Artur Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes, and let me begin by thanking the chair of this committee and the ranking member of the committee for their diligence. We have obviously had a difficult task this budget year, given the constraints that we have; and I recognize this whole argument proceeds in that context. Let me begin by stating that this is a bipartisan amendment that speaks to a program that was created by George H.W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, and by Jack Kemp, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In 1989, the Bush administration came up with a striking insight, that rather than write off a lot of our inner-city neighborhoods, that we try to revitalize them; that we sustain a public and private commitment to draw resources back into the inner-city; and that we literally change the face of abandoned neighborhoods. And they encapsulated this vision as HOPE VI. It has been around for 16 years. It is very much a bipartisan creation, and it is zero funded at this point in this budget. Mr. Chairman, we ask that $60 million be added, which of course is literally 1 percent of the value of this whole appropriations bill; that $60 million be added to sustain this program and to allow its good works to go forward. And perhaps the best recommendation that I can offer comes not from my side of the aisle, but it comes, frankly, from the other side. Our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), speaking on June 6 in a press release announcing the HOPE VI project in his district said, ``More than just an upgrade, this $75 million project will be a catalyst for the revitalization of the entire community, and it will serve as a model of what public housing can and should be.'' I also quote our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), announcing a HOPE VI grant in his district in June of 2004: ``This grant represents a significant investment into the overall economic development and renewal of the East Mississippi region.'' I would next quote our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who states that ``This is tremendous news for the Ben Harbor community. It is another example of local, State and Federal levels coming together for the betterment of Ben Harbor and surrounding areas.'' And I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman; but the reason that this program has captured so much bipartisan support is it draws down our two best instincts. It draws down our public instinct that we can reinvest in abandoned communities, and it draws on our private instinct that we can use private sector dollars. I am told by CBO, frankly, that this amendment is budget neutral because of the nature of the way HOPE VI funds are disbursed, the nature of the way they are drawn down in escrow. So as a practical matter, there is no significant dollar consequence from this amendment, no significant dollar objection to this amendment. The only question is whether or not we believe this is a valuable program. We are told by some that the program is backlogged. We are told by some that the program takes a while to work its way to completion. And I think all of us in this House are hoping to change some of the structure of HOPE VI, but the changes should not be such that the program cannot go forward. The thrust of this bipartisan amendment is that we restore a level of funding, whatever changes can be made administratively can be made, and we give these communities a chance to flourish. Mr. Chairman, I make the very simple proposition that 4 days after the U.S. Supreme Court has granted unlimited powers of domain to many of our communities, HOPE VI represents a principled, balanced approach that respects the needs of people living in the community and draws on our instincts for the betterment of those communities. I am happy to be joined by my cosponsor, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), who has been so stalwart on these issues. I thank her for lending her bipartisan voice to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As further proof of the bipartisan nature of this amendment, the National Home Builders Association, one of the larger lobbies that deals with this Congress, has also expressed its support for restoring these funds. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. If that is the Chair's ruling, I would ask, without prejudice, permission to address it now, based on the absence of other people being on the floor. I would ask unanimous consent to address it now.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the response I would make to that is that it is my understanding that because the funding has been zeroed out for HOPE VI, we are entitled to raise the amendment and that we can, in effect, either reach forward or reach backward as far as capturing these funds goes. That was the information relayed to me by the Parliamentarian.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, in response to the gentleman's observations, with respect to where this account goes to sustain itself, where it goes to get the $60 million, the GSA building fund, that fund is $7.6 billion out of this budget. That is a $550 million increase over last year. I do not think moving $60 million from $7.6 billion is of any consequence. And I will also reiterate what I said at the outset: Because of the way that Hope VI funds are drawn down, this amendment is viewed by CBO as being budget neutral. In fact, it is actually viewed by CBO as being an amendment that will actually save outlays of around $56 million this year. So, frankly, there is no dollar consequence this year. And in the scheme of things, even over the outyears, this is a very well-growing fund of $7.6 million. The second point, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has made observations, and Democrats and Republicans have made, about some of the weaknesses and some of the delays in Hope VI, and I do not think there is any opposition on this side of the aisle, and certainly not from proponents of this amendment, to looking closely at why the projects do not expedite and why it takes them awhile to move to completion, but that is not an argument for doing away with the program. That is an argument to reforming the program. Mr. Chairman, $60 million will amount to three or four projects around the country, but that will be three or four neighborhoods that have been written off and abandoned that can be reclaimed. Finally, given the small dollar consequence of this, I think we ought to err on the side of these communities. We ought to err on the side of the community of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), we ought to err on the side of the community of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), we ought to err on the side of the community of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), and so many like it around the country. We are in a phase where we can either write off a lot of our inner city neighborhoods, or we can reinvest in them. We can either consign them to being blighted places of neglect, or we can rebuild them, and this does it with our private and public dollars. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am a little ashamed to confess my mother is around the age of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). My mother used to tell me stories when she was a young woman in the segregated South that she would drive through parts of rural and western Alabama and that she would see crosses burned. My grandmother used to tell me stories that after Brown v. Board of Education, she remembers riding through parts of rural Alabama and seeing crosses burned. The interesting thing about that is the burning of those crosses did not keep a single black child out of a public school. The burning of those crosses, frankly, did nothing to slow down the march of justice in this country over the 40-or-so years I have been around. I think that is relevant to this debate today. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court would not let Congress ban flag-burning. And here we stand 15 years later in a country that is still deeply patriotic, a country that is still full of love of Americans toward each other. Frankly, I would submit in this last 4 or 5 years we have seen a rising tide of patriotism. We feel a greater faith in each other and a greater faith in our fighting forces now than we ever have. I wish advocates of this amendment understood we have won this battle. Those of us who believe in this country, those of us who believe in its decency, and those of us who believe in its power, we have won. Within our borders, we have won. The people who would burn flags, just like the people who would burn crosses, have lost. And not only have they lost; they have been thrashed. They have been banished to the margins. They are not a legitimate part of our political debate. They are not acceptable viewpoints to most of us. I wish we understood that every time we think about saying that one kind of speech is so obnoxious or so offensive that we ought to get rid of it, every time we even let ourselves think that, we would be so much better off if we trust in our better angels, because the best angels in our nature tell us that flag burners are wrong. They tell us that the instinct behind them is wrong and we have prevailed. There is a reason we have had this 230-year constitutional tradition. It is because we have been strong enough and powerful enough and our values have been deep enough to withstand even the worst of ideas. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for calling us back to an understanding that even this august institution is limited by the United States Supreme Court, and that even the best values that we pronounce in this Chamber are limited by our Constitution.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining the various Members of this institution who will speak today and who will urge the passage of both of these bills. I certainly cannot speak with the particular passion of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) who has been touched by this issue, but this is a very good day for the House of Representatives. It is a very good day, because we have managed to reach across the partisan divides, I believe twice today, or we will manage to reach across the partisan divide, I believe twice today, to pass bills that are good for the American people and good for countless numbers of Americans who need this research. I want to say something about the cord blood bill in particular. I have had the honor for 2 years of working with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on this bill, and I am a Democratic sponsor on it; and I want to thank him for his good work. This bill will make an enormous difference to the African Americans around this country who often struggle with blood matches. Cord bloods do not require a blood match. The young man that we saw on the Cannon terrace yesterday who suffered from sickle cell anemia whose life has been permanently transformed by cord blood cell technology speaks to the power of this bill. We talk a great deal about health care disparities, and we ought to talk about health care disparities in this country; but rather than talk, this bill acts. It actually provides relief for a group of people who otherwise would not have seen it. But I want to talk for just a moment about the concept of principled difference, because I think it is very much illustrated today. Mr. Speaker, the reason that this cord blood bill made it to the floor is in large measure because rather than digging in in opposition to stem cell opposition, as strongly as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) feels about this issue, rather than digging in in opposition, the gentleman worked with the scientific community, he worked across the aisle to try to find another approach. And as circumstance has it, both of these approaches are before us today. If we would somehow as an institution learn from his example, if we figured out how, rather than digging in and deciding how much we disagree with each other, what other ways exist, what ways can we find to work together, we would not have a 34 percent approval rating as an institution. The final point that I will make is that I firmly believe that we have all of our genius and all of our brilliance as a scientific and medical community for a very good reason. I think that we are meant to use it. I am hopeful that all of the technological advances that have happened in the last several years, with cord blood cells and with stem cells, can make a significant difference. So to all the Members of this institution, I simply urge them and encourage them to vote for both of these bills but, even more importantly, to accept this as an example of what happens when Democrats and Republicans find intelligent common ground. There will be people who will benefit from this, and I do not think it is going too far to say that lives will be saved because of these two bills. So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his good work and, again, I am honored to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the cord blood bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding to me. Let me begin by thanking my colleagues and my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I have only served with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in the Congress for a very short period of time, but the gentleman has been such a stalwart on this issue during the time that we have been in Congress. This is not a subject that necessarily just jumps out at people as an exciting or sexy subject, but it is so important to our country to talk about the problem and the consequences from our debt and our deficit. There is no one who has been more of a stalwart in this institution than the gentleman from South Carolina, and I certainly thank him. As well, I welcome the person who will follow me tonight, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) who has, in a very short period of time, just since January, already distinguished herself as one of the ablest and most intelligent Members of this institution; and we are thankful to have her here this evening. I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) was in my district very recently, in Selma, Alabama, with me during March of this year when we commemorated the march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge; and the day after that march, I had a town hall meeting in that same city, Selma, and the purpose of the town hall meeting was to talk about Social Security and our country's future. There was a moment at the end of the town hall meeting that I want to share with the Chamber of that night, because I think it is so illustrative of the challenge that we are facing. There was a young woman who was about 19. She said she was a college freshman, and she stood up and she asked me and the panelists a question, and her question was something like this: she said, young people today, and younger workers today are paying into a Social Security system that may not be around or may not be around in its current, robust form for us young people. So she asked the question, why do we have to pay at all? Why do we as young people, she said, have to even pay into a system that may not be there for us? When I heard that young lady make those comments, two things occurred to me. The first one is that we have fallen a ways in this country if our young people today are full of cynicism and not idealism; if our young people today are wondering why we have to meet our burdens instead of wondering why we cannot meet greater burdens, something has happened to us that is wrong. There was another thing that occurred to me. Sometimes I think in this Chamber we have the illusion that we are arguing about money. We have the illusion that we are arguing about line items in a budget, that we are arguing simply about techniques of accounting. That young lady's comment made me realize we are arguing about something far more fundamental in this Chamber every day, and I would define it this way: exactly what do we owe each other? Are we obligated to each other, or are we cut off from each other's common destinies? That is what this political debate is about, and I hope that is what the American people understand this debate to be about. As we saddle future generations with debt, as we saddle future generations with the consequences of tax cuts that we could not afford, as we saddle future generations with our mistaken fiscal choices, it is a retreat from the politics of obligation; it is a retreat from the idea that we are connected to each other and each other's fate and each other's destiny. Increasingly what I fear is that we are entering a world where the only morality that we recognize in our public space is the morality of the marketplace. The gentleman from South Carolina touched on that. He talked about morality, and that word should not be in any way omitted from this conversation, because the morality of the marketplace is a very narrow morality. It says that to whom much is given, much will continue to be given. It says that the strong shall have the opportunity to get stronger, and it says that other than a little bit of sympathy and a little bit of charity for which we get a tax write- off, we do not owe a whole lot to the other people in our society. I think that if we are to be true to the legacy of this institution and true to the people in this country, that we need a broader public morality than this narrow morality of the marketplace. We need a public morality, a way of talking in the public square about what we owe each other, what we owe our veterans, what we owe our young people, what we owe our working families, what we owe our college students, what we owe our disabled workers, what we owe all of the people who may not sit in the circle of prosperity today, but who desperately want to do so and want to have a chance to sit there tomorrow. The budget resolution that we voted on 2 weeks ago and, essentially, we voted on it 2 months before that, because it did not change a lot from the House version to the final resolution passed by both Houses, it is a document that I think does not meet our best moral impulses; it does not meet our best impulses about what we owe each other as a community. The gentleman from South Carolina and others have detailed on this floor and elsewhere the cuts to veterans, the cuts to our young people, the cuts to all kinds of commitments and obligations that we have to our environment, to our workforce development system in this country; but once again, the stakes are broader. Because what this budget does is to slowly but surely begin to walk away from the idea of national commitment and national obligation. It slowly but surely begins to walk away from the idea of community. I make these final two sets of points before I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida tonight. I happen to think that we do have an obligation to get our fiscal house in order; there is no question about that. We cannot sustain these deficits; we cannot sustain this debt. It is unconscionable the President wants to add to it with his Social Security plan. It is unconscionable that the President does not have a long-range plan to pull us back from deficit. But this is what is the real moral rub, I think, for a lot of us. So often in the last 4 years, the Bush administration and our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republican side, have asked sacrifice, but they only do it of some of the people. John F. Kennedy, whom I admired greatly, and whom I know the mother of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) admired and whom I know you admired a great deal, when he was inaugurated, he spoke on the idea of sacrifice and the idea of common burden and obligation. He did not speak of a sacrifice that falls only on working families who need Medicaid in Tennessee and Mississippi and Alabama. He did not speak of the sacrifice that falls only on veterans whose premiums do not need to go up. He did not speak of a sacrifice that falls only on families who are needing section 8 housing and do not want the program gutted. He did not simply speak of burdens and obligations that fall on the weakest of us. I listened to the discussion that happened in the hour before us tonight, and the eloquence of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) on who has power in this Chamber, who has power in this institution. It is increasingly the most well-off among us, the most narrow-minded among us who are committed to a very narrow pursuit of the private interest. That is a full-scale retreat, with guns blazing, from the idea of what we owe each other as a people and as a community. So if our country is going to move forward, I say to the gentleman from Florida, and if we are going to move forward and become what I think that we can be, we have to return to this idea that we do owe each other something more than sympathy, that we do owe each other a commitment to building a financial future that will work for our children. We owe each other a commitment toward a true and enduring retirement security for our seniors. We owe our young people a commitment and an investment in their skills; and, finally, we owe our country a way of talking about politics and a way of talking about our expenses and our expenditures, a conversation and a dialogue that somehow draws us together. The final point that I will make tonight is, and so often I see this when I go back to town hall meetings in my district, last night I was in Choctaw County, Alabama in Butler, and so many people are frustrated when they see us arguing about things that do not matter to them. We have been here for 4 months, and we have had a pretty busy schedule. We have voted on all of probably one really truly important piece of legislation this year, and that was the budget. We have had a lot of distractions, and we will keep having distractions on the floor. But the people are so frustrated that we are angry at each other over things that do not matter in their lives, and they want us to repair to a higher standard. So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for being here tonight. Again, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership and his wisdom. And I would be happy if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) will yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me follow up on the comment that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) just made, because a lot of very reasonable people, as you know, believe that this scenario you described is not accidental. It is not just a by-product of the President's strategy, but it is, indeed, the President's strategy, to turn Social Security, which is a universal benefit that the American people collectively pay into, to transform it from that world into a world, frankly, where it looks like a conventional welfare program, a program where very poor people receive a benefit from it and the rest of the population receives very little. Now, what happens to those kinds of programs? Number one, the Republicans cut them every year. They do not fare very well in this budget process. If you look at the programs that we have in this country that we fund out of our sense of charity, Section 8, walking away from it, housing, dealing with the disabled and mentally ill, all the programs that we fund out of our altruism, unfortunately, those are the programs that are getting cut. I do not believe that this is an accident, that the Republican party and President of the United States are taking this plan that has worked enormously well and refashioning it into a program where, frankly, people will have less of a stake in paying into it. The second observation, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), is that it is indisputable that Social Security is the most successful government program in the last hundred years in terms of its ability to move people from the margins of life to a state of security. When Social Security was passed in 1938, 52 percent of the seniors in this country lived in poverty. Today that number is down to 9 percent. If every other government program had been as effective in reducing poverty, there probably would not be more than 20 or 25 Republicans here because we would have won the whole political debate. This has been an extraordinarily successful program and part of the reason it has been successful is the stake that we all have in its benefit. I make one other point tonight. A lot of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, you Democrats have been criticizing our proposals. Why do you not come forward with a better and stronger plan for saving Social Security, and never mind that the President has no plan to make it solvent, why do you all not come to the table with one? There is a part of this debate that we should not miss tonight. Part of the reason that we are expecting a gap in Social Security financing, a shortfall in Social Security financing, is because of this administration's estimates of slow growth in the next 30 to 40 years. And a Republican Party that used to pride itself on economic optimism even in the face of no evidence has now become the party of slow growth. They tell us that our productivity will inch around at a rate of around 1.9 percent for the next 30 years, or our growth rate will be around 2.1 percent. What is the reason that they project slow productivity and slow growth? The major reason is because right now in our country the gap between skilled and unskilled workers is more pronounced today in the middle of the first decade of the 21st century than it was in the early 1970s and the late 1960s. In other words, the gap between the people who know how to do the work in this country and who are trained to do and those who are not so lucky or so fortunate is greater than ever. That is creating an albatross on our whole economy. And if we are serious about tackling the Social Security problem, we have got to come up with a growth strategy. We have got to come up with a strategy to close that gap between skilled and unskilled workers. And the extraordinary thing about this budget is that it cuts money for workforce development. It cuts out programs like Upwards Bound and TRIO that take at-risk kids and give them a leg up. It cuts economic development programs. It cuts all of the things that would narrow and close down the gaps that exist in American life. In other words, at a time when we ought to be investing more in our future, we are investing less. Once again it takes us back to the point that the gentlewoman made about the fundamental definitional divide between these parties. President Clinton who grew 22 million jobs in his Presidency understood that when you spend money on education, when you spend money on worker training, when you spend money on developing skills you are making investments. And those investments reap an enormous return for this generation and the next one. So I say in conclusion before I take my leave tonight that if we are to deal with this problem of Social Security having a shortfall over the next 30-some years, if we are to deal with these gaps that exist in our skilled and unskilled workers that lead to the slow growth the administration promises us, we need a different set of priorities. We need to remember the value of expenditures that are investments.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me join other colleagues of mine in standing today in commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day. We celebrate this year, 2005, the 60-year anniversary of the end of World War II. We also look back at the enormous human loss that occurred in concentration camps all over Eastern Europe, all over that continent during World War II, and I think it is enormously important that if we can somehow distill just three lessons from this time frame, that it be the following things: first of all, we instill in our society and contemplate the question of hatred, of intolerance, of racial and religious bigotry, and we still try to put it in perspective, how some human beings can have animus toward other human beings. The reality is that in 1930 in the depths of Nazi Germany, there were many people who did not take seriously the rhetoric of the Third Reich. There were many who did not take seriously the venom that came from Adolph Hitler. They had this mindset that it was simply a misbegotten ideology. They had the mindset that it was simply words that were meant to wound or meant to win an election. They did not realize that there was a comprehensive plan to destroy another set of human beings that was at stake. Similarly today, when we hear lingering anti-Semitism in our society, when we hear lingering bigotry and racism in our society, we have a tendency at first to think that it is mere words. We have a tendency to try to strip those words from any context or any meaning. The reality is that what the Holocaust teaches us is that words do matter, because they can signal the human soul and just how depraved it can be. That is an important lesson that we take from that time frame. There is another important lesson that we take. Every now and then, there is this tendency to engage in a hierarchy of suffering, to ask which was worse, slavery or the Holocaust; which is worse, racial bigotry or anti-Semitism or religious bigotry. The reality is that there is no hierarchy of hatred. All hatred has a tendency to wound and corrupt and to spoil the human soul. All hatred has a tendency to degrade both the person who hates and the target. And what we have seen in our last half century of human conduct, indeed our last century of human conduct, is that neither the left nor the right has given ground to each other on this front. Both the left and the right have shown enormous capacity to pick up weapons against each other and to degrade each other. And it is a lesson in these contemptuous times in American politics. It is a lesson that if we want to build a sense of humanity in this country, that we have to find a way to see past the bitterest and darkest divisions of the left and right. There is a third lesson, Mr. Speaker. As we look at our place in the world today, this is only several weeks after the world lay to rest Karol Wojtyla, John Paul II, the leader of the Catholic Church, the leader of 1 billion Catholics around the globe. He had a particular insight about humanity. He understood that poverty and totalitarianism are both threats to the human condition. They are both threats to the human soul. Frankly, neither the left nor the right in our country have done a good job of appreciating the linkage. Neither the left nor the right in our country has done a good job of appreciating that these two sources of darkness, totalitarianism and intense poverty, are just as destructive of what human beings can be. Well, John Paul II understood that. As we look at the last 50 or 60 years of suffering in this world, I hope we can, as a Congress, challenge the world to a higher standard. One that from a standpoint from the left and the right manages to condemn political and economic threats to the human spirit. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a moment about these victims. I had an opportunity in August 2003 to visit the state of Israel and I remember going to the museum commemorating the concentration camps in the Holocaust. And I remember going specifically to the children's section of that museum. As some Members of the Chamber recall, when you walk inside the children's section, you are in this very small circular room and in the middle of the room sits a glass case. Inside the glass case are pictures and photos of children who lost their lives in the Holocaust and their voices who read their names over and over again. I will remember that image, Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, for a very, very long time because it speaks of a Europe and a history that never was. It speaks of a destiny for the world that never was. Somewhere in those pictures is someone who would have been a chief of state, someone who would have been an Olympic athlete, someone who might have discovered a cure for cancer. As we contemplate this last 60 years may we remember that every time we lay waste to a human being, every time we lay waste to a child, that there is all kinds of promise that is lost and there is another destiny that was there waiting to be born. So on behalf of these 6 million victims who were murdered by a state, may we think of them today and may we think of them on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. May we remember in conclusion the danger whenever human beings are degraded and belittled by others.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional leadership, character, and outstanding achievements of Mrs. Jessie Hale Downs. In 1944, a young couple expecting their first child began a ministry known as the Jimmie Hale Mission with the purpose of reaching out to the poor in downtown Birmingham. The couple did not have much material wealth, but what they lacked in money they made up in vision. Unfortunately, the young husband passed away eight months later, leaving his 27-year-old wife and unborn daughter widowed and fatherless. A single, homeless mother, Jessie Hale resolved to continue the ministry. Serving as the Executive Director for 46 years, Miss Jessie shepherded the Mission to its present state of 6 different facilities in central Alabama. Mrs. Downs has touched the lives of countless men, women, and children through her selfless acts of compassion and charity. Now 88 years old, Miss Jessie remains the matriarch of the Jimmie Hale Mission. She continues to travel around central Alabama speaking about the vision and ministry of the Mission. She is the epitome of compassionate activism, and I am proud to call her one of my constituents.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, a minute is not a long time, but I want to spend it for thanking the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for building unanimity on this side of the House. I make that observation because, frankly, this is only the second time on a major vote this year that this side of the House will have been united, and that is in large tribute to the gentleman's good work, but it speaks to something else. To everyone in this caucus, to everyone in every corner of America who styles himself or herself as progressive, if you want to know if Democrats still stand together, if you want to know if we still have a common ground, I submit that you see it in the debate over this budget. The common ground that we occupy is in defense of 46,000 families in Mississippi who have been cut from the Medicaid rolls; 300,000 families in Tennessee who have been cut from the Medicaid rolls; 13.5 million children in this country who live below the poverty line who cannot stand to see subsistence programs cut further; millions of veterans who cannot stand to see their premiums rise; and it is a common ground for everyone who believes in a more generous, more responsible, more inclusive America. So I thank the gentleman for building that unanimity, and I hope it stands for the whole country to see. As it is so often said by the leader on the other side, there are profound differences between these two parties. We stand for a fairer country. They stand for a narrower country and a narrower vision, and I hope the people will take note of that.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for presenting a budget that has a better vision for the American people, and for the gentleman's hard work that he does for the American people. Mr. Chairman, this is the third year that I have been in the Congress. There has been a similar routine every year I have been here. We debate the budget and our side says it is a statement of our values, and we say it is a statement of who we are. I would add one observation to that. This is a process that tells us a great deal about whether we are who we say we are, because there is an irony that I see with my friends from the other side of the aisle. As we move into the year and move into the holiday season, we spend a lot of time talking about shared benevolence, but they will pass a budget tomorrow that will cut $5 billion from food stamps, and only 2 percent of people who are eligible receive food stamps. It is not a program filled with waste and fraud. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about benevolence and their belief in families and families having strong values, and yet they will vote tomorrow night to cut child care assistance. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about cutting taxes, and yet they will vote tomorrow night to raise taxes on people receiving the earned income tax credit. And the other side of the aisle will talk about their belief in Social Security and their faith in that program and their refusal to touch it, and then they will cut SSI payments which are a major part of Social Security. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about their commitment to housing, and then they will vote to eliminate one of the most effective housing programs in this country. And finally, a lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about their commitment to children and helping families raise their children with the right values, and then they will vote to freeze or leave virtually frozen child care services and day care services. I am not one who likes to call names, but the word ``hypocrisy'' means you say one thing and you blatantly endorse another set of practices. This is a debate about exactly who we will ask to sacrifice in this country. There is no question we have asked our veterans to sacrifice an enormous amount, and they belong in a category of their own; but there is another class of Americans who we also ask to sacrifice in this budget. We ask the most vulnerable people, the people in our society who are working and living by the sweat of their brow every day. We ask them to give up so much in this budget, and there is an irony because we have heard it said by the chairman and various other Members on the other side of the aisle, we have heard it said that people want these tax cuts and they will trade these programs off for the prevalence and the prevailing of these tax cuts. But here is the problem. The average people that will receive the cuts that I described got a tax cut of $28 to $35 a month. That is not an equitable trade-off; that is not a fair trade-off. I simply end by saying the Spratt budget presents a better vision for the American people and introduces a six-letter word into this debate that we have not heard all day, a word called ``equity.'' That is what separates our approach from theirs.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for yielding me time. Let me begin by thanking my good friend, the gentleman from the State of Alabama (Mr. Rogers). We are both Alabama native sons. What a testament to the Tuskegee Airmen that today a white Alabamian and a black Alabamian stand here to pay tribute to their remarkable work. So much has been said about their remarkable accomplishments, and I will not repeat any of that, but something needs to be said about the origins of these men. When they were born every single one of them was born in a segregated society that was dedicated to the proposition that men and women are unequal and created unequally. When every single one of these men was born, they lived in a world that doubted their value, that doubted their worth, that doubted their potential to contribute to this country, and yet they rose above it. They worked and practiced in an Army, for that matter, that was segregated. Yet they somehow rose above it. There are young men and women who are listening to us right now, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that they will take this lesson from our standing here and saluting these airmen today: That even if you are born in a condition and climate that holds you back, even if you are born in conditions of the inner city and rural parts of the South that would seem to tell you what you cannot do, look up to the Tuskegee Airmen, because they are an example of human beings rising to their highest potential against all kinds of odds. I close, Mr. Speaker, simply by saying again, as a son of Alabama, that this is the progress that our State has made. When the history of the last century is finally written and the history of human progress is written, let it be said that these brave men came to my State of Alabama to learn about serving their country and that they learned a talent that helped keep our country free. May we draw some inspiration from that. I thank all of the outstanding Members who have spoken on this bill today.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as we convene for the beginning of the 109th Congress, one of our first acts is the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. We remember the heroic forces that brought an end to the brutal atrocities against mankind, and we necessarily remember the death camp itself, the immoral center of last century's greatest genocide. We understand better today than we did then that the purpose of genocide, racism, of anti-Semitism, is the degradation of the spirit of the victims and their kind. It is the malice of group hatred that reigned at Auschwitz. Consequently, our moral necessity today is to leave bigotry without any safe ground to stand upon. A false understanding of our liberal values sometimes leads us to refrain from attacks on intolerance--the harder truth is that we should put our liberal values in fierce competition with religious and ethnic hatred, and deploy those values to counter the demonizing of race and sects that still goes on. Freedom is a worldwide value worth defending and expanding. To be won, that struggle too must be informed by remembrance: Freedom fares very well in the tolerant places in the human condition and never lasts long in the bigoted, hateful, mean spirited places. Mr. Speaker that is one reason we pass this resolution today--to link our current struggles to our past ones. Never Again, Never Forget

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me time, and let me begin, as is customary, by certainly thanking the Chair of this committee and the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I am well aware that in these last several days of the session there are a lot of bills competing to make their way onto this floor. There is a lot of potential legislation that could have been offered and put before this body, and I want to certainly thank them for allowing this bill to move forward. Let me thank my good friend and my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), from Alabama's 6th District, for making this commemoration a bipartisan cause. Finally, let me thank my colleagues from the Senate side, Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions, who have agreed to do everything in their power to move this resolution promptly through the Senate. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by talking for a moment about that day, because it seems so distant and so far away as we stand here in this civilized capitol. It is hard to imagine, as people watch this on the television screens or in the gallery, that we were once a country where four little girls got up one Sunday morning, went to Sunday school wearing their Sunday best and never had a chance to make it home. It is hard to imagine, standing in this civilized place, that we were once a country that was so raw and so full of hate that this kind of crime could happen and that years and years would go by without it being prosecuted. September 15, 1963, was a very different place. America was a very different land. And it is fitting that we come here today to call attention to these four little girls. Their names, Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley, echo across these last decades, and the violence that was inflicted on my city of Birmingham, Alabama, rings across those decades as well. After I speak today, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), will stand here, and I am reminded every time I see him of the journey we have made in America in the last 41 years. We have gone from a place where four little girls could not find safety in the sanctuary of a church to the House of Representatives where 40 of us who proudly sit here are African-Americans, and to a U.S. Senate that will soon host another African-American. We have come a long way from a time where four little girls could not find sanctuary in a church to a place where a native of Birmingham, Alabama, an African-American, is now our National Security Advisor, and another person with Birmingham ties, an African-American, is now our Secretary of State. But it is still fitting that, as far as we have come, that we take the time to think about the tragedy. And I am pleased that my colleagues will have an opportunity to pass this resolution that writes this violent act in stone so that all future generations can see it. Another important part of this resolution is that it honors the law enforcement personnel. The reality is, it took 14 years for the Alabama Attorney General William Baxley to bring the first of the killers to justice. It took 31 years, to 1994, for the Federal Government to reopen its investigation, and it took until the spring of 2001 for the final killer who still lives to be brought to justice. Without the work of the former United States Attorney Doug Jones and the former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, this justice would not have been achieved and the indictment and prosecution of these killers would not have occurred. Honoring them is an important part of this resolution. Let me end with just these two observations. Whenever we think of this kind of sadness in America, we should also still look to the promise in our country. Whenever I hear the eloquence of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), as this chamber will in a few moments, it ought to remind us of the promise that exists. It so happens that this September 15, 2004, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and I were at this church at a commemorative event. He was there as the keynote Speaker. I was there to introduce him. And during the course of that service something enormously profound happened. We looked up in the balcony, and there was a choir of little black girls from Sixth Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and they were standing there singing America the Beautiful, and they were waving American flags as they did it. I looked over at my colleague and my friend from Georgia, and he had a tear in his eye, as did many people who were in that church. And I have to say to my colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that to stand in that place, 41 years after four little girls could not even manage to leave there alive, and to see those little black girls singing about the beauty of their country and waving the flag that we so proudly salute, if that does not make you feel proud to be an American, then I do not know what will. So I conclude today simply by saying that memory is enormously important. Commemoration is enormously important. But the real power of this institution is to take those memories and translate them into contemporary good works; to take the power of those memories and to translate them into an enduring commitment to make this country as just as possible. So in their spirit, I offer this resolution and, in advance, thank this House for passing it.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004. This Bill codifies the reinstatement of an established business relationship exception permitting businesses, associations and charities to send commercial faxes without receiving written permission from the recipient. Additionally, H.R. 4600 crafts reporting requirements granting Congress the authority to regulate the FCC's enforcement activities, and includes an ``opt-out provision'' that gives the recipient the opportunity to avoid further faxes. In 1991, Congress passed the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which protected consumers from unsolicited commercial faxes and permitted legitimate businesses and organizations to fax fundraising requests, advertisements, dues renewal notices, and other pertinent information to individuals with an established business relationship. For the past ten years the Commission has continued to follow its 1991 interpretation deeming such publications invited or permitted devoid of any discernable measure of complaints from the general public. In 2003, the FCC revisited the issue of unsolicited commercial faxes and determined that an ``express invitation or permission'' must be in writing and include the recipient's signature. Compliance with the FCC's 2003 decision requires every business, association, and charity to obtain written permission from anyone receiving commercial faxes. Starting on January 1, 2005 the FCC's ruling goes into effect. A majority of the businesses and organizations would be forced to shoulder considerable financial and logistical burdens. Consequently, the Commission's 2003 decision would require everyday customers, requesting specific information such as vacation packages from travel agents or menus from local restaurants, to submit a written, signed statement consenting to the receipt of such publications. Obviously, many small businesses, charities, and associations are concerned with the FCC's recent interpretation and its impact on their lives. In practice the FCC's 2003 decision would be devastating to a myriad of small businesses that rely heavily on fax publications and advertisements. It has been estimated that two-thirds of small business owners will be required to obtain consent forms from greater than 100 separate fax numbers in the first year alone. Research indicates that if enacted, the ``FCC's new rules would cost small business owners at least $5,000 in the first year and $3,000 per year in compliance. In addition, the FCC's decision would require greater than 27 staff hours in order to obtain customers' initial consent and 20 hours each year thereafter. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4600 seeks to reverse the FCC's overly burdensome, expensive and unnecessary interpretation. The current measure is necessary to strike a proper balance between an individual's right to protection and privacy from unsolicited and invasive faxes with a business's need for communication and right to free enterprise. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, if I can purport to get into the heads of the majority and answer that question for myself for a minute, I think it is fairly basic. I would guess, Mr. Chairman, the reason is about 5, 6 years ago there was an overwhelming consensus in this body that we apply PAYGO to both tax and spending for a very simple reason. It is good common sense. It is only basic fairness. If I can, Mr. Chairman, let me make this point. This sounds like a very esoteric debate to a lot of people who are listening right now. Do we apply PAYGO to revenues? Do we apply PAYGO to spending? And there is a certain technical-sounding aspect to it. There is a way to cut to the chase and make this a whole lot simpler. Who do we make bear the brunt of discipline and sacrifice in this country? It is very clear after listening to a lot of the very able adversaries on the other side of the aisle that they are not terribly interested in asking but a few people to sacrifice in this country. They are only interested in seeking to impose discipline on but a few of us, and they in the name of tax cuts would seal off a whole portion of our population, namely people who are receiving huge tax cuts because of their income, from the brunt and burden of sacrifice. This is what we ought to understand today. We may argue about all kinds of aspects of the Clinton years, but they were enormously successful in bringing this economy back, creating jobs and leading us into surplus. These facts are indisputable. When William Jefferson Clinton left the White House, we had a surplus of $122 billion. Today as George W. Bush submits himself to the country for re-election, we have a deficit of around $500 billion. If any CEO in America had gone from having that kind of surplus to that kind of a deficit in 4 years, his contract would absolutely not be renewed. This is a fundamental question of how fair we are as a people. Are we fairer now than we were four years ago? And I would submit that it is fundamentally wrong and fiscally irresponsible to only ask people who do not have certain influence, who do not have a certain voice in this society to bear the brunt. So the reality is if we decide, we are going to apply these PAYGO rules, there ought to be a very simple test, Mr. Chairman, number one, what would bring us closer to fiscal soundness and, number two, what provides for fairness. It is only fair and only reasonable that we do what an overwhelming majority of the Republicans wanted to do 5 years ago. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we can somehow make these rules work, then we will be back on the way to fiscal stability in this country.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for his commitment and the power of his example on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I did not want this debate to end without adding my voice to it and my strong endorsement of this resolution. It follows a very long, very enduring bipartisan tradition, one that says that we are two lonely defenders of freedom, the United States and Israel. We are two lonely defenders in a very difficult neighborhood in this world and we do have a common obligation. And that is something else that should be said from this side of the aisle, and our leader alluded to it very well. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have profound disagreements with the administration over policy in Iraq. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have profound disagreements with this administration over the skill with which it has gone about building a new course for Iraq and whether we should have gone in the first place. But none of that should obscure that the value behind that policy, if it is one of promoting democracy, if it is one of expanding the frontier of freedom, that is a value that we all share. And when we think of Abu Ghraib and we think of all the mistakes that have been made in the last year and a half, the fact that those values may not have been defended so well does not diminish the power of those values. And I would simply close on this observation: Whenever we think of our friends in Israel, their lonely struggle, we should recall the words of an old union general who came back to Gettysburg, an old Union soldier who came back to Gettysburg on the 50th anniversary of that fight, he reminded his daughter in a letter that when we talk about the cause of the Civil War, he said, ``The men who won that day will always be right; the men who lost that day will always be wrong.'' So it is when it comes to freedom. Those of us who believe in it, those of us who promote the frontier of democracy shall always be right and those who stand for oppression, authoritarianism, and who do not respect the dignity of men and women shall always be wrong. I am proud to support this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of Virginia for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, there are three of us who are African American who were not even born when this act was passed: the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and me. I should begin by saying that those of us who were born in the late 1960s, we are not only the legatees of what was done here 40 years ago; we are very much the hope of what was done here 40 years ago. It was somehow imagined by the people who sat in this Chamber 40 years ago close to this very day that if they made this change in our laws that they would somehow open up the talent base in this country, that they would somehow build an America that had never been; and the fact that we commend this day shows us the continuing power of law. It is sometimes fashionable to say that you cannot legislate morality in this country, and all of us have said that on our favorite issue or another; but this is the reality: law can be used to shape our moral character; law can be used to set the boundaries of what we will tolerate and what we will not accept and that is exactly what we did 40 years ago. We used the power of law to shape the American dream and to talk about its outer aspirations. It is ironic as I stand here, one of the reasons that more Members are not in this Chamber right now is because at this very moment an African American Secretary of State is briefing the Congress. Another reason more Members are not here is because at this very moment a young, dynamic black Democrat named Barak Obama is in this building receiving members of the Congressional Black Caucus. A black Secretary of State; a black U.S. Senator about-to-be, born in Illinois; a black national security adviser. Whatever we disagree on, that is an America that no one would have contemplated 40 years ago. I end just on this note. By thinking about frankly a lot of people who never had the chance to serve in this Chamber, all of the brilliant African Americans who were born too early to be in Congress, who were born too early to shape this country's agenda, they could have been here if America had been a little bit fairer and if our dream had been a little bit more secure in this country. They are really the people we ought to be thinking about today in some sense because when that Congress passed the civil rights law and Lyndon Johnson signed it into law, this is what it did: it created an America where talent is the outer limit of what you can be. And yes, as my friend from Texas said, we routinely fall short of that goal, but at least we have it as a value, at least we have it as a goal; and it somehow defines what we can be and what we can still dream. So as one young African American Member of this institution, I simply say this. We are so much freer than we used to be as a country. We are also so much more American.