Artur Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute as a recipient of the prestigious Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award for 2009-2011. Fewer than ten museums in the United States are selected for the Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award and I am delighted and proud that the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, located in the Seventh Congressional District, is among the chosen. This honor is both an outstanding achievement and a source of great pride for the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute and the Birmingham community. Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad, which is administered by the American Association of Museums (AAM) and receives financial support from the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, connects U.S. communities with communities abroad through innovative, museum-based projects that reflect each museum's unique collections, capabilities, and expertise. Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad increases the cultural competency of two communities and also helps museums connect with local underserved populations. The Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award will enable the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute to partner with the Mandela House Museum in Soweto, South Africa in the development of a joint project of cultural significance. The obvious parallels between the U.S. and South Africa related to their historic struggles against malevolent systems of racial segregation and oppression make this a natural partnership. Through this collaboration, not only will the communities of Birmingham and Soweto be united, but cultural diplomacy as a whole between the U.S. and South Africa will be strengthened. It is an honor to recognize the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for this outstanding accomplishment. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for this significant achievement.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute as a recipient of the prestigious Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award for 2009-2011. Fewer than ten museums in the United States are selected for the Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award and I am delighted and proud that the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, located in the Seventh Congressional District, is among the chosen. This honor is both an outstanding achievement and a source of great pride for the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute and the Birmingham community. Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad, which is administered by the American Association of Museums (AAM) and receives financial support from the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, connects U.S. communities with communities abroad through innovative, museum-based projects that reflect each museum's unique collections, capabilities, and expertise. Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad increases the cultural competency of two communities and also helps museums connect with local underserved populations. The Museums and Community Collaborations Abroad Award will enable the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute to partner with the Mandela House Museum in Soweto, South Africa in the development of a joint project of cultural significance. The obvious parallels between the U.S. and South Africa related to their historic struggles against malevolent systems of racial segregation and oppression make this a natural partnership. Through this collaboration, not only will the communities of Birmingham and Soweto be united, but cultural diplomacy as a whole between the U.S. and South Africa will be strengthened. It is an honor to recognize the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for this outstanding accomplishment. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for this significant achievement.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the Children of the Village Network, a non-profit organization based in my District, in Sumter County, Alabama. I commend the Children of the Village Network on their 10th Anniversary and would like to underscore the positive impact that this organization has had on my District. The Children of the Village Network was established by District Judge Tammy Montgomery based on the time honored premise that ``it takes a whole village to raise one child.'' This network has created a family resource center for residents of Sumter County that provides life skills training, parenting classes, job readiness training, a food bank and educational scholarships. The organization drives home the importance of academic excellence for the youth of Sumter County, awarding 13 scholarships since 2000 and providing for additional enrichment activities to promote independence and incentivize academic achievement. After ten years of commitment to the residents of Sumter County, the success of the Children of the Village Network has been widely recognized for its success in contributing significantly to improving the quality of life in Sumter County. Thank you, Madam Speaker and may God bless the Children of the Village Network and Judge Montgomery with continued success.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California was right when he said we needed more Jack Kemps. When I was a child growing up in Montgomery, Alabama, as a shy young man who loved politics, I admired Jack Kemp because he was young, vigorous and looked a little like Jack Kennedy. For a shy kid from Alabama, that was enough to win me over. I got to know him as a Member of this body several years ago when he came to Selma, Alabama, as part of a civil rights pilgrimage. He and I partnered to do a fundraiser together in New York to renovate 16th Street Baptist Church, where four young black girls were murdered by a bombing in 1963. I still remember Jack standing against a window opening up to the New York skyline and talking about how much he regretted not having said enough in the mid 1960s when the civil rights movement was generating its strongest energies. And, finally, as someone who is a political practitioner, I admired Jack Kemp because he believed in the theory of politics, where all of us competed for the same votes. He wanted his Republican Party to compete for African American votes. He wanted my Democratic Party to compete for people of faith. He wanted one political ground in this country where everyone who wanted to hold power had to come and speak and share their values. Jack Kemp was right. I extend my condolences to Joanne Kemp and his wonderful family.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend of 10 years, the gentleman from Alabama, Bobby Bright, for introducing this resolution and giving the House a chance to vote on it and pass it today, and let me pick out just two things to say about this unspeakable tragedy, if I can. One of the mysteries of human existence is that evil can exist in a divinely inspired world. The people who live in south Alabama are some of the most humble, God-fearing, patriotic people on the face of this Earth. Their God and their faith is an animating principle to them, and it is enormously difficult to contemplate how such good people could have been visited by such remarkable afternoon horror. I am comforted, as I know the people in that community were comforted, by all of the expressions of support from around the United States of America, by all of the people who came to their aid, by all of the people who lent their good wishes. The second observation I would make is there is one thing that stood out to me beyond the television images. We all saw the television images, which were sheer terror. But the next morning I made a phone call to one of the chiefs of the police in one of these small communities and I asked him if he knew any of the people who had been killed or injured. Without missing a beat, he said into the phone, ``Mr. Davis, I knew them all. I knew them all.'' He went on to say, ``We are a small town. We go to church together. We play ball together. We meet at each other's homes for holidays. We celebrate events together. We all know each other.'' That is the other unique thing about this event, Mr. Speaker, that this event ripped such a hole in the soul of a community of people who were knit close together. That is the special tragedy. My final observation, I want to thank again Bobby Bright from the Second District. When I called him the morning after this event, his first instinct was to think like the very good mayor that he was until he came here. He said, ``I am getting on a plane. I am going back home because I want to know if they need anything. I want to know if they need help.'' That is how executives think, that is how this mayor thought, and the people of the Second District are very privileged and fortunate to have that kind of individual, whose first instinct was ``what can I do?'', not just to lend support, but to be of assistance. So I extend my condolences to these individuals and to their families. May God bless the souls of the lost, and may He mend the bodies of those who are left and wounded.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise to extend my condolences to the family of Miriam Witherspoon, a city council member whose death on April 21 is being mourned by the entire city of Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Witherspoon was a note of grace in Birmingham politics: if you knew her, you had to appreciate that she was genuinely kind and generous in a profession known more for its sharp edges. Miriam was the kind of individual who excelled at whatever she did. Academically, that meant graduating with high honors from Alabama A&M, and second in her class at Miles Law School. Professionally, it meant crafting a career as one of the leading experts on elder law in the state of Alabama. Politically, it meant forging a political career in her adopted community of Birmingham on her own, independent terms. She lost her first council race, but came back so strong that in 2005, she won easily, the only non-incumbent to win outright without a runoff. Miriam won the confidence of her peers so quickly that in her first days, they elected her president pro tempore of the council. Miriam Witherspoon happened to have a disability. An automobile accident twenty-one years ago ruined her spinal cord. Her spirit only grew stronger. When she entered public life, disabled citizens in Birmingham finally had their voice. Miriam pushed Birmingham and its city buildings to live up to the obligations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When told that following the law cost money, her answer was, in effect, ``we are Americans by way of Birmingham, Alabama, and we belong here too''. Her passion reminded us that Birmingham of all places has no business keeping people out. She goes home to rest now, having fought the good fight. Her legacy will be the people she inspired, who used to have an excuse for why they couldn't compete or excel. That is, they had an excuse until the moment they met Miriam Witherspoon, and felt the spirit that was standing upright around her wheelchair.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of an outstanding lawyer who has recently retired from the federal bench, the Honorable U.W. Clemon. U.W. Clemon's ascension from racial apartheid in Alabama to the federal bench is a testament to the quickening pace of justice in the late twentieth century. His path is also evidence of how much that rising arc of justice depended on the stamina and the will of individual black Americans who resisted the permanence of segregation. When I trace U.W. Clemon's life, I am struck by how undeterred he was by the cruelty of his times. He was not yet a legal adult when he dared to testify to Birmingham's City Council that segregation ordinances had no valid legal authority. He was ejected from the council chambers and labeled an ``agitator'' and a ``militant'' for his efforts. Young Clemon was assigned by movement leaders to risk arrest by entering the Birmingham Public Library's segregated chambers. Through all of this, he knew that Birmingham's police had been vicious enough to brutalize children much younger than him. Clemon emphatically rejected the premise that even smart and brave young black men had no professional future in Alabama. He saw no reason why the valedictorian at a fine black college, Miles University, shouldn't also be a Columbia man with an Ivy League law degree. It would have been forgivable if Clemon had used his Ivy League ticket to escape the South--frankly, I would have if I had been his contemporary and numerous others did. The ``agitator'' in him won out, and the former student activist was soon camped out in Alabama's courts litigating to enforce school desegregation orders that had been withering on the vine. False memory says that a black U.S.C. running back's exemplary performance against the University's football team moved the legendary ``Bear'' Bryant to recruit black athletes; in reality, it was a lawsuit filed by young attorney Clemon. This initial pioneering phase of his life is the first reason U.W. Clemon will be honored on May 7, 2009 by the Alabama Civil Justice Foundation. The second reason is the character of the public service he has provided the citizens of my state. State Senator U.W. Clemon distinguished himself by the battles he waged to obtain representation for blacks on the governing board of state agencies and universities. Part of the reason for progress was undoubtedly Governor George Wallace's softening stance on race. Much another, major part of the reason state boards came to resemble the state's population was Senator Clemon's persistence and his effectiveness. When Clemon was nominated for the federal bench, the history making nature of the appointment guaranteed opposition and some of it was personal and ferocious. His stance against the constitutionality of the death penalty was used against him; his role in the political process was described as the wrong preparation for a judicial temperament-- a curious claim to make to a Senate that had confirmed Governor Earl Warren and Republican activist William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. It was even intimated that a civil rights litigator might have an untoward bias toward black plaintiffs. Clemon won the fight, and the prize of being the first black federal judge in my state's history. The subsequent twenty nine years are a model of judicial courage. Clemon's rulings have made my state's mental hospitals and its county jails more hospitable to human beings. His decisions have undone some of the environmental ravages that were becoming routine costs of doing business in some counties. His single- handed implementation of a more inclusive jury selection wheel means that the administration of justice is more diverse than it is in any other federal district in my state, and that is a good thing if you conclude that the appearance of equal justice is an institutional value in its own right. This record of robust interpretation of the ideal of equal justice is the legacy Judge Clemon leaves. I have never understood the notion that the law is unreservedly neutral or that its interpretation is unconnected to a judge's deeply held sentiments of what kind of America we should aspire to be. Plessy v. Ferguson arose out of a value scheme, one that disfavored people of my kind and was inherently skeptical of our capacity for common ground. Brown v. Board is a variant of yet another value, one that trusts the capacity for collective gain if we are freed from bigotry and its stigmas. Both decisions arose out of the reading of the same constitutional clauses. U.W. Clemon judged the same Equal Protection Clause, and its descendant, Title VII, with a vision. It seems to go something like this: discrimination still has deep roots in our culture; a reading of the law that is too parsimonious, or too cramped, will yield one kind of community, while a more heroic interpretation will generate a public sphere that shines more brightly. Finally, I think Judge Clemon always felt that corporate power should feel a little unsettled when it walks into a courtroom. It's an instinct that I appreciate the more I see the customary advantages that the entrenched and the privileged enjoy in most seats of power. I congratulate Judge Clemon on a noble, heroic career.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again. This Congress is finally doing the right thing in a timely fashion, recovering ill-gotten gains. What do the American people do? They turn on the television and they hear this turned, once again, into a partisan controversy, an effort to deflect blame onto the other party, instead of celebrating the fact that we have a chance to do something together as an institution. This is the heart of the problem, Mr. Chairman. To the many people watching this broadcast now, listening to these proceedings, there are two sets of rules--one set of rules for people who are trying to send their kids to college, who are trying to make a living, but making sacrifices during this incredibly deep recession; and another set for rules for these Wall Street geniuses who are so smart, they figured out how to wreck a company so completely to almost wreck a national economy. That does take a level of skill, I suppose, to figure that out, how to be that bad at doing anything. We are recouping those ill-gotten gains. And the American people ought to be glad to see this prompt, decisive action. Instead, they are hearing more partisan back and forth.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the legacy of an outstanding Alabamian who died this week, J.L. Chestnut. Thousands will gather next Wednesday in Selma to lay him to rest, and to recall the way his extraordinary life shaped my state. J.L. Chestnut was born in 1930 in Selma. The Depression-era South suffocated the aspirations of most young black men, but J.L. managed to escape, first to Dillard University, then to Howard Law School. It would have been understandable if he had joined the ranks of educated blacks who never returned to the South, shunning the region that lynched Emmett Till and that spawned the most virulent resistance to integration. J.L., however, was the kind of intrepid soul who sought out the South as the likeliest frontline in the fledging civil rights movement. When he came home, he started his life's work of defending powerless people. I've heard older lawyers in Selma describe even the youthful J.L. Chestnut's brilliance in the courtroom and the cool, relentless way he navigated through a segregated justice system in those early years. Not surprisingly, the organizers of the Selma marches in 1965 turned to him when they needed a legal strategy to spring demonstrators out of jail before they could be mauled or before they lost hope. It goes without saying that his visibility made him a marked man in a county where civil rights demonstrators occasionally wound up dead. When the drama of the voting rights campaign ended, Chestnut's prestige as black Selma's attorney of record continued to rise. Chestnut litigated dozens of cases in federal court that reminded Alabama and Dallas County that the Constitution applied there--his work integrated juries, and the administrative ranks of the school system, as well as every sector of the workplace. Over the last decades of his life, he was the principal voting rights litigator in Alabama. The lawyer who was renowned for keeping innocent young men out of jail emerged as the lawyer to call if some municipality or county was scheming to dilute the black voter share, or to put some new encumbrance on black voter registration. The testament to his craftsmanship: I heard a federal judge say once that he looked more skeptically at voting rights cases in Alabama that didn't have Chestnut's names on the pleadings. Chestnut, to my knowledge, never entertained the idea of running for office. He memorably told an audience once that you could lean on politicians more effectively if you weren't one of them. Thankfully, he leaned on more than a few and helped prop up a good number of others. He helped found the Alabama New South Coalition to support progressive candidates. One of the last ones he backed was Barack Obama, and J.L. went to his grave heartened that this miracle might be coming true. Since I have entered office, I have seen Rosa Parks, Coretta King, John Hulett, Johnnie Carr, and now J.L. Chestnut called back home. Like them, Chestnut's contribution was moral authority at a time when both were in short supply. Chestnut and his class of heroes reminded us that we have obligations to each other--white and black people owe each other civility; talented people owe their community the service of their abilities; a decent society owes legal protections to every citizen; a privileged people owe the marginal among us security against the worst economic storms. Finally, J.L. Chestnut reminded me that this new generation of leaders must challenge ourselves even more to forge lasting change--if J.L. could do it in a more hateful, more oppressive time, how dare we settle for a lesser standard of courage, and wit, and perseverance. Madam Speaker, may God bless the family of J.L. Chestnut.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Congressman Terry Everett on his retirement after 16 years of service in the House. Everett has been a reliable supporter of the two sectors that drive the economics of the 2nd Congressional District-agriculture and national security--and his successor will have much to do to match Everett's influence. What I have always admired about Terry Everett is the fact that he is the rare civic leader who comes to politics as a mid-life career. Everett ran a newspaper in the Wiregrass and learned from that how to run a business and how to measure community sentiment. His path is not the conventional route in an institution full of strivers who fantasized their Congressional career in grade school. But if you know Terry Everett, his path leaves him a happier, more decent man than a sizable chunk of his colleagues who stress about the offices they never held and the publicity they never received. I remember Everett's election in 1992 well because I lived in his district when I was home from law school. He was not his party's early favorite in the primary. Nor was he given good odds in the general: his opponent was none other than the son of Alabama's political prodigy George Wallace. But odds don't determine elections and Everett managed to beat a lot of money and establishment clout on the other side. To his credit, he never saw another tough race. I think the way Everett won made him a little freer to be his own man. I never sensed he took a path for the sole reason that his party took it, or because he thought an opinion would elevate him with his party leaders. I sensed that Terry Everett always felt that he knew his district and his people better than Washington could ever know them. He is a tried and true conservative--most of his voters wouldn't have it any other way--but his roots shaped his conservatism in a good way. It is the conservatism of someone who has seen certain values thrive in his own life and believes that they will work for others. I respect that, and agreed with him more times than a few. I wish we had more citizen politicians like Terry Everett, and I wish him well. In addition, I congratulate Congressman Bud Cramer on eighteen years of service to the 5th District of Alabama. Mr. Cramer is the latest descendant in a long line of North Alabama Democrats who have served their district's interests well while garnering significant national clout, and Alabama will miss him. When I think of Bud Cramer, I am reminded of a sage-sounding prediction by a longtime Southern political observer. In the aftermath of Newt Gingrich's ``revolution'' in 1994, this individual was predicting that the John Sparkman/Tom Bevill model was becoming obsolete due to the increased partisanship and ideological polarization in states like Alabama. His premise was that conservative Democrats were imperiled because of their party label: Cramer's exceedingly narrow victory in 1994 was even cited as an example of the uncertain status of ``blue dogs'' like Cramer. His district should be thankful that Bud Cramer disproved this prophecy by winning again in 1996, and then by becoming unassailable. He has not faced meaningful opposition in the last twelve years, even though every Republican presidential candidate has won the 5th District easily. The ultimate testament to his popularity: in a hotly contested race to succeed him, both the Democratic and Republican nominees are promising to ``be another Bud Cramer.'' Cramer leaves North Alabama's economy stronger than he found it. The missile research program in Huntsville is now one of the largest, most vital components of the US military budget, partly because of Cramer-- his skilled support has helped sustain missile defense against a variety of political foes. He has also nurtured a series of economic development projects in a region that has wide pockets of unemployment; one of the last projects he worked on creates a new opportunity zone in Colbert County, which will lead to at least one major new industry locating there. In Washington, Cramer's legacy is his thoughtful leadership on national security issues. Cramer's influence actually rose as the Intelligence Committee on which he served grew more partisan--the congressman's refusal to either rubber stamp or reflexively oppose the Administration's agenda underscored the value of more moderate voices. I wish Bud well. He's earned the right to weeks that don't begin with the 7 a.m., Monday morning direct flight from Huntsville to Washington. I would also like to submit the following articles from the Huntsville Times for the Record. [From the Huntsville Times, July 27, 2008] BRAC Success a Result of Team Approach, Says Cramer As U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer reflects on retiring after nine terms in Washington, he says his proudest achievement has been his team approach to getting the job done. ``Whenever we saw what needed to be accomplished, we planned and then worked as a team to reach the goal, from regional economics to the Space Station,'' Cramer says. ``The team approach applies to each success. I was a team member and leader in identifying what we needed to do to help ourselves.'' Cramer's approach was no more apparent than when he worked on presenting the area for the U.S. Army's plan to consolidate commands or base realignment, better known as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). When BRAC emerged, the congressman says he immediately recognized he had to be in the forefront of this plan. In 1994-95, he proactively gained jobs and then prepared for the next BRAC round for more jobs. He worked in unison with the Alabama congressional delegation to demonstrate to the Army what Redstone's capabilities are. ``It meant understanding the issues,'' Cramer says. By serving on the House Appropriations Committee and teaming with with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, Democrat Cramer says the pair got money to modernize Army facilities in Huntsville to make them more efficient and appealing as a workplace. Redstone impressed the Army and the Pentagon, and won the ``mother of all BRAC rounds'' and thousands of jobs for Huntsville. It was teamwork, he says, that paid off. Huntsville Mayor Loretta Spencer credits Cramer for his accomplishments with BRAC. ``When the opportunity came again to win a favorable BRAC ruling, elected officials and business groups from the Tennessee Valley region formed a task force for cohesion in pooling resources,'' she says. ``However, as strong as our region's presentation was, we could not have had the results without the support of Bud and our congressional delegation.'' Since coming to Congress in 1990, Rep. Cramer has been a leading advocate for missile defense. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Cramer, with Shelby and the other members of the Alabama delegation, secured more than $211 million for the construction of the Von Braun Complex. Cramer's District 5, which includes Colbert, Jackson, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison counties and portions of Morgan County in North Alabama, also includes the Army's Redstone Arsenal and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. In 2005, Cramer called it a ``good day for North Alabama'' when the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced it would recommend to the BRAC Commission that 3,000 jobs be relocated to the Redstone Arsenal. Comprising this relocation were components of U.S. Army Materiel Commands, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and a significant part of the Missile Defense Agency. Soon after, the U.S Army Security Assistance Command and Aviation Technical Test Center were also relocated to Redstone. It made North Alabama one of the nation's largest gainers with BRAC. ``Today marks a proud and historic day for Redstone and for all of us in North Alabama,'' Cramer said then. ``I am pleased that the hard work by our community has paid off. North Alabama presented an excellent proposal highlighting Redstone's strengths, and the daily contributions people working there make to our national security.'' Cramer emphasized teamwork involving BRAC committee chairman Joe Ritch and the entire Tennessee Valley BRAC team, spanning several years, to help bring the commands to North Alabama. In October 2005, Cramer announced that BRAC supporters defeated a resolution in the House of Representatives that would have disapproved BRAC recommendations. By law, Congress had 45 legislative days to reject the BRAC report entirely, or it became law. Following the decision, Cramer discussed the move with senior Army officials to ensure it came about. Given today's budget environment, I wanted to make absolutely sure that even if we encounter potential challenges, North Alabama's gains will be completed,'' said Cramer after the hearing. Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment, confirmed to Cramer that the DOD was legally obligated to comply with each of the 103 BRAC recommendations by Sept. 15, 2011. At the time Cramer said, ``BRAC is a congressionally authorized process that the Department of Defense has used to reorganize its base structure to more efficiently support our forces. BRAC is critical to U.S. national security and cannot be undermined. It balances national defense priorities, supports our military modernization objectives and creates opportunities for private economic development.''

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me address the contingency fee provision that has come up several times. Mr. McCrery, I agree with you that contingency fee lawyers are a very, very narrow class of people. They are the only major business in America that gets paid solely based on how effective they are. If they earn nothing for their client, they get nothing in the way of compensation. Another fact for my friends on the minority: Contingency fee lawyers are small business owners who run up expenses, like every other small business in America. Simple tax fairness says they ought to be able to take the expenses when the expenses occur. That is how we grow businesses in America, we give people a chance to use the Tax Code to grow. And if every other business in America can take a deduction for expenses in the year in which you incur the expense, how dare we single out one class of small business owners and treat them differently. This provision is a simple clear matter of tax equity.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1148) providing additional amounts for the expenses of the select committee established under House Resolution 611.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California and my friend from Texas are right, this bill is not burden-free. This is who bears the burden: 36,000 to 50,000 individuals who took a deduction for carried interest, less than two-hundredths of a percent of the taxpaying population, and what was their combined income in the last year? Mr. Speaker, it was $935 billion. That is who will bear the burden. When Mr. Van Hollen and I came to the Congress, here's who bore the burden every time they brought tax bills to the floor: college students who were pushed into paying higher loans, families on Medicaid who were pushed into paying higher premiums, people who were pushed into having their benefits taken away when they need them, and soldiers who lost the earned income tax credit for some of their families. Under this majority, the people who bear the burden when we have to make difficult choices will not be the people who are working and sustaining this country day in and day out. Yes, someone will bear the burden; a very, small narrow category of the super-rich.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me make two points, if I can, about this agreement tonight. Almost everyone on the Democratic side of this Chamber has at some point in time in the last 7 years had some point to decry the Bush administration's tendencies toward unilateralism. Almost everyone on the Democratic side has had some occasion to say that we wish the Bush administration would abandon its tendency to go it alone in this world. If we take that rhetoric seriously, Mr. Speaker, if we take seriously the idea that we cannot dig ourselves into a barricade and isolate ourselves when it comes to national security, the same logic has to apply when it comes to economics. I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Jones's point earlier that the U.S. is in decline. We're not in decline. There's nothing wrong in this country that better policies in the White House would not fix. Because we're not in decline, because of our underlying strength and underlying robustness, we ought to be using the economic power that we have to lift up workers here and to see what we can do to lift up workers around the world, and that vision is exactly what this agreement is about. Second point, Mr. Speaker, the template for this agreement was not written by this President or this USTR. It was written by Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; co-signed by Sandy Levin, one of the strongest supporters of labor in this Chamber; and co-signed by the Speaker of the House who yields to no one in her support of organized labor. This is the template and the vision that the Democratic Caucus constructed. And I hear some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle who say, well, we don't count on enforcement from the Bush administration. I don't. I count on the fact that beginning January 20, 2009, there's going to be a new sheriff in town. I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. This agreement will be enforced by a new Democratic President of the United States. It will reflect Democratic values and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, principled leadership requires taking ``yes'' for an answer. This agreement and the foundations around it are what this Democratic Caucus has been seeking for 5 years. Sometimes you have to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 723) providing for the expenses of the select committee established under House Resolution 611.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate US Steel on their 100th anniversary of production in the State of Alabama. In 1907, the United States was in the midst of a ``financial panic'' that threatened the future of the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company (TC&I) and the jobs of thousands of people employed by the company in Alabama. The United States Steel Corporation (US Steel), the Nation's first billion dollar business enterprise, agreed to purchase a majority of the capital stock of TC&I, preserving thousands of Alabama jobs. President Theodore Roosevelt and the U.S. Justice Department gave their approval on November 4, 1907 for the merger of US Steel and TC&I to help restore public confidence in the Nation's economy, thus ending the financial panic. Soon after the merger, US Steel significantly expanded iron and steel production in Alabama, creating thousands of new jobs, and initiating social reforms for company employees, such as: building new homes for workers, establishing community schools, and building the Lloyd Noland Hospital. US Steel was the first steel company in America to embrace collective bargaining in 1937 by recognizing the Steel Workers Organizing Committee which became the United Steel Workers of America. The steel produced at US Steel by its Alabama employees built the ships, tanks and other military armaments that defended the United States in two world wars, as well as in the Korean War and Vietnam War. In the past 100 years, generations of Alabama residents--estimated to exceed a million people--worked at U.S. Steel mills, coal and iron mines, barge rail lines and other commercial facilities. US Steel continues to create quality family-supporting jobs, with health care benefits for some 2,500 skilled employees in Alabama. These employees work at plants and offices including the Fairfield Works, the largest steel making plant in the South; the Fairfield Works Seamless Pipe Mill; US Steel Realty, a major land developer in the Birmingham area; and US Steel's Transtar subsidiary that includes the Birmingham Southern Railroad, Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, and the Mobile River Terminal at Mobile. Despite the fierce competitive challenges in a global steel market, including unfair competition from heavily subsidized foreign steel producers, US Steel has continued to make job-creating and job- retaining capital investments in Alabama. US Steel has a long history of supporting philanthropic and community projects to enhance the quality of life in Alabama such as the Red Mountain Oak in Birmingham, which will be the largest urban park in America. This project represents a contribution from US Steel exceeding $10 million. Madam Speaker, I wish to officially mark the centennial observance of the United States Steel Corporation in Alabama. I congratulate the company for 100 years of steelmaking and job-producing commercial activity in my State. Through its 100 years, US Steel and its skilled employees have made a tremendous contribution to the State's economy, and to Alabama's future as a major manufacturing center in America.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I've listened to a lot of allegations, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic Party, the party that crafted Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, is somehow cutting health care benefits. I don't want this debate to end without putting a few simple facts in perspective. There is one party in this Chamber that said to 13 million working class families on Medicaid for the first time, you have to make a co- pay for your kids to go to the doctor. There is one party in this Chamber that, 4 years ago, in the Medicare Modernization Act, tucked in the fine print of the bill a requirement of guaranteed Medicare cuts in the next several years. There is one party in this Chamber that passed the prescription drug bill that contained a massive doughnut hole for seniors which allowed them to lose their coverage for a period of time. There's one party in this Chamber that has sent five budgets, just in my tenure, to the floor of the Congress cutting Medicaid benefits. There is one party in this Chamber that has proposed to cut, that has passed a guaranteed 10 percent cut for reimbursements for doctors, set to go into effect beginning on January 1. It is the Republican party. Let there be no debate, Mr. Speaker. There is one party that has its bona fides on the question of health care. It is the party that is moving today a bill that will provide universal coverage for all children who need it. It is shameful for this debate to have been twisted and distorted in the manner that it has.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, as a former assistant United States attorney, I am pleased to introduce the ``Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.'' This bill will enhance the Federal Government's capacity to collect unpaid judgments and restitutionary obligations owed to the United States and victims of crime, as well as strengthen the retirement benefits of assistant United States attorneys. Madam Speaker, as you are aware, United States Attorney Offices are responsible for criminal and civil debt collection efforts that result annually in billions of dollars that are turned over to Federal agencies and crime victims. Unfortunately, however, there remain billions of dollars that go uncollected due to the competing demands on our law enforcement officers. ``The Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2007'' will address this problem by improving the process by which the Department of Justice collects criminal and civil debts owed to the United States and the victims of crime. But Madam Speaker, that is not all. The ``Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2007,'' in addition to improving debt collection, will also significantly aid our law enforcement efforts in another important way: it will ensure that assistant United States attorneys receive the same retirements benefits as all other Federal law enforcement officials, thereby increasing the retention of our career Federal prosecutors. Indeed, despite their vital role in prosecuting criminals, despite their vital role in defending the United States in litigation, despite their vital role in keeping America safe, assistant United States attorneys are unfairly shortchanged in the retirement benefits they receive once their public service is complete. The retirement benefits of AUSAs are considerably lower than their law enforcement colleagues within the FBI, Secret Service, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Prisons. The ``Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2007'' corrects this glaring inequality. Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that our career Federal prosecutors have been under tremendous pressure these past several months and their morale has been tested like never before. But in spite of that, day after day, week after week, month after month, these men and women vigorously prosecute those that would seek to undermine our democracy and further weaken our rule of law. Our AUSAs deserve better, and we deserve better. Passing the ``Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2007'' is the least we can do for those that work so hard to keep us safe.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, there's a pastor back home who has a card that he carries around with him and it says, made by God, return to the Creator upon expiration. As a person of faith, if you believe that, as I do, you have to believe that that admonition and that promise applies not just to you and your kind, but to people who may be different, act different, think different, and look different. So this is the simplest way I can put this to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If you are a person of faith, you have a Bible-based problem with hate. And if you have a Bible-based problem with hate, it's legitimate to say that hate ought to be punished a little bit more. That's all this legislation says. Obviously, it must be done consistent with the first amendment, and that is why I offered an amendment that was accepted in committee and that my good friend, Lamar Smith from Texas, not only voted for, but praised during the markup. The amendment says specifically, nothing in this statute shall change the terms of the first amendment as they exist. So this is as simple as I can put this to my good friend, Mr. Gohmert. The only people who ought to fear this bill are people who would say to another human being, you ought to do violence against someone else. I don't know a man of God or woman of God who would take to any pulpit in the land, any synagogue or mosque in the land and say, do violence to another one of God's children. And because I have confidence in people of faith and know they wouldn't do that, I know they won't be hurt by this bill. And, by the way, I say that as the only Democrat on the committee who voted against gay marriage. This bill ought to be passed, and I ask my colleagues to do so.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Members of the House, we tend to use the term ``friend'' very liberally in this institution. We often apply it to anyone with whom we have had more than a casual or passing conversation. Juanita Millender- McDonald was someone that I genuinely viewed as a friend, not in the way the Members of the House use that term but in the way that ordinary people who are watching this on television use it. There were a lot of days when we sat on this floor and we talked together. There were a lot of days when we sat on this floor and we exchanged confidences. There were a lot of days when we sat on this floor and I spoke to her of my aspirations and my goals and she spoke to me of hers. There were times when I spoke of my family and she spoke of her abiding, continuing faith in her family. Many people do not realize because she did not speak of it a great deal, but Juanita was from Birmingham, Alabama, and it is a tragedy that a black woman born in 1937 or 1938 felt that she had to leave the State of Alabama to reach her full promise. Juanita did. And it was my State's loss. She went to the State of California, and so many of my colleagues have told the story of her wonderful ascension and her wonderful career there. But she always retained memories of growing up in the South. She always retained memories of growing up in a segregated environment. And her family, much of it remains there. Another thing that was not widely known, Juanita's brother, Shelley Millender, was a longtime radio talk show host in the city of Birmingham and I have had a long-time attachment to him. When I ran for this job for the first time, there were very few people who would welcome me onto their programs or into their forums. The very first one to do so was Shelley Millender. He did it constantly and I have always appreciated that. Juanita's nephew, Shelley, Jr., has become a friend of mine and I always enjoyed telling her how proud she should be of him and how well he conducts himself in the city of Birmingham. So, Mr. Speaker, what I want to say today, Juanita Millender-McDonald was a phenomenally elegant, restrained and dignified woman. She richly deserved the title Madam Chairwoman that she was just beginning to wear so well, and I will remember my last conversation with her sitting just off this floor. It was not uncommon for us to gather and talk about what was going on as we left the floor. I remember her telling me during that conversation how much she looked forward to her work on the House Administration Committee. I remember her telling me how much she looked forward to several hearings that were upcoming. She never had the chance to do that which she talked about that day. But I will always remember her confidence, her courage, and her decency. And as she and her family watch and as they prepare for God to take her back to her home in heaven, know that the time she spent here was well served and the legacy that she left honors her native State of Alabama, my State, and the State she adopted and served so ably, California.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of the committee for honoring me by giving me a chance to speak during this momentous debate. And I want to begin with a simple observation. If you scour the globe and you look at the places that are listed as democracies, the places where the consent of the governed is what drives the politics, there is not a single one where the people who live in the capital do not have a representative to their parliamentary body. No, not one. That is telling, and it ought to frame everything that we say here today because the system of government in this country and the way we have gone about business until now has been unique in the world. This is the only place in the world where the people who live in the capital have no voice. Now, let me speak to some of the constitutional arguments that have been raised. I find it very telling, Mr. Speaker, that many of my very able colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time in their recommit motion and other places, making a point about the recent D.C. Circuit ruling about the right to bear arms. They have brought that unrelated issue into this debate. But it is interesting for this reason, and I take out this dog-eared copy of the Constitution. If there is one document that ought to be well worn, I suppose it is the Constitution. If you look at the second amendment, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman, that our opponents in this debate rely on, it says ``A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'' a clear-cut reference to the security of a free State. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say that is relevant to Washington, D.C. They say there is a right to bear arms that the people shall enjoy. If it is so in the context of someone carrying around a 9 millimeter or a semiautomatic, it must be so in the context of people walking into a ballot and voting for a delegate who is a representative who has a voice here. What kind of a system of government says that the right to have a 9 millimeter outweighs the right to vote? You can't have it both ways in this argument. You can't say you throw out the State in the second amendment, but somehow you make the State giant and bold and capitalized and italicized in the context of this representation. Another point that Mr. Nadler touched upon: We hear from the opposition that D.C. is a special thing, a Federal district, that it is neither the United States nor the States so, therefore, it belongs in its own special category. If that is the case, to my friends on the other side, take out your copy of the Constitution, plow your way through it, and look at amendment after amendment. If that interpretation is so, that D.C. is not a State or the U.S. Government, it means the equal protection clause doesn't apply to Washington, D.C. It means that the antipoll tax provision doesn't apply to Washington, D.C. It means that every other provision of the Constitution that contains the word ``State'' or ``U.S.'' does not apply. No one makes that argument that the people of Washington, D.C. are utterly shorn of rights because they are neither a State nor the United States. If you don't make it in another context, you cannot make it in this one.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, that facts do matter. And these are the interesting facts, Mr. Spratt: While Mr. Daniel E. Lungren was on his sabbatical in California, the two political sides shifted. The old progressive party decided that it believes in fiscal discipline. That is why we have the PAYGO rules. And the previously conservative party is advocating an AMT tax continuation that would bring 26 million families into its purview. Let me put this in perspective. There is one budget on the floor that, for the period 2008 to 2012, would raise taxes as much as $2,300 per person on 26 million families. It is not the CBC budget, it is not the Spratt budget, it happens to be the budget of the President of the United States. So we have switched. The progressives have become the people who want to restrain spending, and our friends on the conservative side no longer care about raising taxes on the middle class. Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, a number of things have indeed changed.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I will vote today for a resolution that would finally draw the war in Iraq to a close, and that would for the first time put conditions of self-determination on the Iraqi government that has benefited from our country's generosity. While I was not yet in Congress at the time of the original authorization debate in 2002, I have concluded that the authorization decision was wrong and that too many American lives have been sacrificed for the dubious cause of advancing the interests of one side of an Iraqi civil war over the other. It is also my belief that Congress has the unmistakable authority to put time limits on the commitment of American forces and to attach strings to the manner in which military funds are spent: Congress has used this power before in Lebanon, Vietnam, and Somalia, and most recently, during the second term of the Clinton Administration, when Republican congressional majorities imposed restrictions on the use of ground forces and on the duration of the force commitment made during the Balkan conflict. Some of my colleagues who share my opposition to the war have suggested that this resolution has the defect of not going far enough in that it does not require an immediate withdrawal of American forces. I disagree: for the sake of regional stability, any withdrawal should be more orderly and more measured than the haphazard way American forces were deployed in the first place. Other anti-war critics argue that a Democratic Congress has a moral imperative to take a bolder course, such as repeal of the 2002 authorization or a pledge to impound funding for additional deployments. While I agree that the test of Democratic legislation cannot be whether it would attract a Presidential veto (if that is the standard, Democrats would be immobilized this next 2 years), it is reasonable for the Democratic leadership to pursue a bill that can win overwhelming Democratic support, including those members from more conservative districts whose opposition to the war comes at some political cost. Finally, I respect the concern of some Alabamians that any withdrawal from Iraq is a loss of prestige that will embolden our enemies. While this is not a trivial argument, the reality is that radical Islamic fundamentalism has exploded into a civil war in Iraq and that Al Queda will be a generation-long threat. These conflicts will rage on regardless of whether we are in combat in Iraq because they are rooted not in an assessment of our strength but in a permanent disdain for our values. We need to engage Islamic terrorism on a different ground, such as Afghanistan, where Al Queda is resurgent, and we should use the leverage from a withdrawal from Iraq to cement international resistance to the Iranian nuclear program. Lines should be drawn in the sand around Israel's security, and the steady work of cultivating Arab moderates and isolating Arab radicals should continue. But it is time to end our active engagement in the disaster that is Iraq.

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, approximately 24 hours from now, this House will bring this debate to a conclusion and it will vote. And the vote, based on everything we expect, will be an overwhelming one. It will include people from the left of this House, the right of this House, it will include people from both political parties. It will include people who supported this war and who believed in it 5 years ago, and it will include those who have questioned it from its inception. And there is a reason for this consensus, Mr. Speaker. There is broad agreement on several things in this House. There is broad agreement that we have been caught in the cross-hairs of a civil war between two sets of radical Islamist fundamentalists, neither of which shares our values. There is broad agreement in this House that the human and material cost of this effort has gone too high, and there is broad agreement in this House that the moral obligation is not to put 21,000 more soldiers into harm's way; but to do the opposite, to begin the process of pulling our men and women out of this cauldron that is now Iraq. And there is broad agreement on one other point, Mr. Speaker. It is this: that the President of the United States is wrong to say that it doesn't matter to him what this Congress thinks, or what this country thinks. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the younger Members of this House, I was in college a little more recently than some of my colleagues. I had a very esteemed professor back in the 1980s named Richard Newstadt who wrote about the American Presidency for a number of years. And one night he invited all the freshmen in the class to come over and to have a dialogue with him about the future of the Presidency. And a number of us said to him, Mr. Newstadt, what do you fear about the Presidency of the United States? And it is interesting what he said, and it is relevant today. He said, I don't fear that someone corrupt will become President one day. I don't fear that someone incompetent will become President. There are too many guardrails built in the system. The process is too exacting for that to happen. But what I fear, he said, is that one day someone will come in that office who is absolutely convinced he is right about something on which he is absolutely wrong. And he said this: that if the country is frightened enough, if we are in enough danger, that enough people may think that what is rigid is what is strong. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that this resolution carries no weight, no legal or moral force. I will tell you the weight that this carries, my friends. Twenty-four hours from now, 65 percent of the Members of this Chamber will send a signal to the American people that we have heard their voices. That is a powerful thing when I think of all the people in this country who sent a clear signal, last November 7, that they were not heard. And I end with this point. A number of my colleagues in this debate, our adversaries in this debate have said that there is a group in Washington. There is a group of people on the left. Some of you have said there is a group on the other side of the aisle who want to defund, or who don't somehow have the strength, the fiber, to support our troops. I remind you, my friends, your disagreement is not with the Democratic Caucus. It is not even with the 50 or so in your ranks who will vote for this resolution. It is a disagreement with the 65 percent of this country. It is a disagreement with the people in my very conservative State of Alabama, 60 percent of whom now think this war is wrong and who say to me, Mr. Davis, why on Earth have we taken sides in a battle between radical Islamic fundamentalists? Why is a blood feud between Shiia and Sunni worth the spilling of American blood? They are the ones you are saying are wrong. They are the ones you are saying lack strength. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply end by thanking my colleagues who had the good judgment to be right about the futility of this war from the outset, by thanking the colleagues who were wrong 5 years ago and are right today, and by asking one last thing. The President of the United States, who brags that he has watched none of this debate, if he could only hear just one plea from debate, that he listen to some fact, some evidence, because, Mr. Speaker, this is the problem that we face with this President. No set of facts, no set of truths can tell him that he is wrong. Tomorrow this Chamber will tell him so

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon this debate can sound a bit technical to people, so let me put it in very plain English. We are saving $14 billion in United States taxpayer dollars. That is an important change in values in this institution because the last Congress, when they wanted to save money, here is how they did it. They decided we will save $8 billion by going to young adults in this country and saying, you know what, we are going to change the rate of interest on your student loan and you have got to pay more money every month. They decided at one point they will save $3 billion by saying to working class families who struggle to have health care, you have to pay more premiums now to go to the doctor. That is how they saved money in the old Congress. A lot of issues at stake today, Mr. Speaker, but this is the most important one. There is now a new set of values that runs this institution. We no longer ask the least of us to sacrifice, because guess where we are getting this $14 billion from? From companies who at their best average around $15 billion a year in profit after their liabilities. That is a much more equitable way to do it. That is, in major measure, why this side of the aisle sits in the Speaker's chair today and not our opposition.