Bob Etheridge

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Along that line, Mr. Speaker, as we were talking about our volunteers, we have a bill in, as the gentleman well knows because he is a cosponsor of it and which I introduced, to provide a benefit. This fireman that lost his life in Franklin County may have very well have been eligible as a volunteer for the death benefit for those who are saving people's lives or helping save lives and ultimately give their life in that regards. That is something this Congress can do. I think currently we have about 276 Members who have signed that piece of legislation. Last time I checked, it takes about 218 to pass it. I hope we will move it.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of the Edwards motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, I support the Senate provision on making the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance permanent for all our armed service members and their families and applying the increase to all those in imminent danger no matter where they are serving. And let me tell my colleagues why. In April, Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I voted for that bill because I strongly support our men and women in the armed services. This bill provided temporary increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, but they are due to expire on September 30, 2003, less than 3 weeks from now. Specifically, the bill we passed in April temporarily increased the imminent danger/hostile fire pay from $150 to $225 a month. It also temporarily increased the family separation allowance, which helps military families pay rent, child care and other expenses while the soldier is away from $100 to $250 a month. I represent one of the largest military bases in this country, and when the call comes from the White House, it is the 9/11 post in this country. Both the House and Senate have passed defense authorization bills that deal with those expiring provisions, but the Senate-passed bill is superior to the House version in two key ways. First, the Senate provision makes permanent the increase in imminent danger and hostile fire pay and the family separation allowance. The Senate bill also provides increases for all of our armed services in imminent danger, whereas the House bill only covers those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That provisions leaves our soldiers in dangerous places, and leaves them out, young men and women serving in Liberia, Kosovo and elsewhere. When our soldiers are getting shot at for the sole reason they are wearing our Nation's uniform, it is indefensible to shortchange our soldiers serving in areas that may not be the political focus of this Congress or the administration. As a congressman who represents Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base and the special operations soldiers that are called on daily to serve around the world, and many of the guard and reserve units who are now on duty, I strongly support the permanent increase in imminent danger and hostile fire pay and family allowances for our soldiers and their families. Our military personnel and their families right now are under enormous strain. They are stretched very thin. Our servicemen are being subjected to longer deployments and more frequent deployments than ever before. Just 2 days ago it was announced that the deployment of reservists and National Guard in the combat theater have been extended from 6 months to 1 year. About half of our active duty Army is currently deployed abroad, up from 20 percent just 2 years ago. Let me say I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. I voted to authorize the President to conduct the operation and rid the world of Saddam Hussein, but now our servicemen are paying the price. We have now lost more soldiers lives since the President announced the end of the combat operation than suffered in combat. Our soldiers are serving in the war zone. They cannot speak for themselves on this vital issue. They are counting on their elected representatives in Congress to stand up for them. I intend to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Edwards motion. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Edwards motion to instruct conferees on the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, I support the Senate provisions on making the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance permanent for our armed services and their families and applying the increase to all those in imminent danger, no matter where they are serving. In April, Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I voted for that bill because I strongly support our men and women in the armed services. This bill provided temporary increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, but they are due to expire on September 30, less than 3 weeks from now. Specifically, the bill we passed in April temporarily increased the imminent danger/hostile fire pay from $150 to $225 per month. It also temporarily increased the family separation allowance, which helps military families pay rent, child care and other expenses while soldiers are away, from $100 to $250 per month. Both the House and Senate have passed defense authorization bills that deal with these expiring provisions. But the Senate-passed bill is superior to the House version in two key ways. First, the Senate provisions make permanent the increases in imminent danger and hostile fire pay and the family separation allowance. The Senate bill also provides increases for all of our armed forces in imminent danger, whereas the House bill only covers those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That limitation leaves out our soldiers in dangerous places like Liberia, Kosovo and elsewhere. When our soldiers are getting shot at for the sole reason that they are wearing our Nation's uniform, it is indefensible to shortchange soldiers serving in areas that may not be the political focus of the administration or the Congress. As the Congressman for Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base and many guard and reserve units, I strongly support a permanent increase in imminent danger and hostile fire pay and family allowances for our soldiers and their families. Our military personnel and their families right now are under enormous strain. They are stretched ordinarily thin. Our service members are being subjected to longer deployments and more frequent deployments than ever before. Just 2 days ago, it was announced that the deployment of Reservists and National Guard in the combat theater has been extended from 6 months to 1 year. About half of the active- duty Army is currently deployed abroad--up from 20 percent just 2 years ago. Let me say that I support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I voted to authorize the President to conduct the operation to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's evil rule. I am tremendously proud of our men and women in uniform who have demonstrated the American way of dealing with tyrants who terrorize their own reigon and threaten the peace and stability of the larger world. Saddam Hussein got what he deserved. But now our service members are paying the price. We have now lost more soldiers' lives since the President announced the end of combat than we suffered in that combat. Our soldiers serving in the war zone cannot speak for themselves on this vital issue. They are counting on their elected Representatives in Congress to stand up for them. I intend to do so, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the Edwards motion.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of order and to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as the second anniversary of September 11 approaches, I rise this evening to pay tribute to our Nation's fallen firefighters, law enforcement officers and emergency medical service personnel. Mr. Speaker, every day public service officers protect our families and possessions from fire, they keep our streets safe and are the first to respond to an emergency. Across this Nation, our public safety officers are dedicated and prepared. They truly embody the values and spirit that make America the great Nation that it is. These men and women are dedicated, and when we call on them, they risk their lives for all of us. Our firefighters, law enforcement officers and EMS workers are truly our hometown heroes. However, all too often these heroes must give their lives in the line of duty. For the family of these brave souls, Congress created the Public Safety Officers Benefit. Since its inception 25 years ago, this important benefit has provided surviving families with financial assistance during their desperate times of need. However, a glitch in the law prevents some families from receiving the assistance. Heart attacks and strokes are among the greatest threat to public safety officers, especially firefighters. In fact, almost half of all firefighter deaths in the line of duty are due to heart attacks and strokes. Fighting fire is dangerous, exhausting and extremely stressful work. Indeed, a firefighter's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke greatly increases when he or she puts on the gear and rushes into a building to fight a fire. Likewise, law enforcement officers, correction officers and EMS workers face daily situations that put stress and strain on their heart. Imagine the scenario where, while fighting a house fire, a company of firefighters tragically loses two of its members. One is killed by a piece of falling debris. The other dies of a heart attack in the same building. Under current law, the family of the firefighter who suffered the fatal blow to the head receives their benefit, but the family of the heart attack victim receives nothing. It is wrong that these families are denied this benefit when their loved ones are suffering the loss of a loved one in our communities. A constituent of mine, Mike Williams, of Bunnlevel, North Carolina, who works for the Office of State Fire Marshal, alerted me to this glitch in the law after Ms. Deborah Brooks, the widow of Thomas Brooks of Lumberton, North Carolina, was denied benefits because of this technicality in the law. Mr. Brooks, a master firefighter with the Lumberton Fire Department, tragically died of a heart attack after returning from several calls on an evening shift. They found him dead the next morning. As part of his duties with the state fire marshal, Mike helps families file for public safety officer benefits, and he has received many benefit rejection letters from the U.S. Department of Justice. This rejection letter in Thomas Brooks' case was one too many. Mike wrote to me and asked that we investigate the situation. We tried with other Members of this Congress to correct that technicality in the law administratively. We found out it could not be done. During the last Congress, I, along with my colleagues, introduced the Hometown Heroes Benefit Act to correct this technicality in the Public Safety Officer Benefit. This bipartisan piece of legislation will allow the families of public safety officers who were killed by a heart attack or stroke while on duty within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation to receive the benefits that they are due. Last year, the Committee on the Judiciary and the full House unanimously passed it. Unfortunately, we were not able to move the bill through the United States Senate before adjourning, despite the strong support from several Senators of both parties. Earlier this year, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and I introduced the Hometown Heroes Survival Benefit Act. The United States Senate has already unanimously passed a Senate bill, S. 459, a companion bill introduced by Senators Leahy and Graham. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 929 is the kind of bipartisan legislation that we should be working on in this House. As of this afternoon, we have 273 cosponsors. I will remind my colleagues it takes 218 in this House to pass a bill. Both Democrats and Republicans are on board. More cosponsors are on the way. I urge all of my colleagues to continue to sponsor H.R. 919, and I ask the House leadership to put this bill to a vote. It will pass unanimously. During this time of increasing awareness and concern regarding the threat of terrorism, we are calling on our public safety officers to work longer and harder than ever before. Our hometown heroes deserve to know that we support and appreciate their extraordinary bravery and heroism. As we take time to remember those who were killed or injured in the attacks on September 11 this week, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 919 and let public safety officers know we will continue to stand with them and with their families. We can do no less.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I do rise in support of the gentlewoman from D.C.'s amendment and in opposition to what I perceive to be the latest Republican attack on our public schools. We hear about all the money spent, but let me remind my colleagues that across this country, roughly, only 7 percent or less are Federal funds, and yet we see now we want to control 100 percent of what goes on in our schools. For people who believe in local control, I feel here that somebody is missing the boat or misrepresenting the facts. Vouchers are a bad idea. They always have been because they drain resources away from the public schools in this country where 90-plus percent of our children, depending on the States, go to school. They are educated there. And my colleagues do that in favor of private schools, where there is no accountability for the taxpayers' money at a time when we are running huge deficits, the largest in the history of this country, and yet we do not want to fund the public schools. We are eating our seed corn and ruining our future. Rather than siphoning funds from the public schools, we ought to be investing more initiatives in things like school construction. My colleagues have talked about it. I will not go into detail. Teacher training, if we really want to improve the quality of instruction in the classroom, put the resources out to improve teacher training. Reduce class sizes, provide tutorial help for those children who are behind. Those are proven methods that raise academic achievement. I can tell my colleagues it has happened. It happened in North Carolina where I was State Superintendent, and it is still happening. It will not happen if we take the funds away and continue to erode public support. Under the No Child Left Behind, our public schools are forced to do more than they have ever been required to do before, and this administration and this Congress refuses to fund No Child Left Behind because what has that done? That has created a massive, unfunded mandate on our States and our local school units at the very time when they are struggling to make budgets balance. The last thing we should be doing is use this Republican voucher scheme to take public dollars that should be going to strengthen our public schools and putting them in private tuition grants. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And if this amendment does not win, then we should defeat this bill because this will prove, over the long run, to be detrimental to public education in the United States of America.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 2427, the so-called Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. The high cost of prescription medicines is one of the most serious issues facing our seniors. Proponents of H.R. 2427 claim that if we would simply open our borders to medicines that are imported from other countries our problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the solution is not that easy. I have consistently voted against unsafe importation measures because they subject consumers to medicines that may have been altered or are cheap imitations of medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The bill before us seriously threatens the safety of U.S. consumers; therefore, I will vote against it. Safety is the ultimate issue in this debate. H.R. 2427 would allow for the importation of prescription medicines from other countries without any assurance that those medicines are safe. The 106th Congress enacted legislation that would allow importation but only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies those medicines are safe. But neither former Secretary Shalala nor Secretary Thompson has been able to do this. The Canadian government also recently stated that it cannot and will not assure the safety of the medicines exported to the U.S. Additionally, consumers will not be able to depend on their local pharmacies to screen their medicines. Importing medicines from foreign countries is the wrong prescription for America. There are other ways to help lower the costs of medicines. Together Rx is an initiative developed by seven of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies to provide seniors and other eligible Medicare patients with access to savings on over 170 medicines using just one discount card. The card is free and requires patients to merely fill out an easy-to-understand registration form to qualify. Once approved for Together Rx, patients may fill their prescriptions at any pharmacy they choose and get a discount immediately at the register. This initiative, which is honored at almost every pharmacy in the U.S., has already saved nearly one million Medicare patients almost $100 million since its inception. Instead of supporting risky plans like importation, we should encourage seniors to take advantage of initiatives, like Together Rx, that are safe, effective, and proven to provide Medicare patients with medicines at lower cost. But Mr. Speaker, if the House really wants to address the issue of high drug costs, it would pass a real prescription medicine benefit for our seniors. The Congress needs to enact a prescription medicine plan that is simple, comprehensive, and a part of Medicare. I am hopeful that in conference we are able to come together in a bipartisan manner and pass a real prescription medicine benefit. That is part of the solution to this problem. The bill before us is a threat to the safety of America's drug supply and its consumers. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2427 and the motion to recommit.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for H.R. 2738, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with the nation of Chile. Chile has consistently been a partner with the United States in pushing for more open and freer trade throughout the world. Since the 1970s, Chile has pursued a policy of unilateral trade opening through the systematic and sustained lowering of import tariffs and the near total elimination of non-tariff barriers. It is therefore only fitting that one of America's first free trade agreements of the 21st Century will be with this nation. Chile currently has signed more free trade and economic agreements with other nations than has the United States. By passing this agreement, U.S. exports to Chile will now be on an equal footing with exports from Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and many other Latin American nations. I am particularly pleased about the benefits this agreement provides with respect to agriculture. For example, all tariffs on pork and pork products will be eliminated immediately upon implementation. Due to the hard work of the folks at USTR, Chile has agreed to recognize the U.S. meat-inspection system. Several other commodities important to North Carolina also will receive immediate duty-free access to Chile, including cotton and tobacco. While North Carolina poultry does not get immediate access, tariffs will be reduced over the next 10 years. This is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically advanced and sophisticated as Chile. However, I want to make it perfectly clear to the Administration that the Chile Free Trade Agreement and the Singapore Agreement are not sufficient models for future trade agreements. Currently, the Administration is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and several other FTAs with a variety of nations. As the Administration's first attempts to negotiate a free trade agreement, I believe Singapore and Chile deserve support. However, future agreements will prove to be much more difficult tests of the Administration. I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these important issues. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for H.R. 2739, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with Singapore. This agreement represents a historic first for the United States as it will be the first FTA we sign with an Asian nation. The Asian- Pacific region represents approximately 50 percent of the world's population, and we must work aggressively to open up new markets in this region to remain competitive in the world marketplace. The Singapore FTA is an important first step in that regard. Our high-tech industry stands to gain new opportunities with this agreement. Last year the U.S. exported nearly six billion dollar's worth of high-tech goods to Singapore. The high-tech sector is the largest merchandise exporter in the United States, and this agreement will help build on that success. Unlike other trade agreements, this Agreement guarantees zero tariffs on all U.S. products imported by Singapore immediately upon ratification. This means companies do not have to wait years to realize the benefits of trade with Singapore. As America's twelfth largest trading partner and export market, Singapore possesses a world-class infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, and growing middle-class. This Agreement will allow the United States to compete effectively in this vibrant market and demonstrate to the rest of Asia the benefits of fair free trade. While this is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically advanced and sophisticated as Singapore, I want to make it perfectly clear to the Administration that the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the Chile Agreement, are not sufficient models for future trade agreements. Currently, the Administration is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and several other FTAs with a variety of nations. As the Administration's first attempts to negotiate a free trade agreement, I believe Singapore and Chile deserve support. However, future agreements will prove to be much more difficult tests of the Administration. I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and phystosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these important issues. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman who just spoke, my friend from California. She knows what she is talking about. Head Start is working. And I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2210, the Republican Head Start bill. It is not what it says it is. Someone said earlier today, if it is not broken, do not fix it, improve it. Currently, Head Start funds are targeted directly to the specific local initiatives of children who need it. But under H.R. 2210, the responsibility for operating Head Start would shift to the State through a series of block grants. And I can tell you when you go to block grants, the next thing you are going to see is they are going to be cut and they will not go to the children who have the needs. I know. I have been there. I have been involved. Governors have enough to do rather than trying to put their fingers in this. They can help improve it, but not run it. This change would require the establishment of a new State bureaucracy, placing yet another burden on our already cash-strapped States. Most importantly, there is no guaranty that under these block grants Federal funds would ever find their way to Head Start. Oh, sure, some of them will; but eventually we will see it slip. Additionally, these block grants eliminate accountability and exempt States from quality standards and oversight. The bill is not a reauthorization. It is a demolition of a program that has worked so well for so many children and so many families. We have learned that under H.R. 2210 States would be allowed to increase class size and child teacher ratios, reduce the number of hours children have to spend in Head Start, eliminate health services and supplement Federal dollars. That alone is enough to tell us not to do it. We should not allow States to supplant the dollars. Instead of recklessly dismantling Head Start, we should invest in it and improve, as we have already heard. Today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Miller substitute to this bill which will strengthen school readiness, enhance quality and accountability, expand the initiative to more children and families, all while maintaining local control and high performance standards. That is what we ought to be about in this House, making it better, not dismantling it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 flies in the face of reason. It will ruin Head Start and needlessly jeopardize the future of thousands of children. This bill is a part of the disturbing trend in this House of trampling on low-income families and children.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand that the Congress and the President stop passing the buck on education reform to our States and local communities. Last week the House Committee on Rules held a hearing to consider the issue of unfunded mandates. As I have noted on several occasions on the House floor, the Bush administration's $20 billion cut to the No Child Left Behind Act has created a massive unfunded Federal mandate. As the former superintendent of my State's public schools, I know firsthand that unfunded mandates will cause real pain at the local level. I believe the Federal Government must live up to its obligation to fund education reform. It is simply wrong to pass a piece of legislation that says we are going to give you all that money to Leave No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind, while still forcing schools to achieve new standards. I have introduced legislation that requires full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in stopping the Federal practice of passing the buck to States and local communities.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a former member of my staff, Mr. Robert Gibbs, and his wife Mary Catherine on the birth of their first son, Ethan Lane Gibbs. Ethan was born on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, and he weighed 10 pounds and 5 ounces. As Robert has noted, Ethan is a big boy, a trait gained from his father, and a beautiful baby, a trait passed down by his mother. My wife Faye joins me in wishing Robert and Mary Catherine great happiness during this very special time in their lives. As a father of three, I know the immeasurable pride and rewarding challenge that children bring into your life. The birth of a child changes your perspective on life and opens the world to you in a fresh, new way. Their innocence keeps you young-at-heart. A little miracle, a new baby holds all the potential of what human beings can achieve. With great pleasure, I welcome young Ethan into the world and wish Robert and Mary Catherine all the best as they raise him.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, today this House will consider the appropriations bill for education. As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I think I know better than anyone the impact education cuts can have on teachers, our students, our schools, and the future of this great country. This bill contains Draconian education cuts. Last Congress I voted to pass the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act for education reform. I supported it because the President and the Republican leadership promised to provide the funding needed to make this reform work. But today's bill shatters that promise by cutting $8 billion below the authorization level of this new law. Educational cuts of this magnitude will devastate morale in our schools and doom our children to an educational system that is designed to fail. Our children and our schools deserve better. I have introduced legislation to require full funding of the No Child Left Behind bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and vote against this appropriation bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me thank the chairman. I will say to him, I served as chairman of the committee on appropriations at the State level for 4 years, so I recognize the challenge he faces. Budgets are about priorities, and I have strong oppositions to this bill because of the priorities that it sets out. I will vote against it. I do not like voting against appropriations bills, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same because of the draconian cuts that I see it places on education at the very time when we ought to be investing not less, but more in the future of this country and in our children and in our ability to compete in an international economy. Last Congress, strong bipartisan majorities in this House and in the Senate voted to pass the President's No Child Left Behind legislation, and I joined in with that vote, but we promised to fund to the level of the authorization the moneys for the schools to meet their needs, and this bill is $8 billion short in that requirement. As my ranking member has said, I am the only former chief serving in this Congress. I know what budget priorities are about, but I also know what happens in the schools when these cuts come. At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, these educational cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and students. These educational cuts will make meeting the requirements we have almost impossible because we have set high standards for accountability. I think we should. Without the needed funding, though, No Child Left Behind is a massive unfunded mandate on our local communities and our State budgets at a time when States are struggling just to meet the funding needs. In every State in this Nation, schools are currently working to determine how they will measure up to the Federal Education Department's definition of adequate yearly progress. Over the next several weeks and months, we are going to find out about that because they are going to be reporting in. Early estimates are there may be as many as 80 percent in some States that cannot meet AYP. Plain and simple, these schools need that $8 billion to comply with these tough new educational reforms. The education cuts in this bill will make No Child Left Behind a cruel hoax on our schools and on our children. This bill also fails to provide adequate funding for Impact Aid. Let me remind my colleagues, Impact Aid is the money we provide for those communities that have military bases that have men and women who are deployed or protecting our interests around the world. It is critical for those children in the military personnel. In my district alone, the communities that surround Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, truly one of the important bases in this country, with many, many women deployed right now, the tax base is not there to meet the needs due to the Federal presence. These funds provide flexible operating resources and finance teachers, books, computers and others. Under this bill, North Carolina loses $16.8 million. We can do better. We must be better as our men are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Under this bill, North Carolina will lose $16.8 million in Impact Aid below the level authorized. At the very time that states are under stress, we are cutting funding in some states. As we continue to deploy our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia and other hot spots throughout the world, we ought not to neglect the schools their children attend back here in the states. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to oppose H.R. 1, the Republican Medicare bill. Tonight we have an opportunity to provide seniors with a Medicare prescription medicine benefit. But the Republican Majority has thrown aside bipartisanship and crafted a bill that will confuse and short- change seniors while slowly eroding the time-honored guarantee of Medicare. I cannot vote for this seriously flawed bill. Seniors in North Carolina's Second District, like those across the country, deserve a real Medicare prescription medicine benefit. They want a plan that is simple, comprehensive, and a part of Medicare. I have consistently voted for such a plan throughout my career in Congress. But H.R. 1 subjects seniors to a complex plan that features fluctuating premiums, a huge gap in coverage, uncertainty about who's going to provide them with medicines, and it will end Medicare as we know it. First, nothing in this legislation requires the drug-only insurance groups that will administer this plan to fix premiums at $35 a month. That number is merely a suggestion. Our seniors do not want suggestions Mr. Speaker, they want certainty. Second, the $400 billion the Majority set aside for Medicare related spending in their Fiscal Year 2004 is woefully inadequate. This plan will only cover a fifth of what seniors will spend over the next 10 years on prescription medicines. To fit inside their budget, the authors of this bill have developed a huge gap, or doughnut hole, that forces seniors who spend between $2,001 and $3,500 on medicines to pay all of their costs. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Third, this plan relies on an untested mechanism to deliver medicines to seniors. H.R. 1 creates a drug-only insurance market that will not work, especially in rural areas. But what makes this bill worse is that it makes no effort to provide a fallback for rural seniors should private drug-only plans decide to stop offering them coverage. Finally, in this plan we see the Republican Majority's true colors. H.R. 1 is simply a shell-game that will privatize Medicare. Under this legislation, in 2010 private plans will be allowed to compete against Medicare to cover hospital and physician benefits. As private plans seek to siphon off healthy seniors, the cost of remaining in traditional Medicare will rise and seniors will be forced to join an HMO, along with all of its restrictions, to get coverage. When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law over 38 years ago, Medicare was designed to be a guarantee that our seniors would be able to get affordable health care services regardless of their age, ability to pay, or degree of sickness. In the spirit of that landmark law, I will vote for an alternative amendment to H.R. 1 that creates a simple, comprehensive, prescription medicine plan under Medicare. This plan also includes superior rural provider provisions in comparison to those contained in H.R. 1. Mr. Speaker, for the third Congress in a row we have another Medicare bill pending before us. And once again, the bill is a sham. It provides no guaranteed benefit, contains a huge gap in coverage, and it will privatize Medicare. America's seniors want bipartisan cooperation in this body. They want us to come together to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1 tonight.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on Congress to support accountability in education reform. Last year, Congress passed President Bush's ``no child left behind'' education reform bill. The legislation authorized billions of dollars in new funding to support administration's reform effort that seeks to ensure accountability from our schools, but who will hold the administration accountable? The fact is that this administration is shortchanging our schools nearly $20 billion under the No Child Left Behind. While our schools' struggle to meet tough new standards and local budgets is stretched to the limit in this bad economy, the administration has failed its responsibility to provide leadership and resources for our schools. Congress must hold the administration accountable. I have introduced legislation to do just that. H.R. 2366 requires full funding of the No Child Left Behind act or suspends its punitive measures. Without full funding, No Child Left Behind will become a massive unfunded mandate that will require cuts in vital services and increased property taxes or both. Similar legislation has been introduced in the other body, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to hold the administration accountable to our children, to our schools, and to our taxpayers.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain the effects on our States of the administration's cut of the No Child Left Behind Act. The $20 billion in education cuts could not come at a worse time as States scramble to close budget gaps and schools struggle to comply with the rigorous new law. Across America, desperate measures are being taken. In Alabama, schools are being forced to raise class sizes. In Florida, two-thirds of the pre-kindergarten programs are being terminated. In Idaho, parents must raise money for teacher salaries through bake sales and auctions. In Illinois, they have laid off thousands of teachers and staff to increase class sizes and, in some schools, to nearly 40 students. Detroit plans to close 16 schools this month. In South Carolina, 2,000 teachers have been let go, and class sizes are up to 35 students. This is just a sample of the consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to make good on its promises. That is why I intend to introduce H.R. 2366, the Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Before we ask our schools to hold bake sales and our States to live with budget cuts, we should live up to our own budget cuts. Mr. Speaker, Congress should honor its commitment to our students.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of my hometown, Lillington, North Carolina, the seat of Harnett County. For 100 years, Lillington has been home to many enterprising, patriotic and public-spirited citizens. Today as the town prepares to mark this occasion, I want to recognize the history, success and integrity of this remarkable community. When we talk of famous places, we often talk about buildings and landmarks, like the Capitol here in Washington, D.C., or the Empire State Building in New York. While Lillington does not have any skyscrapers, it does have people of great character. It is that character which has made Lillington one of America's great communities. Named for General Alexander Lillington, a hero of the American Revolutionary War who is known for his heroic efforts at the battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in 1776, Lillington is one of those special places that welcomes with open arms strangers and family alike. Its citizens sincerely care about the well-being of their neighbors, as evidenced by their dedication to numerous civic organizations, schools, and churches in the area. On July 4 and 5, and throughout this year, Lillington will celebrate its honored past and the centennial of its formal incorporation. The Greater Lillington Centennial Celebration will be marked by numerous events, including the dedication of roadside historic markers honoring General Lillington and Cornelius Harnett, for whom Harnett County is named; a lecture series honoring notable people who have lived and worked in the community; the installation and dedication of a town clock in front of town hall; the publishing of a history of the community entitled Lillington--A Sketchbook; and many other celebrations and reunions. After my discharge from the Army in 1968, I moved to Lillington and immediately discovered what a unique place it is. In Lillington, Faye and I have raised our three children, Bryan, Catherine and David. It is truly a great place to live, work and raise a family. Mr. Speaker, Lillington and other towns like it are the backbone of America. They may be hard to find on a map, but it is easy to understand their importance to this great Nation. It is in these tight- knitted communities that our Nation's values are shaped and future hopes reside. As Lillington moves into its second century, it has a bright future ahead of it, and I know that if we are willing to dream big and work hard, Lillington's next 100 years will be even more prosperous and purposeful than its first. I ask my colleagues to join Faye and me today in celebrating Lillington's 100th anniversary.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the President held a Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the No Child Left Behind Act. I voted for that legislation and I wish I could have joined in the celebration, but unfortunately because the administration refuses to fund the new law, I spent my afternoon answering questions from unhappy local leaders in my district who wanted to know where the money is going to come from to pay for the President's education reforms. Despite yesterday's White House photo op, the fact remains that the administration is cutting $20 billion from No Child Left Behind. Local leaders know that they will get stuck with the bill for these educational cuts. Make no mistake, the Bush educational cuts will result in worse schools, cuts in local services like law enforcement and fire and rescue or higher property taxes, or all of the above. There has got to be a better way. Last week I introduced H.R. 2366, the Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act. My bill simply requires the Federal Government to fund No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, it is only fair. I urge my colleagues to join us in this legislation.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and to state my support and urge House support for the administration and its decision to take on the European Union and its discriminatory practices against biotech projects. Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing up on a farm in Johnston County, the most advanced technology we had was an old tractor. It was a big improvement, though, over the mule and plow that we had had previously. These days, biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of technology. I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of using biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as a whole. In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in North Carolina's general assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, because I could see biotechnology was the science of the future. Consequently, North Carolina has become a leader in the field of biotechnology. The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture, efficiency, reduced use of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products, are well documented. That is why I find it ironic that the continent that gave birth to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is turning its back on a proven science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as to the safety and effectiveness of this technology. What is really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of biotechnology is having tragic consequences. The European Union is actually discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from accepting food aid that may contain biotech products. The Europeans' actions and attitude regarding biotechnology are, at best, indefensible, and maybe immoral regarding the European Union's rule. I strongly applaud Ambassador Zoellick's work in this area, and I urge the passage of this resolution. I rise today in support of this resolution to state the House's support for the Administration in its decision to take on the European Union and its discriminatory practices against U.S. biotechnology products. Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing up on a farm in Johnston County, NC, the most advanced technology we had was a tractor, a big improvement over a plow, a mule. These days, biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of technology. I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of using biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as a whole. In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in the North Carolina General Assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center because I could see biotech was a science of the future. Consequently, my State of North Carolina has prospered as a leader in the field. The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture in efficiency, reduced use of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products are well documented. That's why I find it ironic that the continent that gave birth to The Renaissance and The Enlightenment is turning its back on a proven science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as to the safety and effectiveness of this technology. And what's really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of biotechnology is having tragic consequences. The European Union is actually discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from accepting U.S. food aid that may contain biotechnology products. The Europeans' actions and attitudes regarding biotechnology are indefensible, and according to WTO rules, illegal. I strongly applaud USTR Ambassador Zoellick for pressing forward with this case against the European Union in the WTO. We must continue to show the world that biotechnology offers a new Renaissance in agriculture for those willing to reject fear. I urge the House to pass this resolution, and show our support for a science that offers profound benefits for all of humanity.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to right a terrible wrong that has been perpetrated on our schools and our children in this country. Last Congress, we passed and the President signed into law, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I voted for that bill because the Administration promised historic new investments to facilitate education reforms and dramatically improve educational performance in this country. Unfortunately, that promise has been broken. The Administration has refused to fund its own program and is cutting billions from NCLB. In this year's budget request alone, the Administration is proposing to shortchange NCLB by $9.7 billion. Over the first three years of the new law, the Administration cuts $20 billion from the funds that are needed to make NCLB work. Without the promised federal funds, states and mostly localities will be forced to bear the brunt of these tough new requirements. In North Carolina and across the country, the state budget and those in our counties, towns and cities are in fiscal crisis. The administration's education cuts to NCLB will cruelly punish our children by withholding funds needed to achieve these tough new requirements. And without the promised funding NCLB will become a massive unfunded mandate on our local governments that could lead to higher property taxes, cuts in vital services like police, fire and rescue and roads. Or both. Mr. Speaker, a promise is a promise and a deal is a deal. Because the Administration has demonstrated its unwillingness to live up to its side of the bargain and provide necessary funding, Congress should rescind its authority to implement the reforms until those funds are forthcoming. Today, I am introducing legislation that I have been working on for several months to accomplish just that. My bill, the Fully Fund the Leave No Child Behind Act requires the federal government to fully fund NCLB or the requirements in the statute are suspended for the year in which full funds are not provided. My bill specifies Title I and Title II of NCLB, which deal with school assessments and teacher training requirements respectively. My bill does not apply to sections of NCLB on Limited English Proficient Education, 21st Century Schools, public school choice, Impact Aid and other important provisions. Let me state that I continue to support the goals of NCLB. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I have led the fight for standards based education reform in the state that is widely recognized as the national leader in that effort. I want to make sure NCLB works so that every school in this country is a quality learning environment for our children. This legislation is an effort to hold the Administration's feet to the fire to make sure that its record matches its rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, Congress must ensure that the federal government honor its commitments to our nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this vital legislation.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to call on Congress to fully fund the President's No Child Left Behind for school reform. Last Congress we passed legislation to create tough new standards our schools must meet and vigorous assessments to measure progress in meeting those standards. As a former superintendent of North Carolina schools, I voted for this bill because my State has led the Nation in standard-based reform, and the administration promised historic new funding to make the bill work, but the administration has broken that promise. This year's budget request shortchanges No Child Left Behind by $9.7 billion; and over the first 3 years of the new law, the administration is proposing nearly $20 billion in cuts to No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, a promise is a promise and a deal is a deal, and Congress must hold the administration accountable for its commitments. I am working with others to help make sure No Child Left Behind is fully funded before the tough new requirements take effect. If the White House is going to talk the talk, Congress had better make sure that they walk the walk. I urge Members to join me in this vital effort to do right by our schools and our children.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Norman Adrian Wiggins on his retirement as President of my alma mater, Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina. For 36 extraordinary years, Dr. Wiggins' leadership and vision have transformed Campbell from a small, rural school into the nation's second largest Baptist university. From his first day on the job in 1967, Dr. Wiggins has strengthened the undergraduate college, developed an innovative Trust Management Program, and added five new schools to the University: The Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, The Lundy-Fetterman School of Business, The School of Education, The School of Pharmacy, and The School of Divinity. He also established during his tenure an ROTC Program and a number of substantial international programs, most notably with Tunku Abdul Rahman College in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Indeed, Dr. Wiggins' tireless efforts have extended Campbell's sphere of influence throughout the communities of North Carolina, the nation, and the world. During his career, Dr. Wiggins taught and mentored over 25,000 students who have gone out into the world to serve as business leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and ministers. These Campbell graduates provide our people with jobs and economic opportunities, care for our nation's sick and elderly, defend our rights under the rule of law as attorneys, prepare our children to be tomorrow's leaders, and uplift our national soul. But Dr. Wiggins' leadership extends far beyond the hallowed halls of Campbell University. He has served as president of both the Baptist State Convention and the American Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. His peers hail him as a leader who embodies a depth of experience, understanding, and passion that few will ever match. Dr. Wiggins' innovative leadership and unique vision have earned him widespread recognition. His numerous awards include the Commander's Award for Public Service and the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the United States Army, and the Boy Scouts of America's Distinguished Service Award, all of which acknowledge Dr. Wiggins' unfailing commitment to improving the lives of his fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Wiggins is an exemplary figure of patriotism, leadership, dedication, and commitment. As a Campbell alumnus, I am proud to honor Dr. Norman Adrian Wiggins today. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and Faye in celebrating his 36 years of service to Campbell University, to the State of North Carolina, and to the United States of America.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my best wishes to Larry Combest as he embarks on a new direction in life. Mr. Combest has served the people of Texas' 19th district with distinction and honor for almost two decades. During the last four years, I had the privilege of working with him in his role as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. I can safely say it is probably the most bipartisanship committee in Congress. This tradition of bipartisan is long standing, and Mr. Combest exemplified this tradition as Chairman. It is because of his bipartisan leadership that Congress was able to pass a new farm bill last year, garnering a huge bipartisan majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was also during his tenure as Chairman that the Committee passed legislation through Congress to improve university research on agriculture and the federal crop insurance program. It is not a stretch to say that Mr. Combest made a significant impact on U.S. agriculture in brief time as Chairman. There can be no doubt that he has been a strong voice in Congress and a consistent advocate for our nation's agriculture community. Larry, we wish you and Sharon all the best; and know that your kind of leadership will be sorely missed in Congress.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican tax bill that will add a trillion dollars to the national debt, raise interest rates and will do nothing to create jobs, build schools, expand health care or jump-start our Nation's economy. The American people deserve better. The Democratic plan will responsibly create one million jobs and provide for a strong economic recovery and a prosperous America. Let me state that I strongly support some provisions of this bill. The child tax credit increase to $1,000 has been a priority of mine, and the marriage penalty relief, expanding the lowest tax bracket and some of the small business incentives are good public policy. But, although I strongly support these provisions, they cannot overcome the fundamental flaws of this bill. Mr. Speaker, too many people in my home state are hurting. More than 129,000 North Carolina workers have lost their jobs in the past 2 years. The Raleigh News and Observer reported this morning that as many as 60 percent of North Carolina families do not make enough money to meet even basic living standards. The story cites a report titled, ``Working Hard Is Still Not Enough'' that describes an economy split between well-paid, well-educated workers on the one hand, and low-paid, low-skilled workers on the other. We need a responsible plan to jump- start the economy now, create new jobs and provide for prosperity for hard-working Americans. One of my first votes as a Member of this House was to put the federal government on the path to a balanced budget. I am very proud that the fiscal discipline we demonstrated in my first term helped to balance the budget for the first time in generation and contributed to the economic strength of the 1990s that included 22 million new jobs created and the greatest migration of American families from poverty to the middle class in our nation's history. Unfortunately, the record of the last several years has been a dramatic movement in the wrong direction. We've lost nearly 3 million jobs since the beginning of 2001, and a million people have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty. We can do better, and the American people deserve better than that sorry record. I have joined my Democratic colleagues in support of a better plan. The fiscally responsible Rebuilding America Through Jobs Act will provide real help to those who have lost their jobs, help families weather this economic storm and jump-start the economy to create new jobs and generate greater prosperity for all Americans. Specifically, the Democratic bill will continue and expand extended unemployment benefits for nine months, providing 26 weeks of federal benefits for dislocated workers. It expands the work opportunity tax credit to give up to a $2,400 credit to employs for hiring long-term unemployed workers. It increases the child tax credit and expands the number of families receiving the credit. It accelerates the marriage penalty relief and the widening of the 10 percent tax rate bracket to allow more taxpayers to pay at the lower rate. The Democratic bill provides $18 billion in assistance to the states for Medicaid and provides $26 billion for homeland security, transportation infrastructure and education. It expands to $75,000 for 2 years the amount of new investments small businesses can deduct from their taxes, allows all firms an accelerated bonus depreciation of 50 percent for 12 months and reduces the corporate tax rate by 3.5 percentage points. And the Democratic bill maintains fiscal responsibility by suspending future tax cuts for the wealthiest few in this country. Mr. Speaker, with the national debt spiraling out of control, the first step Congress should take is to stop the hemorrhaging. Today the national debt stands at $6.4 trillion, and this Republican tax bill will immediately add $350 billion to that debt. That $350 billion could be used to hire 32,369 teachers in my state or provide health care to 921,620 North Carolina children. Today's Charlotte Observer called the tax bill ``as Texans might say, all hat and no cattle.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, as leaders of our national government, our job is to honor the values of the American people by being responsible stewards of our society, nurturing our children and building a stronger America. This bill fails on all counts. It is a massively irresponsible giveaway of the public treasury. It leaves our children and grandchildren a crushing national debt that condemns them to endless struggle. And it handcuffs our ability to address national priorities like providing national security, protecting the homeland, building quality schools, providing health care for our families and creating jobs for American workers. America deserves better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation to address the susceptibility of our national forests to insects, diseases, and wildfires. In 2000, 8.4 million acres of land burned, costing approximately $1.3 billion in suppression costs. In 2001, 3.6 million acres burned, costing more than $900 million. Last year, 6.9 million acres burned, costing approximately $1.6 billion. This year, conditions are ripe for another big fire season. From 1960 through 1990, the Southern Pine Beetle has caused $900 million in damage to pine forests. Red and White Oak Borers have devastated 33% of standing Red and White Oak timber in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. These insects and others are threatening forests throughout the South and East, including in my state of North Carolina. H.R. 1904 proposes to give the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management authority to treat our public forests so they will be less susceptible to fire, insects, and diseases. The bill certainly is not a perfect bill; it is not everything I would have wanted. However, it is a noteworthy attempt to deal with these threats to the health of our public forests. If used properly, the tools provided in this bill will ease the path of projects designed to reduce the risk of fire in those areas where fire would most threaten lives, homes, and water supplies. It will also allow the federal government to better respond to insect and disease infestations before they spread out of control. However, it is not my intent for this authority to be used to increase commercial logging or circumvent public interest in our national forest. Should this bill become law, I would caution the agencies not to use their new authority for expedited treatment and review except in the most dire cases and on lands in desperate need for attention. Over 190 million acres of public forests are at risk to damage from insect, disease, and wildfire. However, the bill limits this new authority to less than 21 million acres. This clearly demonstrates Congress' interest in ensuring that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management do not use their new authority as a mandate for clear cutting or sacrificing healthy old growth forests. The provisions in H.R. 1904 dealing with biomass, the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, the establishment of a new remote sensing program to diagnose insect and disease threats to forestry, and watershed management will benefit private landowners in my state. They also promote environmentally responsible practices, which in turn will generate healthier forests. While not perfect, H.R. 1904 will go a long way to protect our nation's forests, which is why I will vote for final passage.