of the policies it sets forth and the procedure under which it was brought to the floor today. Last year, for the first time since Congressional budget procedures were established in 1974, this body failed to adopt a conference report on the budget resolution. This year, the conference report was completed almost before the conferees were even appointed and the first opportunity the minority had to read the conference report was 12:30 this morning. The budget resolution is a blueprint for our national priorities. It defines what we as a Congress believe is important and establishes the basis for the rest of our work this session. Questions of how much we are willing to spend to educate our children, to fight crime, to protect our environment, to reduce the massive national debt--these are the hard questions we should be deciding and we owe it to our constituents to have an open and rigorous debate on these issues. Instead, today we are poised to rubber-stamp a conference agreement that no one has had adequate opportunity to study and whose broad objectives set us on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility. Today, our Nation's economy is the envy of the world. We have historically low unemployment and inflation coupled with sustained moderate economic growth. The stock market is at record levels and even our economic experts are at a lost to explain how this expansion has continued for eight years with no signs of weakness. The question we face today is whether we will take advantage of this unprecedented growth to pay off past obligations and prepare for the future or simply squander this opportunity by putting tax cuts first, ahead of paying down the debt and ensuring the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. My view, echoed in testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, is that we should dedicate the lion's share of the budget surpluses to reducing the publicly held debt. This is the surest way to continue the cycle of economic growth and continuing surpluses. Furthermore, as we pay down the debt, interest rates will continue to decline. Consider what a two percent reduction in interest rates would mean for the average homeowner in my home town: By reducing the 30-year fixed rate mortgage from 8% to 6% on a $115,000 house in Hillsborough County, Florida, a homeowner's monthly mortgage would drop from $844 to $689. This translates into savings of $155 each month or $1,860 each year. That is more substantial and more fiscally responsible than the tax cuts proposed by this conference report. Unfortunately, the Democratic Alternative which would have locked in greater debt reduction than this plan was rejected in Committee and on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, the question today is not simply whether we are for or against tax cuts. The question is what priority we should place on cutting taxes compared with paying down the debt and preserving Social Security and Medicare. Personally, I support targeted tax cuts; however, I believe we must maintain fiscal discipline and prepare for the coming demographic changes of the baby boomers' retirement. Once we have address these critical issues, then we should consider tax cuts, or even more importantly, overall tax reform. Instead, today, this House is poised to squander a golden opportunity and embrace a plan which puts its greatest emphasis on tax cuts. This is not the legacy we should leave for future generations and I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress the Republican leadership attempted to block the passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. But the freshman class of 1996, Democrats and Republicans, worked together on a bipartisan basis with the Shays- Meehan bill to force the issue. We ultimately succeeded in bringing an open debate on this issue to the Floor of the House. We thought we had demonstrated the importance to the American people of taking up campaign finance reform, but once again the Republican leadership does not fully appreciate the magnitude of this issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Shays-Meehan bill. We must ban soft money and find a way to regulate sham issue ads. Soft money contributions are exploding. The amount of money contributed to both political parties has grown at an enormous and unacceptable rate. In 1992 soft money accounted for $86 million. By 1996 it had increased to $260 million. In 1998, a nonpresidential election year, it increased to $193 million, twice the increase the previous year. We need to address this cancer. We need to sign the discharge petition, and have meaningful and timely debate on campaign finance reform.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today we have a very fundamental choice before us; we can pass the budget resolution that proposes a tax cut over 10 years of approximately $800 billion, or we can do first things first, and that is we can take up and pass the Spratt amendment, which provides a tax cut of about $137 billion but pays down the publicly held debt, the Federal debt, by more than $137 billion more than the Republican budget proposal. Now, why is that so important? The first thing is it is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren, and not for them to have to inherit this debt. The second thing is, as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers, of which I am one, and funding the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, we are going to need some of those funds to pay that. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, one of the best things we can do to protect our economy right now is to pay down the Federal debt. As Chairman Greenspan has testified before the House Committee on the Budget, it has a direct bearing on interest rates. In my home, Florida and Tampa, where the average mortgage for a homeowner is about $115,000, if we drop interest rates two points, down from 8 to 6 percent, that is $155 a month in that homeowner's pocket they would not otherwise have. Paying down the debt and providing that type of tax cut, simple and immediate, to homeowners, to people holding student loans and car loans, is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren and, most importantly, will help preserve the solvency of Medicare and Social Security as we begin to prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, our constituents sent us here to tend to their business and represent their views to the best of our abilities. This debate today is central to fulfilling that mission. We talk about committee funding. What we are really talking about is whether Members of Congress have adequate resources to represent their constituents in committees, and much of the most important work in Congress, the fact-finding, takes place in committee. The Democrat minority has made a very fair and responsible request. We make up 49 percent of the House of Representatives, and we are simply asking for one-third of the committee funding. As former Speaker Newt Gingrich once said, giving one-third of the funding to the minority is absolutely indispensable for bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our policy debates. We all know the damage this institution has suffered recently because of venomous partisan clashes. It is my sincere hope that these dark days are behind us and we can forge a stronger bond of trust to work together for the good of our Nation. A more just distribution of resources will take us down this path. Let me cite the work of one committee as an example of why it is so important that we have the one-third ratio. The performance of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight illustrates what can happen when there is nothing to rein in an overly zealous partisan agenda. The committee held few hearings, spent huge sums of money, duplicated resources available elsewhere, and even manipulated transcripts to advance their agenda. Had the minority had the opportunity and resources to participate more fully in the conduct of the committee's business, it might have been able to serve as a restraint on this committee's record. Despite its record, this committee has asked for a 7 percent funding increase while freezing the minority's resources at 25 percent. This is unacceptable. Back in 1995 the Committee on House Administration stated its goal was to have one-third funding, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has lived up to that goal. Unfortunately, several committees have not. Let me close with two final points. There has been a lot of talk about what the Democrats did and what the Republicans have done. It is important to keep in mind that over 43 percent of the House Members serving here today, 189 Members, did not serve in this Congress prior to 1994. We are not so much interested in the history of who did what to who. We are interested in serving our constituents and moving forward. One of my favorite sayings is: ``Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own version of the facts'' And we all know, Democrats and Republicans, that one of the places where we can come together and minimize disagreement is agreeing upon what the facts are. Unless the Democrats have the staff support they need to do their work so we can come together on the fact-finding in the committees, then we cannot truly do what we were sent here to do, which is debate our opinions. I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution today and to support the Hoyer motion to recommit.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, more so than ever before in the history of our country Americans are outliving their savings and good health. Many of these men and women defended our country in times of war and built our country through their hard work and sacrifice. These men and women are our parents and grandparents. Thanks to them, we enjoy a lot of the success and opportunity we have today. Many of these seniors are now in nursing homes across the country, and now it is our turn to care for them. The issue before us today is protecting Medicaid residents from being evicted from nursing homes. The issue is preventing nursing homes from draining a patient's savings dry and then kicking them out because Medicaid is needed to pay the nursing home bill. I believe that nursing home residents and their families should not have to live with fear of eviction based on how they pay their bills. It is unfair and flat out wrong that our most vulnerable and frail citizens, and their families, must worry about being evicted in nursing homes in favor of people who can pay higher rates. The bill before us today provides security for these patients and their families by ensuring that they cannot be evicted from a nursing home in favor of higher paying patients if the nursing home chooses to voluntarily withdraw from the entire Medicaid program. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, our bill will ensure that our nursing homes do not put profits ahead of patients. In April of 1998, a nursing home in my hometown of Tampa, Florida, in Hillsborough County, tried to evict 54 Medicaid residents, including Adelaida Mongiovi, under the guise of emptying their facility for remodeling. A judge halted the evictions, and the nursing home then told residents they could stay. If it had not been for the commitment and determination of the Mongiovis, we would not be here today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Nelson and Geri Mongiovi, Adelaida's son and daughter-in-law, for their commitment for their loved-one and for bringing this issue to the forefront. Although Adelaida Mongiovi passed away late last year, I know that she is proud of her son and daughter-in-law for continuing to volunteer at that nursing home every day and for fighting for the rights of those nursing home residents. I am proud to represent them. The Mongiovis are a clear example of how citizens throughout this country can identify problems that need to be addressed by Congress and persuade Congress to do the right thing. After the judge halted the evictions in Tampa, an investigation by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration found the evictions were based solely on the fact that these residents relied on Medicaid to pay their bills. The nursing home was subsequently fined by both the State and Federal Government. Opponents of this legislation will argue that what the nursing home in Tampa did was illegal and that current law prevents them from evicting Medicaid residents. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Yes, the nursing home in Tampa was fined because they did not follow legal procedures for transferring and discharging patients. However, if they had followed those procedures, it would have been perfectly legal for them to remove these most frail and vulnerable citizens. Under the current law, one of the criteria for transferring or discharging a nursing home resident is failure to pay. If the national chain that operated the nursing home in Tampa had been honest about what they were attempting to do, withdrawing from the Medicaid program, and had notified the residents and families of their intention to withdraw, they could have legally evicted these Medicaid residents for failure to pay their bills. If a nursing home no longer accepts Medicaid payment and the resident has no other means to pay their bill, they have failed to pay their bills. According to the Health Care Financing Administration, about 58 nursing homes a year over the last 3 years have voluntarily withdrawn from Medicaid. It has been reported that in one nursing home chain alone, Medicaid residents were evicted in 13 homes in 9 separate States as part of a corporate plan to withdraw an additional 25 homes from the Medicaid program. This is not just a Florida problem. It is a national problem which must be addressed by Congress. There are incidents of evictions and improper transfers of Medicaid residents in nursing homes in Indiana, California, Tennessee and other States. As a result of this problem, California passed legislation prohibiting these mass evictions by requiring the nursing homes that withdraw from Medicaid to wait until the patients die or choose to leave the facility. While the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 established standards to guard against resident abuse, nothing in current law protects Medicaid nursing home residents who rely solely on Medicaid to pay their bills. Residents who spend their life savings on a lengthy nursing home stay are at the mercy of a facility which could later decide to dump them based solely on the fact that they are using Medicaid to pay their bills. H.R. 540 is simple and fair. This bill prohibits nursing homes who have already accepted a Medicaid patient or private pay patient from evicting or transferring that resident based on his or her payment status. Nursing homes may continue to decide which residents are admitted to their facility and could withdraw entirely from the Medicaid program. However, they will not be permitted to dump these residents once they are admitted. Under this bill, nursing homes can still voluntarily leave the Medicaid system, and they should be free to do so. However, residents need minimum protection once they enter these facilities which have left Medicaid. Many residents enter a facility as private paying clients with the expectation that they will become eligible for Medicaid when they have depleted their personal assets by paying for their care. Sixty-three percent of nursing home residents who enter a nursing home do so as a private pay patient and exhaust their personal savings in just 13 weeks, and 87 percent of them exhaust their savings in just 36 weeks. H.R. 540 addresses this problem. If a patient enters a nursing home with the expectation that they will be eligible for Medicaid coverage in the future, they will, in fact, be protected should the nursing home withdraw from the Medicaid program in the midst of their spend down of personal assets. Another protection included in the bill is advance notification when the nursing home decides not to participate in the Medicaid program. Under this provision, if a nursing home no longer participates, it must provide clear and conspicuous notice to future residents that the nursing home does not participate in the Medicaid program and it does not accept Medicaid patients. Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I have not yet and hopefully will not have to experience having a loved one in a nursing home. I can only imagine what a trying and stressful time that must be. This provision of the bill is intended to relieve some of the stress of that situation. Under our bill, family members will know in advance whether the nursing home they are choosing to enter their loved one in is the appropriate nursing home for them. I am pleased this bill has received bipartisan support in the House with 62 cosponsors. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) for his support of the legislation and for moving it so swiftly through the House of Representatives. I want to also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for their support. In addition to their support of this bill, the bill is supported by many senior citizen advocacy groups, including the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the AARP, the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the Seniors Coalition and the 60 Plus Association. Mr. Speaker, in closing, 1.6 million nursing home residents are at risk of eviction if this legislation is not approved. To these most vulnerable citizens, their nursing facility is, in fact, their home. Everyone should feel safe and secure in their home, including residents in nursing homes. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill to prevent our most frail and vulnerable citizens from being evicted from their homes.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the position advocated by the President in his budget proposal that we use the lion's share of the surplus to pay down the Federal debt. The proposal to use 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security and 15 percent for Medicare will have that effect. We have a chance for the first time in decades to begin to bring the debt held by the public, the money the Federal Government owes to other people, down to a level that we all try to exercise in our homes and businesses. This will allow the Federal Government for the first time to more responsibly manage our debt and run the Nation's business. Now, what impact does that have for those of us at home? In Hillsborough County, my home, the average mortgage balance on a home is about $115,000. With a 2 percent drop in interest rates, which we can expect to occur as we begin to pay down the debt, a monthly mortgage payment could drop from $844 to $689. That is $155 a month in the pocket of a homeowner that he or she would not otherwise have. That is better than most any tax cut this Chamber could pass. It could be done by paying down the debt, using the lion's share of the surplus to protect Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to adopt that.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about a very important choice before the Congress and before the United States. It has to do with how we use the surplus that has developed in the social security trust fund, and in the years ahead, the surpluses that will begin to develop elsewhere in the Federal Government if this economy continues to be as healthy as it has been. I support the President's position that we take the lion's share of this surplus in the social security trust fund and use it to pay down the debt. Those of us who serve on the Committee on the Budget have the job to begin to sort through the fine print on this. What is becoming clear is what the President has proposed is balanced. What the President has proposed is that as we pay down the debt, we will be protecting social security for the retirement of the baby boomers in the future. We will be protecting Medicare for the future as well. The position that we should be taking, the balanced position we should be taking is, if we want additional spending as a Democrat or Republican for education or other programs, we find a place to cut the Federal budget to fund that, but do not use the surplus. Let us pay down the debt first. If we want to cut taxes, which we should do, find a place in the Federal Government to cut spending to support that tax cut, but do not use the surplus. Use the surplus to pay down the debt. This can be done. We did it in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act. We enacted tax cuts of over $90 billion by cutting spending elsewhere in the Federal Government, not relying upon the lion's share of the surplus. That should go into paying down the Federal debt. Let me talk about the very important fact of how this benefits all of us at home. As we begin to pay down the debt, we will continue to enjoy a very healthy economy. Alan Greenspan who has testified before the House Committee on the Budget has made it clear that, as the Federal Government borrows less and less, as more and more money is available in the private sector, interest rates will go down. Interest rates could go down as much as two additional points if we continue our course of fiscal responsibility and do as the President has advocated, use the lion's share of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay down the debt. What does that mean to us as the consumers? Look at the average mortgage, about $115,000 in many parts of the country. One is paying $844 every month on one's mortgage to keep one's home. If interest rates go down two additional points, that could mean a drop in one's monthly mortgage payment to $689. That is $155 in one's pocket that one did not have beforehand. One did not have to call one's accountant to figure out how to use the tax code to take that savings. It is money in one's pocket every month. That is what low interest rates are about. That is what it is about when we talk about using the lion's share of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay down the debt. Let me give my colleagues another example. Many children and adults in this country have student loans. As interest rates drop in response to us paying down the Federal debt, it will have a positive impact on people that are working so very desperately to repay their student loans. In many parts of the country, the average student loan rate is about 8\1/4\ percent and a balance of about $35,000. There are a lot of students and former students in this country that owe a lot of money to the Federal Government. If interest rates continue to decline as we pay down the debt, one can see as much as a $385 drop per month in student loans. That is money in one's pocket. That is better than most of the tax cuts one will hear advocated up here. We are doing it in a way that is responsible. We are paying down the Federal debt. We are protecting Medicare. We are protecting Social Security by doing the same thing that each of us does at home, which is try to keep our checkbook in order. So I support the President's position that we use the lion's share of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay down the debt. It is the right thing to do. It is good for Social Security. It is good for Medicare. It will help consumers at home. It will lower interest rates.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first, I would add my voice to those of other Members who have expressed how deeply disappointed and saddened they are with the President's reprehensible conduct. He has disgraced himself and the office of the Presidency. Not only was his personal misconduct immoral, but I further believe his actions to cover up that personal behavior both publicly and in legal proceedings were wrong, significantly worsened the situation, and must be punished. I have no doubt that the President was deceitful, misleading, and in fact crossed the line between legal hairsplitting and lying. The question we face today is whether the President's wrongdoings warrant the ultimate constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal from office. Our founding fathers were clear that impeachment should not be used as a form of punishment. As summarized by the 1974 Staff Report for the Committee on the Judiciary, ``The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.'' Ultimately at stake are the collective rights of the public who elected this President, not the personal right of William Jefferson Clinton to continue to serve as President. For that reason, the removal of a sitting President from office should be reserved only for conduct so egregious as to threaten our system of government. Referring again to the report of the 1974 Committee, impeachment is warranted only to address misconduct which is ``seriously incompatible with either the Constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of the Constitutional duties of the Presidential office.'' In short, removing the President from office is a drastic remedy to be used only when the survival of our Constitutional form of government is at stake. In the case presented in the referral by the Office of Independent Counsel and the Judiciary Committee's majority staff, I do not believe that the President used the power of the presidency to engage in his misconduct and I do not believe any of his actions threatened the nation. While I do not agree with those who claim private actions can never warrant impeachment, I do believe that private misconduct must also rise to a level of severity which undermines the individual's ability to further discharge his or her duties as President of the United States. Even though I have concluded that the President has lied and deceived many with respect to his extramarital affair, I believe that as an individual Member of Congress, I still will be able to work with this President on the issues of importance to my constituents. I believe, as do most Americans, that the President still has the ability to govern. Since his conduct did not threaten the nation or undermine his ability to carry out his Presidential duties, I have decided to oppose impeachment. If impeachment is to be viewed as a way to save the country from the abuse or violation of the public trust, we must weigh the risks of action and inaction and the consequences of both for our country. The principal argument of those in favor of impeachment is that the President's actions, if left unaddressed, would undermine our rule of law. I agree that no individual, including the President of the United States, is above the law. Did the President lie? Yes, I believe he did. Did the President commit criminal perjury? That is a legal conclusion to be decided by a criminal court--a court which ultimately may find perjury in this case. However, impeachment should not be used in this instance simply to punish perjury. Instead, I believe holding the President accountable for his actions in a criminal court of law is the best way we can uphold the rule of law in our country. The President, upon leaving office, can and should be subject to criminal prosecution. Just as important to me are the consequences, for our country and future generations, of impeaching the President. I am gravely concerned that significantly lowering the standard for impeachment will lead to an increase in the frequency of impeachments, or at the very least the threat of impeachments, in the future. Our founding fathers, whose wisdom becomes clearer with each passing day, designed a means for removing the President which would be used in rare and extreme instances. If we are prepared to impeach the President for his efforts in this specific instance to hide this tawdry affair, I believe impeachment will become simply another weapon in the arsenal of partisan politics. This undoubtedly would have the effect of weakening the separation of powers that has made our national government so successful and enduring. From the onset, the trauma of this scandal has touched everyone involved. The President bringing immense disgrace upon his office, has justifiably suffered both public and private humiliation. Congress has been forced to spend months debating these allegations rather than addressing the challenges facing our country and the American public has been bombarded with the lewd and salacious details of the President's misconduct in newspapers, television broadcasts, and the Internet. The impeachment proceedings have been extremely partisan and have, in large part, only worsened the underlying harm to the country initially caused by the President's misconduct. that is why I join with those, including esteemed statesmen such as former President Ford and Senate Majority Leader Dole, who believe, rather than removing the President from office, a formal rebuke in a sharply worded censure resolution is be the best solution for this Constitutional dilemma. While I long ago gave up hope that something good could come out of this process, I believe a censure resolution is the most appropriate conclusion for the Congress and the country. The President will live forever with the political consequences of his actions and should face the criminal consequences upon leaving office. My decision to support censure in an effort to punish the President without further punishing the presidency or the country.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of impeachment because I do not think the misconduct of the President was a threat to the Nation. I will respond to the understandable concern that has been expressed here tonight by those who support the articles and those that oppose them about the effect on the rule of law. This President, upon leaving office, will be subjected to criminal prosecution for having lied under oath. This is not just a theory. There will be accountability here. The independent counsel statute, which Congress would do well to let expire, specifically provides that the current office of independent counsel will continue to exist past the duration of the Clinton presidency. This office of the independent counsel, who no one has criticized as not being sufficiently aggressive, will in all likelihood be charged with the responsibility of making that decision whether to prosecute. The President will be held accountable in a criminal court of law where a jury will have the right to determine whether he has committed perjury. That is a separate consideration from impeachment. We will uphold the rule of law by the President being subjected to criminal prosecution. But the President's behavior does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We will also be held accountable for having deprived this body the opportunity to vote for censure in lieu of impeachment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this resolution. I would like to start by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his leadership in bringing the resolution before the House today. Also appreciate his willingness to work with members of the administration and the concerns of Members of the House. House Resolution 533 is intended to send a clear signal to Hun Sen and his supporters that the United States and the entire international community views with grave concerns both his past actions and his current activities that threaten to impose a system of harsh dictatorship on the people of Cambodia. There are few people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered more cruelly in the past quarter century than the Cambodians. In the aftermath of a badly flawed election, Hun Sen is in the process of solidifying his hold over the levers of power in Cambodia. In the final analysis, I regret to say there is little that the United States can do to prevent this tragedy. But at an absolute minimum, we must make clear our opposition to the imposition of a repressive regime on the long-suffering Cambodian people. We can unequivocally, as well, state our conviction that those responsible for Cambodia's past sorrows should be brought to justice. So, Madam Speaker, this resolution deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this important measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the President's improper relationship was immoral and inexcusable. His actions represent a tremendous lapse of judgement which deeply troubles me and which has caused immense pain for his family and our entire Nation. Compounding these actions, the president clearly misled the American people--an act which has further torn the already tattered bonds of trust between citizens and elected officials. This is perhaps the highest price we will all pay for the self-centered actions of one man. Over the past months, our Nation has struggled to make sense of this scandal, to find a fitting punishment for the President's actions, and to move forward with important matters facing our country. While many Americans would simply like this whole issue to be dropped, we as Members of this House have a Constitutional duty to fulfill. Therefore, today's debate is not about whether we should move forward with an inquiry. Sadly, after a thorough review of the Referral from the Independent Council, I believe that the allegations of potentially impeachable offenses compels us to do so. The question instead is how we should move forward to ensure that we conduct an inquiry that is fair, timely, and focused and which minimizes the potential risks to our country as a whole. The structure of the inquiry is integral to preserving the integrity of the process. No one will be served by a process that is perceived as simply a partisan attempt to undo the results of the last election. That is why I wrote a letter to our distinguished colleague, Chairman Henry Hyde, which sought to forge a bi-partisan commitment to a focused impartial inquiry. At this point I would like to submit this letter for the Record. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC October 7, 1998. Dear Chairman Hyde: You have repeatedly expressed your desire to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into whether the House should impeach the President. I know that you want and need bipartisan support for your motion to proceed with inquiry to substantiate the creditability of the inquiry. Based on my review of the Referral from the Independent Council and the evidence released by your Committee, I believe that the House should continue with a more thorough inquiry as to the matters raised in the Referral. Therefore, I support your decision to proceed with a formal inquiry as to those matters. Mindful of the enormous cost to our nation and of the potential impact on the stability of our federal government, I nevertheless support an inquiry because I believe that the Referral raises serious allegations that must be further investigated as to the facts and carefully considered in view of the constitutional standards for impeachment. I further believe that we should finish this inquiry as soon as possible in order to minimize these potential hazards to our nation and I will support you in your commitment to try to conclude the inquiry before the end of this year. However, I am deeply troubled by the comments of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey that a formal inquiry as to the matters raised in the Referral should be expanded to include the allegations against the President based on the Whitewater matter investigated by the Independent Council and possible allegations surrounding the White House Travel Office and FBI files. I believe the decision of the Independent Counsel not to include any of these matters in his Referral after his lengthy and exhaustive investigation reflects his view that no substantial and credible basis exists to justify considering impeachment based on any of these matters. Therefore, I conclude that it would be irresponsible to include any of these matters in the formal inquiry. Broadening the scope would serve no useful purpose, significantly expand the duration of the inquiry to the detriment of our nation, and undermine the essential integrity of the process. I am writing to urge you to clearly unequivocally, and publicly commit not to expand the formal inquiry to include matters other than those raised in the Referral without first obtaining majority approval of the Members of the House voting to expand the scope on the basis that substantial and credible evidence exists as to these matters. With this commitment on your part, I, and I believe other like-minded Democrats, will join you in voting for a motion to proceed with a formal inquiry as to the matters raised in the Referral. Without such a commitment, I cannot, in good conscience, support a formal inquiry likely to include Whitewater and other matter already reviewed and apparently resolve by the Independent Counsel. Thank you in advance for addressing these concerns. Yours Truly, Jim Davis. While some may consider today's vote as simply an inevitable step in this ongoing investigation, I firmly believe that each step down the path towards removing a duly-elected President from office must be measured and deliberate. As I stated in my letter to Chairman Hyde, absent a clear commitment to limit the scope of the inquiry to the Referral of the Independent Counsel, I am deeply concerned that it will devolve into a drawn-out, partisan investigation searching for possible impeachable offenses rather than an expedited, fair investigation examining the allegations presented to this body of possibly impeachable offenses. For these reasons I rise in support of an impeachment inquiry as embodies in the Motion to Recommit and in opposition to the base resolution which is dangerously open-ended. Having consulted with Constitutional scholars, listened to the comments of my constituents, and search my conscience, I believe this is the course which best serves the interests of our Nation.