Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this resolution, as amended. The resolution before the House, as amended, urges the administration to reconsider the decision made this weekend as to whether to pursue a resolution of the upcoming meeting in Geneva of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Two concerns I would like to express about the resolution before I further express my support for the resolution. The first is the European Union has gone on record as having made a decision not to cosponsor or introduce such a resolution in this upcoming meeting. I think it is terribly important, as our country continues to assert its leadership in the goal in which we all share, which is to advance the issue of human rights in China and around the world, we recognize that the resolutions that we support are those that we want to win and going into this particular meeting of the U.N. without the support of the European Union could spell disaster in that regard. The second point to note again is that the administration has made a decision, and that is not to pursue a resolution in this upcoming meeting. Therefore, this resolution before the House today would have been more appropriate to have been brought up last week. The administration has acted. The resolution before the House, as amended, urges the administration to reconsider that decision, but it is unfortunate we are a little behind the curve in that regard. On balance I think it is necessary for the United States to send a very strong message to China and to the rest of the world that we are concerned about the plight of human rights in China and our resolve in that regard is stronger than ever. People in China, including the government and leadership, need to make no mistake about it. Americans care very deeply about human rights in China. Our ability to have a decent relationship with China will continue to be circumscribed as long as the Chinese government continues to abuse its citizens. I plan to vote for this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support this resolution and commend the gentleman from Nebraska for bringing it before the House today. The next few months may well determine the future of Cambodia for years to come. With good fortune and concerted effort on the part of the Cambodian people as well as the international community, democracy may begin to take root in Cambodia. But there is also a real chance that the forces of tyranny and hatred may triumph in Cambodia, once again bringing chaos and misery to that tragic land. The resolution before us today represents a vote for democracy. It demonstrates our commitment to political pluralism and a Cambodia whose people can live in peace and without fear. It deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his keen sense of timing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution calling on Congress to maintain fiscal discipline during this year's budget process and to focus our attention on reducing the national debt and ensuring the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. After decades of deficit spending, Congress and the Administration have taken the difficult steps necessary to eliminate the budget deficit and restore overdue fiscal responsibility to the federal government. From an all-time high of $290 billion just six years ago, the unified budget deficit is projected to be eliminated as soon as this year, with some forecasters now predicting a growing surplus in the unified budget. Despite this good news, we must put these near-term projections in the broader context of the long-term budget outlook and remember that those decades of deficit spending have saddled the federal government with a publicly-held debt of nearly $3.8 trillion. This year, the interest payments alone on the debt will account for 14% of all federal spending or roughly 244 billion taxpayer dollars. These are dollars which could have been used much more wisely, and unless Congress preserves the projected surpluses, this debt is the legacy we are poised to leave to our children and grandchildren. Congress must take advantage of the current economic growth and positive budget outlook to reduce this debt burden and address the solvency of critical programs such as Social Security. Reduced government borrowing will increase economic growth, raise future standards of living, encourage greater saving and investment, and help prepare our nation for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. Certainly, we will have debates over additional spending and targeted tax relief, but I believe these discussions should be within the framework established by last year's historic bipartisan budget agreement. Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of debt retirement far outweigh the short term impact of spending increases or tax cuts and therefore should be our first priority as we begin to craft this year's budget. The resolution I introduce today states simply that during this year's budget process, Congress should focus on reducing the publicly held debt, addressing the solvency of the Social Security system, and maintaining the fiscal discipline which put us on the path to a balanced budget. Now is not the time to let spending fever grip Congress and I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense initiative.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who changed the face of law enforcement in my community of Hillsborough County and in the entire state of Florida--Ed Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was elected sheriff of Hillsborough County in 1953 at a time when organized crime tied to gambling was pervasive in the community. Sheriff Blackburn joined with nearby counties to stage gambling raids in an effort to break up the syndicate. Together, they were successful in turning back crime. He worked with other sheriffs to found the Florida Sheriffs Bureau--the precursor to what is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement today. The sheriffs bureau was the first effort to coordinate law enforcement across the state. Sheriff Blackburn won a seat in the Florida House of Representatives in 1968 where he became a champion of law enforcement. He also served as a interim director of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 1979. During that time, he persuaded the Florida Legislature to fund a statewide crime laboratory. The crime lab is an essential tool for investigators as they work to establish concrete evidence against criminal suspects. There is another important legacy of Ed Blackburn--the Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranch. As a former law enforcement officer, Mr. Blackburn knew well that early efforts to steer youth away from a life of crime was as important as locking up a wrongdoer. Mr. Blackburn helped found the ranch and also served as its executive director. He saw firsthand countless lives transformed at the youth ranch. Mr. Blackburn recently passed away. I rise today in appreciation for Mr. Blackburn's years of selfless public service to his community and his state.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points to help us close on the debate here. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] has done an excellent job of stating the purpose of his amendment, and there are two matters over which I must take issue. The first is his attempt to strike the reference in the bill to rewarding those charter schools that exercise a high degree of autonomy as opposed to some degree of flexibility in the current law. The whole idea of charter schools is to encourage new schools to take chances by changing the way that they go about educating children. Let me offer a specific example. In Florida, it is very pleasing to see the number of charter schools that have found a way to reduce the cost of administration of an elementary school and take those savings and put them into a smaller class size, which is currently ranging at about 17 children per teacher, and already getting above average performance from students who were clearly performing below average in the traditional school setting. That is the kind of innovation we want to encourage. This is not an entitlement, this is a grant program. We want to reward quality. We want to challenge schools. We want to err on the side of innovation here. So I think it is terribly important, as this argument moves into the Senate, that we jealously protect that provision of the bill that encourages a high degree of autonomy among charter schools.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, two responses. One is we should hold up a high standard of innovation, and second, we should expect, as we have in the past, common sense to be exercised by the Secretary of the Department of Education to assure that Massachusetts and other States understand what a high degree of autonomy means and it is used in a way that allows these schools to continue. The second point I would like to make to conclude pertains to the cap. I think that there are valid concerns about how the Federal Government is affecting the ability of States to control quality with charter schools, because we know there are going to be mistakes, and we want to preserve the ability of States to move in a guarded fashion in terms of the growth of charter schools. But I think it is important to point out that the intent behind the bill is not in any way to discriminate against those States who have already embarked upon a charter school program. So I believe there is some doubt that exists here today as to whether those States who no longer choose to grow because they are up against a cap are somehow disadvantaged by the fact that the money is set aside for those States without caps. But keep in mind the basic point that if a State is stopping to grow because of a cap, the chances it will need any additional money for start-up costs are going to be very, very limited. So I am hopeful that as we more closely study this particular aspect of the debate we can reach some compromise in the Senate, some compromise in the conference committee to address the very valid concerns raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is a valid point. But the issue I am referring to is a larger issue, and that is the grave risk that these individuals whom you describe will even lose the right to have access to the country, much as we would be denying to the individuals who are described in this bill, and that is a serious problem, to deprive our own folks who seek to speak out and act against religious persecution in China an opportunity to go over there and to speak out with fear of imprisonment, but a choice that they have the right to make. We cannot afford to stop our advocacy, to stop our missionary work in China, by taking that risk, by denying access to individuals from China into this country. So the unintended effect of this bill could conceivably be to cut off all dialogue, all debate, which we will ultimately win because we are right on the subject of religious persecution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill has, as its stated intention, to send a message to the country of China that we will not tolerate religious persecution, nor should anyone else in the world do so, and that is indeed a worthy message to send. This bill has also been described as a symbol to that effect, and that is also a worthy goal. And if the bill were to stop with its first section in which the Congress expresses its sense to that effect, this would be a worthy bill, but the bill fails to do so, and in failing to do so, it has two critical flaws which must lead me to speak in opposition to the bill. The first is that this bill has as one of its central provisions to deny visas to those individuals who are thought to be associated with organizations inside China that are engaging in religious persecution. On the surface, this might have some appeal to suggest that we are going to keep these folks with whom we violently disagree outside our borders. But think about it for a minute. If, in fact, our goal is to ultimately stop China and the rest of the world from engaging in religious persecution, we must in fact engage these individuals. We must hold them up. We must highlight the grave injustices that they are committing in China and allow that to undergo the scrutiny that invariably will occur in this country and around the world as these opinions, as these practices, are condemned and challenged and they are failed to be justified. This is a collision with the truth. This is a collision with the fundamental values that represent who we are. We cannot have that conversation. We cannot have that scrutiny. We cannot have that criticism unless we have conversations with these people. So we must bring them into our country to expose them to that criticism and engage in a court of world opinion in which, on behalf of everybody in the world who disdains religious persecution, we speak out on their behalf, to have a conversation in which we ultimately will prevail. The second fundamental flaw with this bill is it creates a serious risk, which no one can reasonably explain away, that we might suffer from the same lack of access to China. One of the most important things that is taking place in this country today is that there are many young men and women who are giving their lives to service, missionaries and advocates for human rights who are traveling to China.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how many speakers are left on the other side.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I think it is perfectly clear that the issue here is not whether there is any lack of disgust or resolve with respect to religious persecution that is occurring within the boundaries of China. The issue here is the best way to deal with that. I think it is also fair to say that there is yet to be any credible argument to refute the fact that, by denying visas here, we are disengaging ourselves from an important conversation that needs to be held not just within the borders of this country in the conferences we have on human rights, but in the court of world opinion throughout the world, which we are responsible for conducting by bringing people together to debate issues and values. Of course, we should not be afraid to debate those who would try to defend some of the reprehensible practices that currently occur in China, and we should welcome the scrutiny that we can bring to bear on these folks by bringing them to conferences and having them speak. As has been suggested by a number of people here today, it is our burden to raise awareness of these issues, to expose these practices to the world and let the heat of truth bear upon them, because we will prevail, ultimately, in convincing the rest of the world that more pressure needs to be brought to bear on China to put an end to what is occurring there. One of the supporters of the bill made the comment, we need to show the world where the truth is. I would suggest to my colleagues that it is fundamentally the case, as our first amendment stands for, that there is no better way to do that than to make sure that we have an open and honest discussion in this country that has to include the people who would, amazingly enough, attempt to defend some of these reprehensible practices that are occurring in China. In fact, as a result of the meeting that recently occurred with the President of China here with our President, there is a delegation of religious leaders from our country who will be visiting China in the future to pursue exactly the type of conversation that we may ultimately lose if this bill were to pass and China were to retaliate by denying visas to our religious leaders who seek to enter that country to shake the opinion of not just people around the world but people inside the borders of China who sympathize with us and want to fight to stop human rights abuses. Let me finally say, there has been some suggestion that there ought not to be any controversy with respect to this bill. And that certainly would be true if the bill had ended with the first section, as I described earlier, which simply states the sense of Congress that we should, under no circumstances, tolerate religious persecution in China. But because the bill goes so much further and because it contains the two inherent flaws that I have referred to, the bill was in fact heavily opposed in the committee when it first came up and in fact failed. And, in fact, there was opposition to that bill from the chairman of the subcommittee, who has jurisdiction over China. And there was opposition from other prominent members of the majority party. The bill only passed when it was brought up on a motion for reconsideration; and even then, it was a very close vote with strong bipartisan opposition. So the bill and its objectives is noble. And certainly we need to work together, Democrats and Republicans, put politics aside, to not just call attention to the religious persecution that occurs in China but to find effective ways to stop it. This bill is not an effective way to stop it. This bill will discontinue some very important conversations that have led us to the progress we have had to date, and it also may have the effect of cutting off our ability to send some of our religious leaders into China to hopefully build up more momentum within that country to stop their own religious persecution. For those reasons, I would urge that this bill be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Mr. Speaker, if the bill were to have the effect of causing the Chinese Government to deny visas to some of our religious leaders who attempt to support the underground church he refers to, how does that advance our cause of stopping religious persecution?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to vote on fast track legislation to provide this President with the same negotiating authority that every President has had since 1974 in this country. Opponents argue that the debate is about jobs. That is exactly what the debate is about. This is a debate about whether we are going to continue as a country to enjoy the benefits of further exports that provide high-paying jobs in our country. Fast track legislation has enabled the Congress and the President to work together since 1974 as the public expects us to do, to take advantages of opportunities around the world, to use our prowess as a country, our competitive spirit, our resources to prevail in the world economy. If we do not take advantage of the opportunity to renew fast track authority tomorrow, we will lose a very important opportunity. Yesterday I met with a worker from my hometown who came up here to tell me that his job and the jobs of his sons were at stake unless we renewed fast track authority. He was speaking on behalf of countless workers around the country who expect us to do the right thing. When we go to vote tomorrow, let us keep in mind the jobs around the country that are at risk and the future jobs we can provide for our children, and let us pass fast track authority.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, an important first step in restoring the American taxpayer's faith both in the tax system and in the ability of their government to be efficient and responsive to their needs. This legislation, stemming largely from the Kerry-Portman Commission's recommendations, represents true bipartisan cooperation to address the growing concerns of citizens and their elected representatives over the management and activities of the IRS. H.R. 2676 makes substantial improvements to both the oversight and the management of the IRS, incorporating increased input from the private sector while protecting the overall integrity of the agency. In addition, this bill contains provisions designed to strengthen the rights of the American taxpayer when confronted by the IRS, including a long overdue shift of the burden of proof within the U.S. Tax Court from the taxpayer to the agency. Certainly, our tax laws, like the rest of our judicial system, should be based on the presumption that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. While I support these much needed changes to improve the responsiveness and efficiency of the IRS, we must not forget that many of the problems this legislation seeks to remedy have their roots in the Internal Revenue Code itself, which continues to grow in complexity with each new tax law passed by Congress. Even the important tax cut passed earlier this session as part of the balanced budget agreement added hundreds of additional pages to the Internal Revenue Code. I believe our next step must be to thoroughly re-evaluate the overall Tax Code and begin a meaningful dialog on alternatives to the current system. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation before us today which will ensure that, within the current tax structure, the American taxpayer will receive fairer and more efficient treatment by the Internal Revenue Service and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in exploring options for streamlining the Tax Code.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the charter schools legislation and cite two important facts about what is happening in my home, the State of Florida. The first is that there are a significant number of at-risk children, children with learning disabilities whose parents have advocated for the creation of these schools. The second point which I find particularly interesting is a lot of these schools are finding a way to succeed with a minimum amount of administration. In Florida that means not having assistant principals, not having guidance counselors, just the principal and the teachers. As a result of those savings from reduced administration, we have an average class size of about 17 students per teacher in many of these charter schools. Why is that so terribly important? Let me share with Members a story. There was a team of sociologists a few years ago sent into a major inner-city school system to study what had happened to the kids who had been through that school system. After a lot of study, they found a group of kids who had succeeded wildly. These kids had gone on to college while many of their peers had never finished high school, were succeeding professionally, and had healthy emotional lives. They traced it all back to one teacher. They found this teacher. She had retired from the school system. They went to her, they said, ``Ma'am, what did you do to these students? Why did they succeed?'' She said, ``Mister, I knew each of the kids in my class. I had a small class. I knew each of them had something good in them. I helped them find that. I knew what it was. I loved those kids. I helped those kids succeed.'' That is simply one powerful example of what happens when we have smaller class sizes, when our teachers can give students the attention they need, gifted students, average students, kids at risk. This is simply one of the first important lessons that charter schools are going to teach us, important lessons that we can replicate for the entire public school system to help all our kids in public schools succeed because of the innovation that we are going to be encouraging in charter schools. Charter schools is a long overdue reform this Congress needs to encourage. We need to encourage reform. We need to encourage innovation. We need to let the local school districts run with the ball. We need to encourage parents to be activists. This bill helps do that.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree upon here tonight is we have a fundamental obligation to confront the facts as we debate what is going to happen to children around the country in our public school system. I think it is clear the burden has not been met by those who are advocating the vouchers to prove that this will have a substantial impact that is positive to a substantial number of kids in our public school system. It has been suggested our schools are broken. It is our fundamental obligation to fix those schools, working with the State, working with school boards, working with cities and counties to make those schools work. If we were to invest a fraction of the time and energy that has been devoted to these vouchers in trying to come through with positive reforms for our schools, we would have some positive impacts for all of our kids. Let me give Members one specific example. Charter schools. Charter schools in my State, in Florida, are resulting in a serious reduction in the administrative costs in school systems. What the schools are doing is they are taking that money and they are putting it into class size. An average class size is 17 children in the charter schools that have been opened in many places in Florida. That gives a teacher more opportunity to provide attention to the gifted child, to the child with learning disabilities and to the average child. Equally importantly, it gives that teacher the opportunity to control unruly and disruptive kids in that class. That is positive reform. That is real reform. That is making a difference. Public school choice, which we also adopted in Florida, is another meaningful way of empowering parents to choose the school of their choice for the child. We have also had success with magnet schools, both in Tampa, my home, and the State of Florida. These are proven, positive reforms at work. All we need to do is invest in making them happen. This is the way we impact our kids positively. Let us defeat vouchers and get on with some real business.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 931, legislation to commemorate two individuals whose work and dedication were instrumental in establishing the Everglades National Park, one of our Nation's natural treasures. The legislation before us today is nearly identical to H.R. 136, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This year, citizens throughout Florida, and indeed our Nation, celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Everglades National Park. Over the past five decades, our knowledge and appreciation for the tremendous resources, so critical to the environmental health and quality of life in our State, have deepened in large part to the two individuals commemorated in this legislation: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and Ernest F. Coe. Through Mrs. Douglas' trailblazing book entitled ``The Everglades: River of Grass,'' Floridians were first alerted to the fragile nature of the Everglades ecosystem and the degree to which we are all dependent upon its continued health and protection. Since publication of the book in 1947, Mrs. Douglas has fought tirelessly in defense of the Everglades and now at the age of 107, she will be honored through this legislation designating 1.3 million acres within the park as the ``Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness.'' In addition, this bill will honor the ``Papa of the Everglades National Park,'' Ernest F. Coe, by naming the park's main visitor center after him. Mr. Coe's leadership was the driving force behind the establishment of the park and it was his vision which has inspired the preservation of the diverse ecosystem for future generations. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Everglades National Park it is fitting that we commemorate the valuable service of Mrs. Douglas and Mr. Coe and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the issue before the House today is a fundamental one, and that is how to improve the public education system for our children. There are two stark choices. The first is the voucher, which at best is a huge untested experiment that threatens to significantly undermine our ability to fund our public schools. The other choice is charter schools. Charter schools are one of the most promising reforms taking place in our country today with respect to public education. They are often created by parents, by teachers and by communities who personally know children and care about them. In my State, Florida, as in many States, many of the children that are enjoying the benefits of charter schools are children with special needs, are children that are at risk. In the 5 schools that have opened in Florida, and certainly with respect to the over 15 yet to come, over half of the children who were underperforming in the traditional public school setting are now performing at at least above average in these schools. These schools are innovative, they are unencumbered by many of the rules plaguing our public school system and they have smaller class sizes. These are positive reforms, not an abandonment of the public school system. We need to support charter schools and defeat vouchers.