Bob Etheridge

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as we pause to remember this week our law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, I rise to pay tribute to our Nation's finest. These are our hometown heroes, and all they ask is that we provide them with quality equipment and for someone to care for their families should tragedy strike. Too often the families of public safety officers killed by heart attacks or strokes while performing their duties are denied the public safety officers benefit that they so richly deserve. I have introduced, H.R. 919, the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, to right this wrong. This bipartisan piece of legislation will provide this benefit to the families of public safety officers who are killed by a heart attack or stroke in the line of duty. H.R. 919 has 163 cosponsors, and it is endorsed by a number of organizations. Mr. Speaker, as we observe National Law Enforcement Memorial Week, I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring our law enforcement officers and all of our hometown heroes by supporting H.R. 919.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1000, the so-called Pension Security Act, and in support of the Andrews Substitute. Once again, this body finds itself considering a recycled bill that is harmful to America's working families. More than one year ago, this House passed seriously flawed legislation similar to H.R. 1000. Fortunately, that bill was wisely stopped in the Senate. But instead of taking time to write a bipartisan bill to protect worker pensions, here we are again debating another terrible bill. As I did during the 107th Congress, I will vote against this misguided bill because it does not protect employee pensions, fails to prevent future corporate scandals, and creates a new loophole in the law jeopardizing employee savings. Among the most egregious portions of this bill are the provisions relating to retirement investment advice. Under current law, employees are allowed to receive independent, comprehensive investment information as part of their employee benefits package. H.R. 1000 would overturn current law to allow employers to offer conflicted investment advice to their workers. While the sponsors of this legislation argue these provisions would help prevent future corporate scandals like Enron and Global Crossing, nothing could be farther from the truth. Financial institutions should not be able to give out investment advice if they stand to make a profit as a result of that advice. Instead I am voting for the Andrews Substitute Amendment, otherwise known as the Pension Fairness Act. This important amendment requires executive pensions to be subject to the same pension rules that apply to rank-and-file workers, protects older workers' pensions when their companies convert to cash balance plans, and stops secret pensions schemes that allow corporate fat cats to get rich while workers suffer after their companies goes broke. In this era, when people are saving less, we must ensure that the pensions of our working families are protected. H.R. 1000 will not achieve that goal, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it will make matters worse. I urge all my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1000, and to support the Andrews Subsitute.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican bill that will increase our national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars but will produce no stimulus for our economy. In my state of North Carolina, people are hurting. As a result of this Administration's tax policies, more than 128,900 workers have lost their jobs in the past two years. We desperately need a fiscally responsible plan to jump-start our economy, pay down the debt, invest in our people and produce economic growth for long-term prosperity. Unfortunately, this Republican bill will blow a hole in the federal budget, drive up interest rates, eliminate millions of jobs and leave our children and grandchildren with a massive national debt to pay off. It's really very simple. The first step to get out of a hole is to quit digging. The national debt today is $6.4 Trillion. This bill would continue to add to that national debt as far as the eye can see. We can do better. I join my Democratic colleagues in support of the ``Rebuilding America Through Jobs Act.'' This fiscally responsible bill 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 (that expire on May 31) for nine months, providing 26 weeks of federal benefits for dislocated workers. It expands the work opportunity tax credit to give up to $2400 credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers. It increases the child tax credit to $800 in 2003 and expands the number of families receiving the child credit. It accelerates marriage penalty relief and the widening of the 10 percent tax-rate bracket to allow more taxpayers to pay at the lowest 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 two 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 richest people in this country. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the debt- laden Republican bill and pass a real economic stimulus package for the American people.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on this House to reject the administration's education cuts. As a former superintendent of my State's public schools, I worked my entire life to improve education for our children. Last Congress the administration promised to provide historic new funding to help our schools meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Because of these promises, I voted with the overwhelming bipartisan majority to pass that legislation. Now, as our schools struggle to avoid being labeled failing by the Department of Education, the administration has proposed massive cuts in educational funding. For the first 3 years of No Child Left Behind, the administration is proposing to underfund it by nearly $20 billion. These education cuts will make it virtually impossible for our children and schools to meet the tough new standards imposed by the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, my State has led the Nation in raising performance standards in our schools, but tough requirements without real resources will amount to nothing but cruelty for our children and schools. Congress should call time out on the No Child Left Behind Act until the administration provides the funding it has promised to make it work.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about this bill to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I know firsthand the tremendous challenges facing our schools, teachers, parents and students when it comes to educating disabled children. Congress has an obligation to provide a fair share of funding for special education, and although this bill makes some progress toward that important goal, it unfortunately falls short. Since 1975, the Federal Government has pledged to fund 40 percent of the costs of educating children with disabilities, but it has never made good on that promise. When I first arrived in this body, Congress was only funding its special education obligations at about 14 percent. This year that level will rise to about 18 percent, and this legislation will provide for additional increases perhaps as high as 21 percent. But Mr. Chairman, that still is not good enough. Congress must live up to its commitments and fully fund IDEA. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the voucher amendments on this bill. Specifically, the DeMint amendment would siphon off precious public resources and funnel them to fund private schools. Vouchers are not good public policy. Taking taxpayer dollars to fund private school tuition is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against any and all voucher amendments. Vouchers are a bad idea because they drain needed public resources away from our public schools, where more than 90 percent of the children in this country are educated, in favor of private schools that have no accountability to the American taxpayers. Rather than siphoning funds from the public schools, we need to invest more in initiatives like school construction, teacher training, class size reduction, tutoring and in other proven methods to raise academic achievement. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me state that this bill is not all bad, and I am hopeful it can be improved in the upcoming conference with the Senate. If the conference can fix its shortcomings, I could support the final version of this legislation. But this House can do better than the bill before us now, and I will vote no today on H.R. 1350.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank him for his leadership on this committee and his leadership on the Homeland Security Committee. It has been invaluable and it is an area that we need to spend a lot of time on. First responders are our hometown heroes. Their sacrifice and service inspire us all. When the Federal Government raises the threat level to code orange, like we have seen in the last couple of weeks, and once before that when it was raised, these are the men and women that are immediately called upon to assume the extra duties and responsibilities to help defend our hometowns from unknown threats. Congress has the responsibility to back up our local first responders with the funds that they need to make the extra security details work. Last year I held a series of meetings with first responders across my district in North Carolina to assess what their needs were. More than 100 police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, emergency personnel, and others came to those briefings. During these meetings and in the months since then, I have heard troubling reports from our frontline forces. Despite improvements in security here in Washington at our Nation's historic sites and many urban areas, North Carolina's first responders still lack an interoperative communications infrastructure, appropriate training equipment, and the things they need to respond appropriately. Do not get me wrong, we have made progress in coordinating responsive training and communications; but at what cost? Police chiefs and county sheriffs must decide whether to buy gas masks or bulletproof vests. Firefighters have to choose between arson training and learning about weapons of mass destruction. Public health authorities divert resources from prenatal care to smallpox vaccination programs. The Federal Government mandated that local and State authorities take the lead in planning and coordinating response efforts, and when Congress appropriated funds for first responders, the President vetoed the first appropriation and said it was too much money. Now we are trying once again to provide additional money in the supplemental tomorrow, a bit more money to pay for the unfunded mandates ordered by the Federal Government. The majority says it is too much money, that States may not be spending the money they already have on first responders. Yesterday I received a report from the State of North Carolina. It showed that last September North Carolina received approximately $7 million for the Office of Domestic Preparedness for first responder equipment, and the State immediately began to collect and process grant requests. This process does take some time. We want to make sure that it is not duplicated and we get the best equipment. Believe me, States all across the country can use every spare dime they can get. Our cities and States do need the money for training equipment, and they do need timely information about possible threats, and it is our responsibility to put the dollars in to help these first responders. We need to pass this amendment tomorrow to help first responders who will protect our homes, our communities, our schools and our families. We cannot let them down and leave them unprepared. I call on the Congress and this Administration to make the training and equipping of our nation's first responders a top priority. Our first responders are ready and willing to do what it takes to ensure the security of their communities, our state and our country. However, it is the responsibility of the Administration and Congress to make sure that they have the information, training and resources necessary to protect the men, women and children of America, as well as themselves. The American people deserve to live without fear of a terrorist attack. Parents deserve to send their children to school without fear for their safe return. Shoppers deserve to be able to walk into a crowded shopping mall without fear that a suicide bomber lurks in their midst, waiting for the right moment to strike. Passengers deserve to be able to board an airplane without the fear that a shoulder-fired missile will bring it down. Although no plan can guarantee every individual's safety at any given moment, all Americans deserve the right to a reasonable expectation that in their daily lives, the proper authorities have taken appropriate measures to maximize safety and security. Unfortunately, that expectation is not being met today due to a lack of leadership. Mr. Speaker, America was changed forever by the 9/11 attacks, and the American people accept the challenges and difficulties this new era presents. But the American people deserve to live free from fear, and the national leadership must provide the means to restore that hope for a secure future. Our local first responders are absolutely key to that effort, and Democrats are working in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to get the job done. Again, I want to thank my colleague Congressman Turner for his leadership in this most important endeavor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today in Washington, DC, thousands of our men and women in uniform are in harm's way, fighting for the freedom and the values that we hold dear. They are in our thoughts and our prayers. They do not know what fate awaits them, but they know they are fulfilling their duty and serving their country. When these brave Americans return home, they will join the ranks of over 26 million American veterans. In my state of North Carolina, we are home to more than 150,000 veterans. I served in the United States Army for two years. I never fought in combat or served overseas. And I'm certainly no hero, but I understand the sacrifices that our veterans have made. Our troops fighting overseas today should know that when they come home the country that they have served will not turn its back on them. Once the fighting is over, veterans should know that the government will fulfill its promises to take care of those injured in battle and to provide for health care and education assistance. It is absolutely outrageous that the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives wants to push through a budget that severely cuts funding for our nation's veterans. They passed this budget under the cover of darkness because they knew it could not stand the light of day. That budget breaks the solemn promise made to the very men and women who fight for our freedom. You've heard my colleagues tell you how the budget cuts would affect veterans' programs nationwide, but I want to tell you about one specific proposal that would significantly impact North Carolina's veterans. The budget cuts mean that many North Carolina veterans won't be able to continue receiving VA health care because of new $250 enrollment fees. The VA estimates that 1.25 million veterans who are already a part of the health care system will be forced out because of these steep new fees. In North Carolina this could translate into over 27,000 veterans cut out of health care. For those who can afford to stay in the VA health care system, many will be forced to pay significant new costs. An estimated 22,000 North Carolina veterans, referred to as Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans, will pay a new $250 enrollment fee, increased copays for physician benefits and prescription drug fees. All in all, this will mean a total average increase of $347 each year. Others could be forced to pay even more, as much as $600 annually. The budget passed by the House means that 4,100 veterans in North Carolina will not even have the opportunity to enroll in VA health system. These so-called Priority 8 veterans, who were not injured in service and who make above a level between $24,450 and $38,100 depending on location and situation, will be denied care. Our country made a promise to the men and women in our armed forces. Our troops and our veterans have fulfilled their duty to their country. Now it is our turn to make good on our promises. Congress should reject the Republican budget and honor our commitments to our veterans.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the majority leader and the majority whip for getting this piece of legislation to the floor. It is my great pleasure to rise today and speak on behalf of this legislation, having authored it, along with every member in our North Carolina delegation, in honoring the City of Fayetteville of North Carolina as they begin to celebrate the 2003 Festival of Flight. As many of the Members and has already been stated today, almost 100 years ago now two brothers took a chance, believed in a dream, and made history. In just 12 seconds the world was changed forever. Man took to the skies and the world became smaller. The boundaries were pushed outward, and the impossible became possible. Wilbur and Orville Wright, proud sons of the great State of Ohio, brought their dreams and flying machine to the windy beaches of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in the winter of 1903. The Wright brothers came to Kitty Hawk well prepared for their great achievement. They had been experimenting with aeronautics for years; and by the time they came to North Carolina in December of 1903, the men had completed more than 1,000 flights in gliders of their own design. Their diligence and perseverance paid off that year. On a cold and windy morning on December 17, 1903, Orville Wright climbed aboard the Kitty Hawk, started the engine, and flew. Orville Wright described the experience as follows: ``The first flight lasted only 12 seconds, a flight very modest compared with that of birds, but it was, nevertheless, the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in free flight, had sailed forward on a level course without reduction of speed, and finally landed without being wrecked.'' What many people did not realize is that the brothers completed a total of four flights that day, the longest covering 852 feet in 59 seconds. The Wright brothers' achievement stunned the world and began one of the most active periods of scientific research and experimentation in our history. However, despite all of our successes and improvements to flying machines, their basic design remains very familiar to that of the Wright brothers. In honor of the centennial of flight, the people of Fayetteville, North Carolina, in my congressional district, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) have planned a celebration worthy of their achievement. The Festival of Flight will be, as the Members have heard, one of four in the United States sanctioned by the United States Centennial of Flight Commission. The 11-day festival will feature a 2-day military air show at Pope Air Force base and a general aviation show at the Fayetteville regional airport. The event will also present aviation displays and programs, educational exhibits, and an art festival. There will also be special exhibits on space flight and technology including 1 day devoted to space exploration and the Shuttle with NASA. The Festival of Flight will also feature a detailed replica of the 1903 Wright flight developed by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Aerospace. The festival will culminate on Memorial Day, May 26, where participants will honor the brave men and women who have served in our Nation's military and those who are currently defending our Nation around the world. Fayetteville is home to Pope Air Force base and Fort Bragg's XVIII Airborne Corps, the Army's largest war-fighting organization. The XVIII Corps is the world's premier power projection force with tens of thousands of soldiers currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition to celebrating man's first powered flight, the Fayetteville Festival of Flight will have a special emphasis on aviation education. This focus is especially fitting as education played a major role in the Wright brothers' success. Even though Orville and Wilbur Wright had little formal education, they never graduated from high school, but their parents held education in high esteem. Orville Wright once said: ``We were lucky enough to grow up in an environment where there was always much encouragement to children to pursue intellectual interests, to investigate whatever aroused curiosity.'' It is our hope that the Fayetteville Festival of Flight will stimulate similar interests and curiosity in the thousands of school children scheduled to attend this event. In order to promote interest in aviation education and the Wright brothers' achievements, the State of North Carolina has developed a special curriculum on aviation history and technology that schools across the State have been using this whole year. The curriculum includes art, science, and essay competitions. Winners will be guests of the festival, which is also scheduled to host 1,000 students and 100 teachers every day of the festival. In closing, let me thank all of the members of the North Carolina congressional delegation for joining me in sponsoring this resolution. I also want to thank the people of Fayetteville, Fort Bragg, and Pope Air Force Base for their enthusiastic support of the Festival of Flight. I also wish to invite all Members of Congress and their families and their staffs to come to Fayetteville, North Carolina, to help us kick off and celebrate one of the world's most monumental achievements: flight.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment and to the underlying Republican budget resolution and in support of the Spratt substitute that will be up shortly. The Federal budget is a statement of our Nation's priorities. It is where we put our national resources to meet our Nation's most important needs. Unfortunately, this budget has fundamental flaws and has misplaced priorities that I think shortchange the American people. Instead of investing in a strong, more prosperous America for years to come, the Republican budget neglects our economy, explodes the national debt, undermines key investments in homeland security, education, health care, and continues to spend Social Security trust funds. All of these priorities are sacrificed for another large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I guess it means we take from the many to give to the few. I am most disappointed in the Republicans cuts in education, however. Prior to my service in this body, I served as the superintendent of schools for my home State of North Carolina, and I sought this office because the Republican majority under Newt Gingrich targeted public education in America, and I said I was coming to this House to fight to stop it. We have made a great deal of progress on changing the dialogue on this critical issue, but unfortunately the rhetoric is a lot more pro-education than the record. Last Congress the President of the United States signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which promised to start new investments to improve schools in this country; but before teachers, students and parents get a chance to figure out the tough requirements that we passed, and, yes, I voted for that legislation, under this new law the administration has failed to fund its own program; and the fact is that this budget underfunds it with the consent of the administration, totality so far by about $20 billion to No Child Left Behind. I cannot and I will not agree to these outrageous cuts in education. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget's $400 million cut eliminates after-school initiatives in my home county for children, about 11,000 of them. It cuts teacher quality programs for every State in this country. For the State of North Carolina, $1.7 million. For the great universities and colleges we have in this country that are training our future leaders, it will cut Pell grants in these programs to make a difference; Cutting the Perkins loans money that makes a difference, having children who transfer from community college to university. This budget cuts $765 million for COPS, et cetera, et cetera. Finally, Mr. Chairman, probably the worst example of misplaced priorities in this budget is the shameful treatment of our children of our fighting men and women. As we all know, right now Americans, men and women, are now putting up a proud fight on the other side of the world, and yet in this budget we are cutting Impact Aid to schools in this very budget that they have proposed. That is wrong. The Observer in my home county said a 14.5 percent cut will eliminate $173 million that helps pay for books and classrooms for these children, and that is absolutely wrong. We can do better.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. It is only appropriate during this time of conflict that we take every opportunity to recognize and support the brave men and women of our armed forces. The original version of this legislation provided a number of significant tax benefits for our armed forces, National Guard and Reserves, and I am pleased and relieved to see that the bill has been restored to its original form and intent. As a veteran of the United States Army, I know firsthand the contributions our military service personnel make in defense of our nation and the tremendous burden their families are forced to bear. Here in the U.S. House, I serve on the Army Caucus, and I have worked on a bipartisan basis to support our men and women in uniform. Furthermore, North Carolina's Second Congressional District includes Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, home to many soldiers now on the ground in Southwest Asia. Our service personnel are dedicated, professional and devoted to duty. Congress must stand up for these brave men and women who risk their lives to defend our country, our ideals and our interests around the world. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1307 includes a number of provisions to reduce taxes for the members of the armed services. It provides capital gains tax relief to soldiers who invest in a home for themselves and their families but have to move due to reassignment or deployment before they satisfy the five-year qualifying period. The bill also provides National Guard and reserve members an ``above- the-line'' tax deduction for overnight expenses when they travel more than 100 miles from home to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings, as well as filing extensions and penalty-free withdrawals from education accounts for students attending one of our service academies. Mr. Speaker, prompt passage of this legislation is a small gesture of support to active duty personnel as well as members of the Reserves and National Guard. In these uncertain times, we must remember that many of our soldiers put their civilian lives on hold in service to our country. More than 50,000 Reservists are supplementing active duty forces for our war against terrorism, and another 120,000 have been mobilized for our conflict with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I urge quick passage of H.R. 1307 in the House and Senate, and I hope the President will promptly sign it into law as a gesture of support and respect for our armed forces. The brave men and women of America's armed forces need to know that Congress stands behind them, and passing this legislation will demonstrate that Congress will put national interests ahead of special interests.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican medical malpractice bill, and the process by which it is being debated in this House. Today, the House will pass H.R. 5, a bill to impose caps on damages that may be awarded for medical malpractice, defective products, and other health related wrongdoings. Like many Members of this House, I am concerned about the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance and its impact on physicians and their patients, but H.R. 5 is not the right medicine for this national problem. I oppose H.R. 5 because it will not reduce medical malpractice premiums. What's more, it protects manufacturers of defective pharmaceutical and medical equipment from product liability actions, and overturns North Carolina state law. Years of experience prove that limiting patient rights to seek legal remedies for medical malpractice will not reduce insurance rates for doctors or hospitals. We've heard a lot of debate on this floor today about California's law that caps damage awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. Supporters of H.R. 5 misses the point in this debate, Mr. Speaker. Instead of dealing with the real issue here, which involves insurance rates, the Republican Majority is turning this serious issue into a political football at the expense of patients. H.R. 5 also limits the ability of injured persons to bring suits against pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, nursing homes, and medical device manufacturers, thus setting a dangerous precedent allowing these entities to escape the law in even the most severe cases of neglect and abuse. Finally, H.R. 5 undermines North Carolina's patients protection statutes, which are some of the strongest in the nation. My colleagues Mr. Dingell and Mr. Conyers have drafted an alternative amendment to H.R. 5. This alternative will help courts weed out frivolous lawsuits without restricting the rights of legitimate claims, repeal the federal anti-trust exemption for medical malpractice insurance companies, thereby increasing competition and lowering premiums, and provide targeted assistance directly to physicians, hospitals, and communities in medical malpractice crisis areas. Finally, the alternative establishes an independent advisory commission to examine and recommend long-term solutions to this important issue. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has denied us an opportunity to offer this alternative. Mr. Speaker, the issue of a insurance is an important one. Yet, it seems that the Republican Majority has forgotten one of the key tenets of the Hippocratic oath--do no harm or injustice. H.R. 5 will without a doubt harm America's patients. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5 and to support the motion to recommit the bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from other tobacco producing states to introduce a bill to put an end to discrimination against tobacco farmers. For almost eight years, hard- working, God-fearing, taxpaying tobacco farmers have been denied access to the funds provided by the federal Market Access Program, commonly known as MAP. Under MAP, agricultural industry trade associations, cooperatives, and state or regional trade groups each year are invited to submit proposals to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to conduct approved foreign market development projects for various U.S. agricultural, fishery and forestry products. Examples include consumer promotions, market research, technical assistance, and trade servicing. MAP funds have been used to promote a wide range of products from sunflower seeds to catfish and cotton to hops for use in making beer. Since 1993 USDA has been prohibited from using MAP funds to promote tobacco leaf sales overseas. This is patently unfair, and it is time for this discrimination to end. The future of American agriculture is tied to international trade. Currently, 25% of farmers' gross income comes from exports. The futures of thousands of Tar Heel tobacco farm families depend on exports, and I am not going to stand by and watch other commodities benefit from federal funds to access these markets while tobacco farmers are left out in the cold. It is high time that tobacco is treated like the legal product that it is, and this legislation is a step in the right direction. I call on President Bush, Secretary Veneman, and my colleagues to support this bill and give our struggling tobacco farm families an opportunity to not just survive, but thrive.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to commend the members of the United States armed forces. As a veteran of the United States Army, I know firsthand the contributions our military service personnel make in defense of our nation and the tremendous burden their families are forced to bear. Here in the U.S. House, I serve on the Army Caucus, and I work on a bipartisan basis to support our men and women in uniform. Our service personnel are dedicated, professional and deboted to duty. Congress must stand up for these brave men and women who risk their lives to defend our country, our ideals and our interests around the world. I have the honor of representing the men and women of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. Fort Bragg is truly our nation's ``911'' base because when America is in trouble, our leaders pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg. The mission at Fort Bragg is to maintain the XVIII Airborne Corps as a strategic crisis response force, manned and trained to deploy rapidly by air, sea and land anywhere in the world, prepared to fight upon arrival and win. Co-located with Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base provides a unique synergy and has played a leading role in the development of U.S. tactics and air-power throughout history. Missions at Pope range from providing airlift and close air support to American armed forces to humanitarian missions flown all over the world. The men and women from these installations, their families and the entire community on a daily basis contribute whatever is asked of them for our country's safety and security. Mr. Speaker, as America stands on the brink of war, hundreds of thousands of our military personnel have been deployed abroad. They need to know that Congress stands behind them, and this resolution is an appropriate expression of our support. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for bringing this resolution to honor the men and women who are serving. I happen to represent in my district Fort Bragg and Polk, the two bases that are called the 911 posts in this country. Thousands of those men and women are now stationed around the world. But in addition to what has been said, let me talk about a group of young folks who have not been spoken about today and that is the children of these men and women that have been deployed. They watch TV every night. They hear the stories. Our school personnel deal with them every day. They deserve our help each and every day. They deserve that we do the right thing as we honor the men and women who are serving. As we start our appropriations processes later, we have the obligation to make sure that the children of these men and women are taken care of, because they face some difficult times and our school personnel deal with them on a daily basis with many of the traumas that they face. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for the resolution and encourage it to my colleagues.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement officers and EMS workers are truly our hometown heroes. When we call them, they risk their lives for all of us. The Federal Public Safety Officers Benefit provides the families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty with a one- time financial benefit. Yet too often the families of public safety officers who are killed by or die of a heart attack or stroke while performing their duties are denied these benefits. Last week, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and over 70 of my colleagues, I reintroduced this Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act to correct this technicality in the law. H.R. 919 is a bipartisan bill to provide the benefits to the families of public safety officers who are killed by heart attack or stroke while on duty or within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation. Madam Speaker, this is exactly the type of bipartisan legislation that should pass this House, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring our hometown heroes by supporting H.R. 919.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our nation's public safety officers for their commitment to our communities and service to our nation. I am re-introducing my bipartisan legislation, the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important initiative. Every day, public safety officers protect our families and possessions from fire, keep our streets safe, and are the first to respond to an emergency. Across this nation, our law enforcement officers and corrections officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service workers are dedicated and prepared, and when we call on them, they risk their lives for us. Heart attacks and strokes are one of the greatest threats to public safety officers, especially firefighters. In fact, almost half of all firefighter deaths are due to heart attacks and strokes. Fighting fires 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 their turnout gear and rushes into a building to fight a fire. Likewise, law enforcement and corrections officers and EMS workers face daily situations that put stress and strain on the heart. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, last year 102 firefighters died while on duty, affecting 86 communities in 35 states. In the wake of their tragic losses, many of the families of these brave first responders received financial assistance from the Public Safety Officer Death Benefit, which was created by Congress over 25 years ago to provide these families with help in their time of need. However, some of these families are denied these benefits because of a glitch in the law. During the last Congress, I introduced the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act to correct this technicality in the Public Safety Officer Benefit. This bipartisan legislation will allow the families of public safety officers who have died from a heart attack or stroke while on duty, or within 24-hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation, to receive this benefit. Last year, 113 of our colleagues cosponsored this bill, and the House unanimously passed it. Unfortunately, we were not able to move the bill through the U.S. Senate before adjournment, despite the strong support of several Senators from both parties. Today I, along with Representatives Steny Hoyer, Curt Weldon, Mike Oxley, and 40 other members of this House, are re-introducing the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act. During this time of increased awareness and concern regarding the threat of terrorism, we are calling on our public safety officers to work longer and harder than ever before. This legislation shows our public safety officers and their families that we recognize their selfless contributions to protecting us and our communities, and that we stand with them. We urge every Member in this House to join our bipartisan coalition by cosponsoring this critical legislation and working with us to pass it into law.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534, and in support of the Greenwood substitute. Two years have passed since the House last considered this complex issue. And in that time, scientists and physicians around the world have made incredible strides in their efforts to understand and cure diseases like Alzheimers, diabetes, and cancer. The work our scientists are doing is truly remarkable and it holds the potential to alleviate human suffering around the globe. Today, we are considering a bill, which will leave our sickest patients hopeless at the expense of politics. I oppose reproductive human cloning because it is morally wrong. But, H.R. 534 goes too far. The Weldon bill would stop all research initiatives that rely on somatic nuclear cell transfers, just as we are realizing to enormous benefits of this biomedical research. The Greenwood substitute, in contrast, bans reproductive cloning while allowing this critical research to continue. As a representative of the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, I understand the importance of the research our scientists are conducting. It has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from a number of debilitating diseases. The implications of passing H.R. 534 reach far beyond the highly emotional and contentious debate of whether or not the creation of an embryo to be used in medical research constitutes human life. This bill criminalizes medical research that might be the only chance for a cure for many terrible diseases. While the promise of this biomedical research remains years away from being perfected and utilized, the Greenwood substitute allows us to hold on to the hope that we may one day find a cure for leukemia, heart disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other illnesses. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534 and vote for the Greenwood substitute.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of introducing a resolution on behalf of the North Carolina's unanimous, bipartisan delegation honoring the City of Fayetteville and its Festival of Flight Celebration. We are introducing this resolution so that all in Congress and the entire nation can pay tribute to this city and its accomplishments. Fayetteville's Festival of Flight will be the largest public event in the state marking the Wright Brothers' historic first flight, and it is one of only four events nationwide endorsed as a full partner by the United States Centennial of Flight Commission. The Festival of Flight will take place May 16-26, 2003, and it will feature a weekend arts festival, a military air show at Pope Air Force Base, a general aviation show at Grannis Field and an exposition with aviation displays and interactive exhibits depicting the past, present and future of flight. Education is a focus of the Festival of Flight, and the State of North Carolina has developed a year-long curriculum to encourage students' interest in aviation and flight technology. This educational focus will culminate with 1,000 students and teachers being sponsored each day for exclusive access to the Festival's Aviation Exposition. Mr. Speaker, the Fayetteville Festival of Flight is about dreaming big and reaching for the stars. It is a celebration of 12 historic seconds in 1903 that ushered in the era of modern aviation. Furthermore, it is a testament to the strength of this city, the power of innovation and the hope for the future. I encourage my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of this important resolution, and I urge this House to pass it soon.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank him and the gentleman from South Carolina for pulling this Special Order together. Mr. Speaker, I have been working hard to get Federal support for our schools. Although this White House talks a good game about education, when it comes to the budget, the devil is always in the details; and the details of the Bush budget certainly provide tremendous cuts to vital education aid in my military communities. I want to talk about just one area tonight: those communities. Mr. Speaker, President Truman established Federal support known as Impact Aid for school districts that are impacted by heavy Federal presence because they do not pay property taxes. In my district, Forts Bragg and Pope are two major bases; and other people can talk about theirs, where thousands of soldiers, airmen, and their families are based. Because these Federal entities do not pay taxes, we provide for something called Impact Aid to help with books, teachers' salaries, buildings and the like. Impact Aid was designed to compensate for the revenue losses. Well, in these areas across the country, they have seen devastating cuts this year because of State budgets being put in trouble because of this administration's policies. In this budget they are proposing to cut $173 million from Impact Aid, a 14.5 percent cut, at the very time when we are asking our men and women to deploy and go overseas, and leave their children back home for an education. This is just terrible. By not allowing federally connected school districts to count children where parents reside off base, this is what they said in Cumberland County, the President is ignoring 240,000 children who attend the schools in the areas around these bases. Abandoning these children is not only a mistake; it is absolutely immoral. Last week the Fayetteville Observer reported that under the Bush budget, funding for 14,600 children living off the post there would be eliminated for funding. Mr. Speaker, my State's economy is hurting because of this administration's economic policies. Other States are seeing the same. State budgets are being slashed. We cannot allow, in one of the largest deployments, at a time when impending war is here, allow these men and women to be concerned about their children being educated at home. Rather than being compassionate, these cuts in Impact Aid are absolutely cold cruelty, and I urge my colleagues to restore these devastating cuts. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, and Mr. Price of North Carolina to talk about the serious consequences of President Bush's misguided budget proposals. I want to thank my friend for his unsurpassed leadership in this vital area. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I have made federal support for education my top legislative priority as a member of the U.S. House. Although this White House talks a good game about education, when it comes to budgets the devil's in the details. And the details of the Bush budget contain an inexcusable cut to vital education aid for our military communities. Mr. Speaker, President Truman established federal support known as ``Impact Aid'' for school districts that are impacted by a heavy federal presence. For example, in my Congressional District, we have Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base where thousands of soldiers, airmen and their families are based. Because these federal entities do not pay local property taxes, the school districts are deprived on their normal source of revenue for books, teacher salaries, school buildings and the like. Impact Aid was designed to compensate for some of that revenue loss. In areas like Cumberland County, NC, Impact Aid is a crucial component of the annual budget, and if it's not there, that community will face massive property tax increases, devastating cuts to schools, police and fire and other vital services. Under its proposed budget for next year, the Bush Administration has proposed cutting $173 million for Impact Aid. That's a 14.5 percent cut. In addition, the Administration proposes to end Impact Aid for children of military families who live off base. Earlier this month, the head of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools said, ``By not allowing federally connected school districts to count children whose parents reside off-base . . ., the President is totally ignoring over 240,000 children who must attend these schools.'' Abandoning these children is not only a mistake, it's immoral. Last week, the Fayetteville Observer reported that under the Bush budget, funding for 14,600 children living off the post would be eliminated. Mr. Speaker, my state's economy is hurting because of this Administration's terrible economic policies. The state government has been forced to slash funding. At the same time, military families are dealing with large-scale deployments for the looming was against Saddam Hussein. And the communities that support these military facilities already face devastating losses of commerce and tax base. Rather than being compassionate, these cuts in Impact Aid are cold cruelty. I urge my colleagues to restore these devastating cuts, and I thank my colleague Mr. Price for his leadership on budget issues and for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Republican welfare bill, and in support of the Democratic alternative offered by my colleagues Representatives Cardin, Kind, and Woolsey. To paraphrase baseball great Yogi Berra, this legislation ``is like deja vu all over again.'' Indeed, the bill we are considering today is almost identical to the flawed welfare bill we debated last May. Since then, our national economy has continued to stagnate, unemployment has risen sharply, and our states have fallen further into fiscal crisis. In light of this, one would think that the Republican Leadership would take some time to re-think their welfare bill and write a better one. Instead, they offer today the same welfare bill that failed to pass Congress last year. What wasn't good enough for America's working families then, is worse for America now. There are three main problems with H.R. 4. First, it burdens the states with a large unfunded mandate. Second, it fails to provide welfare participants with adequate access to education and job training. And finally, it significantly underfunds childcare. I strongly support putting people to work to help them obtain self- sufficiency. While the Republican bill requires more work hours, H.R. 4 does not provide the states with the resources to implement these additional work requirements. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost $8-11 billion to comply with these new provisions. In North Carolina, which is in the midst of a severe budget crisis, H.R. 4 would cost $222 million. Additionally, welfare reform should not limit one's opportunity to succeed and care for one's family. Under the Republican welfare bill, education initiatives that allow welfare recipients to take community college classes or obtain their GED are eliminated. That's unacceptable. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I understand how important education is to finding and keeping a good job. Education is the key to a successful future. Many of the folks who remain on the welfare rolls today are the least prepared to enter the workforce, and we must provide them with the tools they need to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. Finally, the republican bill also requires parents to work ten more hours per week, yet it does not provide enough resources for childcare. Finding quality childcare is one of the most daunting challenges with which welfare recipients must contend. Good childcare helps young children develop and keeps older children in positive, productive environments. It keeps children off the streets while their parents are at work. This is common sense. If you require folks to spend more time working, you must give them an avenue for caring for their children. I support the Democratic alternative to this bill. As a member of the New Democratic Coalition, I especially want to commend the good work done by my colleague Congressman Kind on this alternative. Mr. Kind's leadership has produced a far superior bill. Like H.R. 4, our plan requires more work hours, but it goes much further in providing the resources necessary to make welfare reform work. It also allows states to count education and job training as work related activities, which help welfare recipients prepare to get good jobs and permanently leave the welfare rolls. Further, this alternative makes reducing poverty a core purpose of the welfare program. And most importantly, this plan invests significant resources for childcare. Mr. Chairman, I've lived all of my life in the rural communities located in the heart of North Carolina. There we share common values that stress the importance of family and hard work. Welfare reform should provide families with the tools to lift themselves out of poverty to self-sufficiency. Disappointingly, the Republican welfare bill will not work; it will fail our families. Conversely, the Democratic alternative honors hard work and provides our families with opportunities to find hope and achieve success. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Absolutely.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. That is exactly right. And the schools are depending on that money, and at a time, as the gentleman knows, when States are cutting because they do not have the resources, trying to hold up their end on education; and we are not living up to our bargain. This administration has not been honest with, I think, our schools and the American people. It eliminates 47 education programs in this budget, proposed budget. Those programs amount to $1.6 billion just in the CR we are now operating under, on the flat line, $1.6 billion. That is a lot of money when you get out to a local school building in rural America or wherever you may be. Let me just talk about some of the major cuts. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, an outstanding program that gives schools money to do some creative things that make a difference.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. And this body bipartisanly passed it.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me follow up something that my good friend from Texas covered; whether one agrees with this or not, this is actual fact. Before I was the State Superintendent of Schools in North Carolina, I chaired the appropriations committee for the general assembly, and prior to that I was a county commissioner. What we are really doing in saying to local governments about pulling back impact aid, and in many of the cases, in many of the communities, in Fort Bragg in my district, many of these communities find themselves dependent on the impact aid. But what happens is they are getting impact aid because you have a large Federal installation not paying local property taxes. If you pull that out, in effect you are saying to the rest of the citizens in that jurisdiction, we are going to raise your taxes. We are going to say to the county commissioners to raise them or to the local governments at a time when roughly, what, 70-plus percent of the States are running huge deficits. Mr. Speaker, it is incomprehensible that this administration would place these kinds of burdens on local governments across this country. And I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who said not only Fort Hood, but at Fort Bragg, which is the 9/11 post in this country, we are going to send you off, but the people that you are going to leave behind are going to pick up the tab, because those of us in Washington are not going to do what we need to do, and those of us left are going to raise your taxes another way. Let me touch on a couple of other issues when it comes to education. It bothers me greatly, because if we truly want to turn this around, we have got to have prudence now in budgeting. Mr. Speaker, it boggles my mind that we have come through the deficits of the last 10 years to get to some high ground and a balanced budget, and we did not learn a thing. We jumped right back in that briar patch with no end in sight, and we now say deficits are okay. They are not okay. Because we are going to double the amount of interest over the next few years, and my children and grandchildren will pick up the tab; and that is wrong. Let us just look at some of the numbers that are proposed in this budget. These are the consequences of running deficits: cuts in No Child Left Behind. I supported that legislation because I thought it was fair and it would make a difference for children, because the President committed to fund it. And what does he do? He has cut the funding, and I will have a proposal on that before too long. This budget proposes cuts of $22.6 billion for programs that are under No Child Left Behind, which is $9 billion below the amount authorized in 2004, and $199 million below the amount needed to maintain at just the 2002 level. Now, we have to understand that there are more children coming to school, there are more children with needs, there is more tutoring that needs to be done because we are ratcheting up accountability. It is a program for disaster for the public schools of America; and this administration, I do believe, knows that, and they ought to know better.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Sure, and the gentleman's point is it will get worse.