Bob Etheridge

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I think a lot of my colleagues would not be here. I think we have to recognize that someone made a sacrifice for us. They paid taxes at my local school when school was really a nice building there, one of the nicest buildings in my community. I am grateful for that. If I ever complain about it, I hope someone will remind me, because I have a great debt to them. But I also have a debt to all the young people who are not my children because we only have three and they have been blessed to go through the public schools but I owe a debt to all the rest of the children. Because someday as one of my friends who was very successful, he will never have to worry about his Social Security because he is well off, but he made a statement serving on a task force that I had appointed my first year as superintendent to improve education. He said, I want every child to get a good education. I do not care where they come from. I do not care what their ethnic background is. I just want them to make a lot of money so I can draw Social Security. He said that for a lot of folks who were not there because he did not need the Social Security. But he was making a statement of values, a statement of values. We should never forget. We have an obligation to a lot of folks who made a lot of decisions for us before we were here and we do not need to pull up that net or that rope behind us for all those children who are out there. We need to make sure they have a quality facility with the things they need, the things the teachers need to help. We need to make sure in this Congress we stand up and provide the leadership. We do not need to lay down and play dead for special interests.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. The gentleman is absolutely correct. I remember something a friend of mine said when I started down this road to public life when I was really earning my living in the private sector where I was for 18 years. I was chairman of the board of county commissioners, he was on the board, we were here in Washington many years ago at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, incidentally, and he made a statement I have never forgotten, because we were involved in building schools and doing some things. He said, ``Don't ever forget, you are making decisions for people who have not yet been born.'' We forget that too many times. Here in this building, the United States Capitol, the most powerful Nation in the world, we cannot say we cannot take care of our children. We cannot say we cannot have a better education system because we can afford it and we can require excellence. We need to provide support for our teachers as they do their difficult, and it is a difficult job, but it is a critically important job, maybe one of the most important jobs we ever ask anyone to do outside of what families do for our children. We have had enough teacher bashing by people in this House, some of them on the other side of the aisle. Rather than talk about block grants to people, let us send the money down, I hear block grants as if that is the answer, make them compete for it. I was a superintendent for 8 years. You cannot plan a program on a block grant because you have got to compete for it every year. You only have a program when you have got money coming in and you know you are going to have it to hire quality teachers. People are not going to take jobs if they do not think they are going to have it next year. They will go somewhere else. The final point that I would make, and it triggered a thought with me when I heard you talking about opportunities for all of us. I wonder how many of us who now currently have one of the greatest privileges any person can have, to serve in the United States House of Representatives, would be here had we not had an opportunity for good public education when we were growing up. I would not be here.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. That is absolutely right. That is why it is imperative that this Congress not go back on the commitment they made and to keep putting that money in there. All of us use the language of the new economy. It is true, it is propelling our business cycles, everything is revolving around it but we have got to provide national leadership in this vital area of education, so that everyone can be a part of this new economy. We cannot leave people behind. If we do not make sure that every child gets a good education, that we set high standards, we have high expectations, they will not be a part of it. If you deny in my opinion a child an education, a quality education, you have denied the whole family of that because once they get married, you have created a whole second class citizenship for those children. Across this country, the American people are calling out for greater investment in public education. They do not care whether it comes from Washington or their State capital or the local. They want the investment in education. When we invest that money, there is something else they are asking for and they are going to demand, and I think the Republican leadership has missed this because they want to talk about vouchers and take the money out of the public schools and that is wrong. We do not need to do that. We need to leave it in the public sector because it would drain the resources away and deny some children the opportunities they need. My colleagues, you and others who have participated in this this evening, I think we do have a better idea. We want to invest in a national commitment of education excellence, where schools are accountable to the taxpayers for raising those standards that you have just talked about and that every child has an opportunity to learn at a much higher level than ever before. I say that because improving education in this country is about creating a classroom environment where children can learn and teachers can teach. We need to foster greater connection between students, teachers and parents. When I say parents, I am talking about the community. Our schools can do better. They will do better. But they need our help to do better. They need our constructive help. They do not need our constant criticism, berating and pushing them down. A child knows when you are being positive and you are helping. You can be critical in a positive way. A child knows. So do their parents. They know if you really want to help. They also know if you are being condescending and you are ignoring them. We have a responsibility in my opinion, the highest body elected in this country, to provide that kind of leadership. We need to work together to get it done. I think one of the best ways we can improve education is, number one, certainly what dollars we put out to reduce class sizes will not do it all. We know that. We are not that dumb. But we know it sends a powerful signal that we care. And about school facilities. We cannot build all the schools that need to be built. I put a bill in, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and Congresswoman Johnson have come together on a bill to provide billions of dollars. That will not do it all, but it sends a powerful signal that we care. When we started in this country making sure that every person, and you remember this, would have a telephone, we were not here, but Congress said, by gosh, the person at the end of the line is going to have a telephone, we are going to have a policy that makes it happen. We were not involved in telecommunications until then. We were not involved in electricity until we decided that the person at the end of the line in the most rural part in the mountains is going to have electric power and it changed America. We can do it today. In an age when education is at a premium that it has never been at before in this country, we are beyond the time when we can educate 25 or 30 or 40 percent. We have to educate 100 percent. Every child has to be a part of it.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. For all children.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman. I also thank the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Speaker, and if he will yield for just a moment more. As we are talking about this whole thing of education and mathematics and opportunity for young people and giving them a challenge and a vision, I would just tell the gentleman that the students in my home State of North Carolina, where we have paid a lot of attention, as have a lot of others to this whole issue of mathematics over the last several years in education, as I was talking earlier on regarding the NAPE scores, which really measures mathematics, their national average scores have gone up three times the national average over the last several years on the NAPE scores, because we have paid a lot of attention to it. We have measured it. Some of the greatest gains have come from our minority students, which is crucial, because we have absolutely no child that we can waste in the 21st century. All of our students are so needed as we get there. And we have other good news as well that I will share with the gentleman and then yield back to him. Student science achievement is improving, and that is important. SAT scores have increased dramatically, not only in my State but we have seen them go up across the country. A lot of people have battered public education and beaten down our teachers and others. They fail to hear these good things that are happening. And I want to pay attention to the good things that are happening for a lot of children who come from some tough backgrounds and tough opportunities who are already achieving. ACT scores are up. Students are taking more AP exams. I would share with the gentleman what an AP exam is. When people say what does that acronym mean, it really means an advanced placement course for a student who is in high school. Let us say the school only offers a second year of algebra and the student wants to take physics or something else. They can actually take an advanced placement through a mailing and then they can take that test. It is a college level course at high school, and some students can take several courses, saving a lot of money when they get to the university. And we are seeing that improved tremendously. Another point I would make before I yield is that we are all concerned that our schools be totally safe, every one of them. And we want that, and we should. But the truth is violence is down in our public schools dramatically; and public school teachers, by all the statistics out, are really better educated than they have ever been. And, on average, they are better educated than many of them who are in some of the private schools we have in this country. More students out of our public schools are going to the universities. What folks forget is that we have more children in public schools today than we have ever had in the history of this country. Now, the challenge we face is if we have more people, guess what that is going to mean? Our resources are strained because classes are more cramped, we need more teachers, we need all the things to support them, and if we are going to have smaller class sizes, we have to run faster just to keep up. And that is the point the gentleman was making, as we start trying to encourage young people to get into the professions that they may not have thought about. One of the points the gentleman made as we were talking earlier, and the gentleman is absolutely right, is that the challenge we face today is recruiting people to teach our young people. How do we recruit the quality people we need to get there? There was a time in this country when we had a fairly adequate supply of teachers. Unfortunately, it was a time when the opportunities for women were not what they are today, because they either went into nursing, clerical jobs, or into teaching, and we were blessed by that. But once we opened the doors to all professions, and we should have, not only for women but all others, that then made the job of retaining and attracting the people we need in education and in nursing, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, more difficult. This means that we have to pay more attention to making sure that those professions not only are attractive but the conditions they work under are also attractive. And number three, we must pay them an adequate wage. We can no longer say that they cannot move from point A to point B. They are going to move. My son teaches school. It costs him just as much to buy a loaf of bread in the local store as it does the president of a local bank that may make four or five times as much. Now, obviously, people go into education or nursing or into professions or rescue squads or fire departments to make a difference, and we are talking about education. The truth is we have to start valuing and honoring those teachers and say to them, you do a good job, we appreciate what you are doing, instead of beating up on them all the time. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, we have, and I am sure it is in several other States, certainly in North Carolina, where we have a group that actually are taking computers, corporate folks are providing for them. Once they will take all of the insides out of the computer, they are putting new components and booting them up. The students, then, they are really becoming technicians for computers. Those computers then go to the classroom. In a lot of the cases, this came as a result of things we were already doing, but we escalated it during the flood of eastern North Carolina because we lost an awful lot of equipment in a lot of our schools. That is starting to take place now in a lot of places in our country. What is happening to these young people, they may go into the university or they may go into the private sector, because they now are technically capable of making substantial salaries working on computers. That may be what the gentlewoman is talking about when she is talking about her digital divide.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I see now that my friend from Maryland is here, and I appreciate his being here this evening and I would yield to him.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for that point. She certainly has been a leader in this whole area of technology, in the digital divide, but she may want to comment on this further, because I think it is critical for our colleagues to understand. It is not just to say, as the gentlewoman said, we provided the resources, because the E-Rate has been helpful working with the administration getting that out there so we get the rate down. So many times, people forget, and I think our colleagues here forget, even though we put in roughly 7 percent of all the funds at the Federal level for education, we can be a real catalyst by providing leadership and training and staff development and all of those things. But when we talk about technology and hardware, it reminds me of someone who would buy a car and then do not let one drive it. Because we have so few pieces of equipment in some cases in some of our schools, those who do not have the resources, depending on where they may be in the country. That is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is like buying an automobile and say, well, we are going to park it here, and one gets to drive it every week or so. But that is what we do with technology. We do not even let the teachers use it. Then until we have training on the staff, we are doing a better job. We have got a long ways to go. The gentlewoman may want to comment on that as it relates to this whole issue of the digital divide because that is really what we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about one of the most critical issues facing our Nation. That is the education of our children. Hopefully as this afternoon goes on I will be joined by some of my Democratic colleagues to discuss this issue and the need for national leadership in this whole area of public education. We spend an awful lot of time in this body arguing back and forth about appropriations and budgets. We have just finished today doing that, and on and on. But what gets lost too often in all the sound and the fury of the legislative debate is the central meaning of the choices that we make and the people that it impacts so directly. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan, was just talking about prescription drugs, real live people. Education is about real live young people. The budget and spending choices that we make help us define what our priorities are. They express our values. A whole lot more than what we argue about those values being, our actions speak for what our values really are. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the Democratic Caucus have been working now for several years trying to give greater priority to education in the budget process. Let me explain to all of my colleagues, the budget process is where the action takes place. We can talk about authorizing committees and they are the people who write the policies, et cetera, et cetera. Before I came to Congress I served as a legislator in North Carolina. I chaired the Committee on Appropriations for 4 years. Let me remind my colleagues, words are cheap, actions cost money. I have often said to folks, there is a big slip between the lip and the hip. It is easy to talk about it, it is tough to put actions to words when it really comes to making it happen. I go into an awful lot of schools. Before I came to Congress I served 8 years as State superintendent of my State schools. Children are pretty smart people, a lot smarter than some of us give them credit for. They know the difference between phonies and real folks who really mean what they say and say what they mean. When they ride by a brand new $22 and $23 million prison to go to a rundown school building, one that the wind blows through in the wintertime, with no air conditioning, they do not have the books that they need nor the technology they ought to have, they can figure out right quick what is important in their community. My colleagues and I have been working hard to make sure that we can focus in on these issues, because we do value education, because we know that lifetime learning or lifelong learning is the key to the American dream, not only for the middle class, but to allow people to move up into the middle class. Education is the one thing in our society that allows people the opportunity to move up. I say it is great. It is the thing that levels the playing field. No matter what your ethnic or economic background, with a good education, you have a chance. Certainly in today's global economy, America's international competitiveness is absolutely dependent on our people's ability to perform knowledge-based jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that produce the best jobs, the best goods. We provide the best goods and services in the world, there is no question about that. But if we are going to remain a world leader, we have to make sure our education lives up to those same standards. In the new economy of this Information Age, what people can earn absolutely depends on what they learn and what they can continue to learn in their lifelong learning processes. We have been trying to get Congress to give higher priority to strengthen our neighborhood schools, our neighborhood public schools, and demonstrate how much we value public education for our children. But, unfortunately, I must say that the House Republican leadership has pushed through Congress a number of very large tax bills. Let me tell the Members what the challenge of that is. I am in favor of targeted tax cuts. I think we ought to have them, but we ought to decide what our priorities are and put a balance on it, because if we do those first there will be no money for education for our children when the time comes. It is not right to leave our children behind and deny them the kind of educational investment that they need to make sure we have a world class education. We cannot do it without an investment. The last time I checked, computers cost money, new schools cost money, quality education and paying teachers and keeping good people in the classroom costs money. No business in their right mind would put their businesses in some of the buildings we ask our children to go to school in today. Yet, we say we want quality education. We all want it. We ought to have the courage to make sure our elected leaders live up to the commitment, and not let them get away with just talking about it. I strongly oppose these kinds of misguided priorities. I am pleased this evening to have joining with me my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who is certainly a leader in education, who has worked hard in a number of areas. She is making sure that education is available to all children in the public sector, making that a priority. I am pleased to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), for her comments.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Military Construction Appropriations bill. This important legislation contains critically necessary relief assistance to North Carolina's victims of Hurricane Floyd. I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for their leadership in securing these funds to help in the recovery effort from this devastating storm. Hurricane Floyd ripped into my State last September with rains of historic proportion. The massive flooding that resulted was of a magnitude not seen since before Christopher Columbus landed in the New World. Most folks think of a hurricane as winds ripping into beach houses. But Floyd's greatest damage occurred some 150 miles inland from the coast. Last September we endured the most devastating storm in my State's history. Three months ago, this House passed a supplemental appropriations bill to aid Floyd's victims. Earlier this month, another hurricane season began with predictions of more destruction to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for helping my constituents, many of whom are still in travel trailers. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my opposition to H.R. 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act. This plan will not guarantee affordable prescription medicine coverage for all seniors and it takes the first step towards privatizing Medicare, forcing seniors to deal with private insurance companies instead of having the choice of getting their prescriptions through Medicare. The Republican plan provides huge subsidies to insurance companies and does not provide any direct assistance to our nation's seniors. Even after large subsidies, there is no guarantee that affordable prescription medicine coverage will be offered in every region of the country. In fact, we have heard from several insurance companies that ``the concept of `dug-only' private insurance simply would not work in practice.'' I strongly support providing our nation's seniors with a real prescription medicine benefit. However, any such plan must be a defined benefit that is administered under Medicare. It must be voluntary, affordable, and available to all seniors regardless of their income level. The benefit must ensure that copayments and premiums are uniform for all seniors in all areas of the country. Finally, any plan enacted by this Congress must include a cap on the cost to seniors in order to protect them from any unexpected catastrophic events. Mr. Speaker, for too long our nation's seniors have been forced to choose between purchasing prescription medicines and putting food on their tables. Because of this, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute. This plan will provide seniors with a meaningful, affordable, and universal medicine benefit. Under this plan, there is no deductible, there is a low, affordable monthly premium of $25 for all seniors and half of seniors' costs will be covered by Medicare up to $2000. In addition, this legislation includes a catastrophic benefit that will cap seniors' costs at a maximum of $4000. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute because it will provide much needed relief to rural and urban Medicare hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, rural HMOs, and others providers. Our North Carolina values call on us to provide health care security and retirement security for our senior citizens. The Republican bill utterly fails to meet that test.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt amendment to restore the funding to the National Science Foundation in the amount of $508 million. As a former superintendent of my State schools, I know firsthand that the support for NSF for science and engineering education is so important. Every dollar invested in this agency returns manyfold its worth in economic growth. As the lead source of Federal funding for basic research at colleges and universities, NSF supports research in educational programs that are crucial to technological advances in the private sector and for training of our next generation of scientists and engineers, as we have already heard. This appropriation bill will jeopardize the Nation's investment in the future by cutting off NSF funding for science and engineering research and education by over $500 million. This is about 11% below the requested level. This reduction will seriously undermine priority investments in cutting-edge research and eliminate funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and mathematics educators. At a time when we are trying to improve the quality and quantity of science and mathematics in the United States, the bill is calling for an education cut that includes a reduction of 21%, or over 30 million, below the request for undergraduate education--including the nearly 50% cut in requested funding for the National Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Digital Library. These investments are key components of the Administration's 21st Century Workforce Initiative and critical to enable students to compete in the today's knowledge-based economy. Our values call on us to invest in our people for our nation's future rather than to waste our resources on an irresponsible tax plan. This is about 11 percent below the requested level, and this reduction will seriously undermine previous investments in cutting edge technology and jeopardize research.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to highlight one of the most egregious problems in this severely deficient VA-HUD appropriations bill. Earlier today, my good friend Mr. Boyd, offered an amendment to increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency by $2.7 billion dollars, and match the President's budget request for this agency. Incredibly, when our Nation is facing potentially one of the worst hurricane seasons ever to be recorded, the majority party instead proposes to cut funding for FEMA, the agency that responds to such disasters. For those Members whose memories are short, let me remind them that in my state last year, nearly 60 people lost their lives and more than $6 billion dollars in damage occurred in the space of a month, due to hurricanes. My state is still suffering from the after effects of Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd and Irene, and we are still working to get emergency assistance from Congress. The other side says: let's not have money in the pipeline, ready to come to aid of any part of America that suffers a disaster. Instead, they say, we'll just take care of it in a supplemental, even though it may mean a delay of months before the assistance can be delivered. Victims of Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina still reside in temporary housing, and it grieves me to think they could be hit by another hurricane before they have an opportunity to finally leave their current shelters. The striking down of the Boyd amendment calls into question certain priorities being set by the other side. Do we want to have the funds available when disaster strikes, or do we want to make sure we have enough money to give a $1 trillion dollar tax cut?

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on this House to reject the Republican leadership's bill to cut education to pay for a massive tax cut. This Congress must invest in our schools so that students get individual attention, discipline and quality instruction so they can learn the skills that they need to succeed in the new economy. But the Republican bill would cut $2.9 billion from next year's education budget. It does not provide one plug nickel to repair crumbling schools or to build new schools to get our children out of trailers. No school can provide adequate education if children are subject to substandard facilities. Mr. Speaker, budget choices are about values. Do we not value investment in our Nation's future by providing our children unless we give them the best education they can have in this world? Or do we take this opportunity to fritter away the future by acting like drunk sailors with the Republicans' massive irresponsible tax scheme? I support responsible tax relief for middle-class families, but we must not raid the Treasury and jeopardize our ability to make investments in our children and in our future.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I brought this chart up here because we talk about numbers. I want people to understand, we are not talking about a static number. We are talking about the growth in the number of students in high school over the next 10 years, the greatest we are facing in this Nation's history in terms of numbers. So if we are talking about how much we have increased the budget, we need to reflect. We have not increased it anywhere near what we need to be increasing it to meet the needs. We need to pass the Lowey amendment, to restore the administration's plan to assist our local schools in repairing the schools that need to be repaired instead of this massive tax cut that we are talking about. As a former superintendent of my State schools, I know firsthand that we need to invest in schools to help our children get individual attention, to have proper discipline and instruction that they need to meet the skills of the 21st century, and this $1.3 billion will restore 5,000 local schools that badly need it. We can see from this chart that would only be a scratch in where we need to go. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that needs to be done. I grew up on a farm, and there is one thing a person understands. One does not eat the seed corn, and this Congress is about to do that. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment that restores the administration's plan to assist repair plans for local school buildings. This bill would kill that plan to finance the majority's massively irresponsible tax scheme. I strongly oppose those misplaced priorities. As the former superintendent of my state's public schools, I know firsthand we must invest in our schools so that students get the individual attention, discipline, and instruction they need to learn the skills to succeed in this New Economy. This amendment will restore to the bill $1.3 billion for 5,000 local school districts across the country to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing, and bring schools into compliance with local safety codes. Common sense tells us that no school can provide an adequate education if children are subjected to substandard facilities. Mr. Chairman, budget choices come down to a question of our values. Do we value investment in our nation's future by providing our children the best education in the world? Or do we fritter away that future by acting like drunken sailors when it comes to tax cuts? I support responsible tax relief for middle class families, but we must not raid the Treasury and jeopardize our ability to make necessary investments. Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a small farm. The farm teaches you hard lessons. I believe cutting education to finance massive tax breaks is as dumb as eating your seed corn. I call on my colleagues to reject the Republican majority's misguided values, reject this bill and vote for the Lowey amendment.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 8, the so-called Death Tax Act. While I would prefer a more targeted approach to eliminating this tax, I remain hopeful that passing H.R. 8 could be the first step in the process of finding a compromise granting the vast majority of Americans estate tax relief without jeopardizing the fiscal health of our nation. Let there be no mistake, I have supported relief from the death tax for our family farmers and small business owners since I came to this body in 1977. The first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress was H.R. 1845, the Family Farm and Small Business Estate Tax Relief Act of 1997. This legislation would have raised the inheritance tax exemption for small business people and family farmers from $600,000 to $1.5 million and indexed it to inflation for the first time. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 later raised the exemption to $1.3 million. This was not as much estate tax relief as I had hoped for, so I continued working. On March 27 of this year, I introduced a proposal that would significantly reduce the estate tax burden faced by those who inherit family owned farms and small businesses. I believe that the current estate tax exemption should be raised from the current level of $1.3 million to $4 million over the next five years and indexed to inflation thereafter. Reducing estate taxes is vital to ensuring that family farmers and small business owners can pass their hard-earned assets to their loved ones. My bill accomplishes this important goal in a responsible manner that is consistent with our values. The Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8, offered by my good friends from New York and Texas, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Stenholm, also would provide for a $4 million estate tax exemption to family farmers and small businesses, as my bill would. It cuts estate taxes across the board by 20 percent and only costs $22 billion over 10 years. I am proud to support the Rangel-Stenholm plan because it is fiscally responsible and represents the kind of compromise that can not only obtain wide bipartisan support, but also be signed by the President. Unfortunately, the Republican bill, H.R. 8, once fully implemented, would cost the U.S. Treasury $100 billion over 10 years and then an estimated $50 billion a year afterwards. This means less money for school construction, less money for Medicare, and less money to protect Social Security for the rest of this century. There are other flaws to H.R. 8. While the Democratic alternative provides estate tax relief to family farmers and small businesses immediately, H.R. 8 forces farmers and businesses to wait 10 years before obtaining the same level of benefits. The President has indicated loud and clear that he intends to veto this bill if it reaches his desk. The Republicans should work in a bipartisan manner to find a compromise that can become law and provide immediate tax relief. I reluctantly vote in favor of H.R. 8, I vote for H.R. 8 today to move the legislative process forward, hopefully toward a bipartisan conclusion that will accomplish real relief from the estate tax for North Carolina's family farmers and small businesses. I vote in favor of H.R. 8 now, but reserve the right to vote against this or similar bills in the future if my concerns about the problems of this plan are not addressed. Additionally, I reserve the right to vote to sustain the expected presidential veto of H.R. 8 unless needed changes are made.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on this Congress to get its priorities straight and invest in public education to strengthen America. Yesterday, Microsoft's Bill Gates told the Joint Economic Committee, and I quote, ``Among the many high-tech issues before this Congress, none carries greater importance for our future economic vitality than education.'' I couldn't agree more. But this week, Mr. Speaker, this House will consider a bill that guts education funding to finance a massive irresponsible tax package. We should be investing in education so that America can compete and win in the New Economy, but this misguided bill cuts education by $2.9 billion, with a ``b.'' The bill cuts $1 billion in targeted investments to improve teacher quality and recruit new teachers. The bill repeals 100,000 new teachers planned to reduce class sizes, many of whom are now teaching. The bill rejects the administration's plan to renovate 5,000 school facilities that need urgent safety and health repairs. It cuts 53,000 poor children from Head Start, and the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, I am for responsible tax relief for our families, but we ought not to cut taxes on the backs our children and jeopardize America's competitive economic opportunities.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce legislation to provide significant and much needed relief to those who inherit family farms and family-owned small businesses. The current estate tax dramatically reduces any legacy a parent wishes to leave to his or her children. Often, inheritors are forced to sell crucial assets of a business or farm in order to pay this federal tax. This greatly discourages the next generation from continuing the family business or life on the farm. I hear all the time from parents who fear that they will not be able to pass their operations onto their sons and daughters because of the steep tax due upon their death. Due to inherent value of business or farm equipment, property and other assets, an estate of a family-run business--as many farms are--can quickly and greatly surpass the current exemption of $1.3 million. To me, it is absolutely unfair that people who work all their lives to build a business can have it snatched away from their families by Uncle Sam after they die. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, and 87 percent are not passed onto a third generation. Our economy is currently experiencing the largest peacetime expansion in our nation's history. We are constantly reminded that small business has been the engine of this growth. Why can't the fruits of this prosperity be passed to the next generation? Because of a tax code which has not kept up with the rate of economic growth in America. My bill would increase the current estate tax exemption for family- owned businesses from $1.3 million to $4 million over the next five years and then index the exemption to inflation. I know that this is not as far as some of my colleagues would like to go. However, I believe reducing estate taxes in this way stands a better chance of becoming law than repealing the tax altogether. Frankly, I'd rather get some estate tax relief enacted as opposed to getting nothing accomplished. Our families deserve to see the fruits of their labor passed on to the next generation, and reducing the burden of estate taxes is something that we absolutely must accomplish. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this approach to estate tax relief. Let's get something done on this issue rather than grandstand and obtain nothing.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for this conference report and express my gratitude to those who have included in this the $7.1 billion economic relief package for farmers. I do not need to tell anyone here how sorely this assistance is needed. For decades, North Carolina has been one of the most prosperous and productive agricultural States in our country, but then came the Asian economic crisis that sent commodity prices crashing down, followed by Hurricane Dennis, then Hurricane Floyd. Then came the floods which paralyzed eastern North Carolina. Then came Hurricane Irene. Then came steep cuts in tobacco programs. Now what do we have to look forward to during this summer? The forecasters say that it will be another severe drought and another active hurricane season. Our farmers have been through a lot, and this emergency funding could not come any too soon. Farming is more than a way of making a living. It is a way of life. It is our responsibility to take these actions that will protect the heritage and character of rural America and preserve our farming communities. I want to thank the bill managers, the chairman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member, for their leadership in helping to craft and guide this assistance package. The Committee on Agriculture has a long history of bipartisan cooperation, and I am proud to be a part of that honorable tradition. I believe the underlying crop insurance bill will reduce fraud and abuse and expand the insurance coverage and make premiums more affordable to our farmers. However, it will not solve all the problems facing the agricultural community. Crop insurance reform and emergency funding is only a bridge leading us to the real issue, and that is fundamental reform of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act which expires in 2002. As Congress continues the debate on Federal farm policy, I remain hopeful that Congress can produce legislation that will strengthen our Nation's safety net for our farmers so emergency aid packages will no longer be necessary except in the most dire of circumstances. I look forward to that debate.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to support granting China permanent normal trade relations. The growing relationship between the United States and China has helped support my home State of North Carolina's economy and its leadership in world trade. Even without PNTR, in 1998 alone, my State exported over $215 million worth of goods, everything from stone and glass to electronics, to this market. This measure will reduce barriers to our exports and create more opportunities to support our goals. The rapidly growing Triangle area saw their exports jump 86 percent in just 5 years. Granting China PNTR will also open up their market to our high-quality North Carolina agricultural products, from tobacco, to pork, to poultry. Our Nation's economic future depends upon our access to new and growing markets and investing in our people and our technology to compete and winning in these global markets. This is an essential component of that policy. While I support the opening of the relationship with China, I, like many others today, am concerned about the human rights record. But I side with Reverend Billy Graham, who said, ``I believe it is far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with China than to threaten it as an adversary. It is my experience nations can respond with friendship just as much as people do,'' and I happen to agree with Reverend Graham. By exporting our American goods and services and citizenship to the Chinese market, we will also export American values, information, freedom, democracy and human rights. Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of this next century, America is enjoying unprecedented opportunity and we should move forward. But, Mr. Speaker, if our nation is to continue to prosper, we must not slam the door on one fourth of the world's population. From the factory to the farm, PNTR is a good deal for American businesses and farmers and a good deal for the Chinese people. I urge Members to vote in favor of H.R. 4444.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to one of my constituents, Bobby W. Beasley, the superintendent of Harnett County Schools. Mr. Beasley is retiring on June 30, 200, after 36 years of dedicated service to the children of North Carolina. He has served the people well, and his leadership will be sorely missed in my home county. Bobby Beasley, like many of those educators who have moved North Carolina to the forefront of education reform over the past 20 years, was born in one of our rural counties, Union County near Charlotte, and grew to manhood in Laurinburg, a small town in the Sandhills of the state. After graduation from Laurinburg High School, he enrolled at East Carolina University in Greenville intent on becoming a teacher. Four years later, he began his career as a math teacher and coach at Stokes-Pactolus School in Pitt County. After only 3 years as a teacher, Mr. Beasley was appointed principal of Bethel Elementary and Bethel Middle School, also in Pitt County, and he remained a school administrator for the rest of his career. Along the way, he also continued his formal education, obtaining the master's degree from East Carolina University and, later the six-year certification in school administration. Mr. Beasley came to Harnett County in 1974, recruited by Superintendent R.L. Gray to be principal of Angier High School. Those were momentous times in Harnett County, a largely rural tobacco county about to be caught up in a tremendous school consolidation effort designed to make its schools the equal of those just north of it in Wake County, home of the state's Capital City. Mr. Beasley was a key advisor at this consolidation took place, moving in a principal of one of the new schools, Western Harnett High School, when it opened in 1977. Quiet, well liked by students, and a curriculum and instruction specialist, Mr. Beasley ran Western Harnett High School for 10 eventfully years before being appointed assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in the Central Office in 1987. His focus began countywide as the school system evolved from rural to urban. With the retirement of Superintendent Ivo Wortman in 1994, Mr. Beasley was handed the reins of leadership for the Harnett County system. Mr. Beasley's terms as assistant superintendent and superintendent coincided with a decided push for education excellence on the part of North Carolina and its school systems. A testing and accountability system that has made the state an education leader in the nation was instituted in 1990 after the state dropped to the bottom of the nation in the SAT rankings in 1989. SAT average scores began a run upward in 1990 and have led the Nation in improvement. In addition, the state's scores on the National assessment of Educational Progress have been among the nation's best. Harnett County schools have responded well to this accountability demand. Under Mr. Beasley's direction, the average SAT scores have improved dramatically, this year topping the state's average. Writing scores of 4th graders are above the state average, and test scores across the board show that Harnett County students have responded to the need to work harder, score higher, and prepare themselves better for the technologically complex world in which they will live. Harnett County has invested more than $77 million in new schools and school improvements during Mr. Beasley's tenure as superintendent. He has shown himself to be an effective voice for school improvement, to be a public servant our leaders trust and admire, and to be a visionary man who knows what our county can and should become. It has been said that an elementary teacher may touch up to 1,000 students over a lifetime of teaching, that a high school teacher may influence 3,000, that a high school principal may impact perhaps 10,000 individuals. Bobby Beasley has served in each of these capacities--one after the other. He has gone on take the awesome responsibility of running an entire system at a critical time in the life of Harnett County and been intimately successful. It has been said that a man and his times must coincide if great progress is to result. This quiet man who believed in the students he taught and those who attended the schools he administered was in harmony with what was needed. And Harnett County was better in the past--and will be eminently better in the future--because of Bobby Beasley's efforts.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, the vote on permanent trade status for China is vital to our technology and small business interests in North Carolina, but it is particularly important to North Carolina agriculture, so I am glad this evening to come and join a number of other colleagues and talk about this issue. In 1998, North Carolina ranked 11th among the 50 States in the value of agricultural exports totaling $1.5 billion. These exports supported about 22,800 jobs both on and off the farm in our State. Our State's largest agricultural export, of course, in North Carolina is tobacco. In 1998, North Carolina exported $573 million worth of tobacco leaf. It has been estimated that if flue-cured tobacco farmers could capture just 1 percent of the Chinese market, that is 1 percent, and 1 percent of the manufacturing in China was comprised of American flue-cured tobacco, the stocks in Stabilization would cease to exist and quotas would rise for our farmers. The North Carolina Rural Prosperity Task Force that was chaired by Erskine Bowles estimated that if China would give our farmers fair access to their markets, North Carolina exports of flue-cured tobacco would increase by as much as 10 percent right away. After suffering a 50 percent loss in income due to quota cuts during the past several years, such an increase would be welcome news to many struggling farmers and their families and to tobacco industry workers in our State and other States. Today China's tariff that is imposed on tobacco is currently 40 percent. Once China joins the WTO, it would drop to only 10 percent by 2004. The tariff on tobacco products will fall from 65 percent to just 25 percent during that same period. What must the United States sacrifice to gain these trade benefits? Nothing. All we have to do is make permanent what we have been doing for 20 years. We have been doing it on an annual basis. The U.S. granted China most-favored-nation status, now called normal trading relations status, in 1980. Simply by voting to continue this policy on a permanent basis, the Chinese will be required to reduce their tariffs, revise their trading practices, abide by the rule of law and remove their phony trade barriers on many of our products. Therefore, the question coming before this House is this: Do we allow the U.S. tobacco growers and other farmers to take advantage of this new access? Or do we shut them out and give our competitors free reign to enjoy the fruits of our hard work and the negotiations that have taken place? To me, the answer is easy, which is why I support PNTR for China. This does not mean that I am looking at this with my eyes closed. China has problems it needs to address before formally coming into WTO. Of special concern to me is China's use of blue mold as a phony barrier to keep our tobacco farmers from entering into this market. Barring our tobacco from their market based on the contention that blue mold could affect their crop has no basis in science and is a barrier that does not stand the light of day. I have been helping to lead the effort with other Members of this House to make sure that this issue is resolved satisfactorily, and I trust that our USDA and Chinese officials will have an announcement on this in the very near future. While I have spoken at length about tobacco, China's entry into WTO will also greatly benefit North Carolina's poultry, pork, grain and other industries in our State. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture estimates that poultry, pork and a wide variety of other farmers could also see a steady increase in exports if China is granted PNTR. Last year, North Carolina exported more than $300 million in chicken and turkey products. China is the second leading market for U.S. poultry exports, with North Carolina producers selling tens of millions of dollars worth of poultry to China every year. Under the WTO agreement, China will cut its tariff in half, from 20 percent to 10 percent by 2004 for frozen poultry cuts. There will be no quantity limits at this tariff level, for China has agreed to accept all poultry meat from the United States that is certified wholesome by the United States Department of Agriculture. The same is true for pork. About 60 percent of all meat consumed in China is pork. This will make a big difference for us. I think China PNTR is a win-win for our farmers.

Mr. ETHERIDGE

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 309, the sense of Congress with regard to in- school personal safety education programs for children. I want to thank my colleagues from Texas, Congressman Nick Lampson and my colleague from Delaware, Congressman Mike Castle for their leadership on this important issue. The safety of our children should be a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased my colleagues have worked in cooperation to advance this important cause. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to share with my colleagues the mourning that is taking place in and around Wake Forest, NC in my Congressional District. Four months ago, 9-year-old C.J. Wilkerson was reported missing from his home community. Month after month, friends, family members and even perfect strangers have prayed for the safe return of this little boy with the infectious smile who captured the heart of Wake County. Tragically, C.J.'s body was found last week in a wooded area in Raleigh. As C.J.'s family lays to rest a young boy taken from this world far too soon, our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends and the broader community. As the former superintendent of North Carolina's schools, I want to call attention to the special needs of C.J.'s fellow students at Rolesville Elementary School. These children need individual attention from caring adults in order to come to grips with the trauma of a classmate plucked from within their midst. I know that the counselors, teachers and leaders of Rolesville Elementary have come together in mutual support to help our children through this tragedy. Schools can play a unique role to help children deal with acts of hate that make no sense. And schools can and do provide children with instruction and resources to keep them safe. Mr. Speaker, I know all of my colleagues join me in wishing our most sincere condolences for the family of C.J. Wilkerson. I want to thank my colleagues on the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus for their leadership on this issue to protect other communities from knowing the grief being experienced by those who today mourn C.J. Wilkerson.