David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We have delegations from four parliaments in town this week for workshops on committee operations. They're from Pakistan, Indonesia, some members from Iraq----

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And from Lebanon. That's right. There are four groups of parliamentarians here this week, and the CRS, as usual, is a full partner in putting on workshops for these members, workshops that will help them strengthen their operations back home. These exchanges are very useful to us as well. As my colleague has stressed, the main reason for the two of us being here to offer this tribute today is because of the support Dan Mulhollan has offered over the years: first to the Frost-Solomon Task Force, the precursor of our present commission, which in the early 1990s worked in Central and Eastern Europe, offering technical assistance to the parliaments emerging from communist rule; and then for the last 6 years to the House Democracy Partnership. So we are happy to join today in thanking Dan Mulhollan for all these years of work on behalf of the Congress and particularly for the kind of support that he has offered our international partnerships. Dan knows a lot about Congress and has a profound respect for the institution. He has brought a particular sense of mission to the work of our commissions. As a political scientist, he recognizes how critical legislative research is to the growth of democracy, first in post-Communist Europe and now to all kinds of emerging democracies around the world. I had the privilege of traveling last year with Dan to Warsaw to observe the 20th anniversary of that earlier task force's work. I can assure my colleagues he received a hero's welcome. His work has not gone unnoticed, and it is not going to go unnoticed by us either. We want to salute Dan Mulhollan for his many, many years of distinguished service. We want to thank him for all that he has done, and we want to wish him well in his retirement and offer him our sincere gratitude and praise for a job well done.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my friend and colleague Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the House Democracy Partnership, which I had the privilege to chair for the past four years. Dan Mulhollan and the Congressional Research Service have indeed been critical partners in our efforts around the world in developing democracies to increase the capacity of their parliaments.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to yield to my friend from California, who I know has made a special effort, given his leadership duties, to join us on the floor.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of a man who has been an institution within an institution: Daniel P. Mulhollan, the director of our Congressional Research Service, who will retire next month after more than 17 years at the helm of CRS and nearly 42 years of service to the Congress overall. To say that Dan is an institution around here is really an understatement. In many ways, he has personified the growth of CRS from a relatively small division of the Library of Congress into the world- class source of objective and authoritative research and analysis that it is today. Dan first joined what was then the Legislative Reference Service as an analyst in American national government in September of 1969, fresh out of his doctoral training at Georgetown. At the time, just two of the 435 Members currently serving in this House had been elected to Congress--and a fair number serving here hadn't even been born yet! For the next 25 years, Dan steadily acquired seniority and respect within the Government Division of CRS, excelling as both an analyst and a division chief. When the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, conducted a strategic review of the Library's priorities in the early 1990s, Dan was tapped to help ensure that the Library's services were as relevant as possible to the Members, committees, and staff that it exists to serve. This assignment led him to assume the role of Acting Deputy Librarian of Congress, and when CRS found itself in search of a new director a few years later, Dan was a natural fit. As director, Dan has continued to exemplify both the analytical depth that is at the core of his organization's mission and the strategic vision needed to bring CRS into the 21st century. He expanded the service's ability to bring interdisciplinary scholarship to bear on complex issues of policy, recruiting scientists and engineers to work alongside policy analysts and attorneys. He developed a personnel succession plan to ensure that CRS will continue to be able to recruit topnotch talent as older analysts retire.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which reduces funding for the Department of Homeland Security by 3\1/2\ percent. Under the CR, funding for Homeland Security is already 3 percent below the 2010 enacted level. The $1.56 billion in supplemental disaster needs funded in this bill already cuts deep into Homeland Security programs. An additional 3.5 percent reduction would dangerously weaken our security. If this reduction were adopted, critical programs such as border security, disaster relief, immigration enforcement, and transportation security would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts. The Department would be required to lay off critical staff we have hired over the past 2 years, including Border Patrol agents, CBP officers at the ports of entry, ICE investigators along the southwest border, and the Secret Service agents that respond to heightened threats against the President. This reduction would mean the Department would need to abandon critical technology procurements that would better protect our aviation and transit system against possible attacks. In short, Madam Chair, this amendment is ill advised in the extreme. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York for raising this issue, and I thank him for the time. As he knows, I've had a longstanding concern about the decision to relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland without a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release of harmful pathogens into the community. When I was chairman of the subcommittee overseeing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security, I championed a requirement that prohibited the use of funds in fiscal 2010 for NBAF construction until a site-specific risk assessment was completed and the results were validated by the National Academy of Sciences. This work was completed last November and the results were somewhat disconcerting with respect to the possible release of foot and mouth disease. Now the Department of Homeland Security believes that this risk is exaggerated and does not take into account planned mitigation strategies. So I appreciate the language in the continuing resolution that requires a revised risk assessment once the facility is 50 percent designed and that this assessment be again reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. This is good oversight, but this must be done before DHS can responsibly provide construction funding for NBAF. I would prefer to condition funds on completion of this additional oversight; however, I also recognize that there are no funds in the underlying CR for NBAF in fiscal 2011, making such a conditioning of funds unnecessary. Therefore, I have no objection to my friend from New York's approach.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, as Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, rise to discuss the impact this bill will have on our Nation's security. I am talking, in part, about its impact on the efforts directly managed by the Department of Homeland Security. But I am also talking about our security in a broader sense: about what makes us strong, secure, and prosperous as a Nation. As for the bill's Homeland Security title, I want to commend Chairman Aderholt for doing what he could to shield several critical programs from the ill-advised cuts throughout this bill. Our border security, disaster relief, immigration enforcement, and transportation security efforts--for the most part--are protected. Unfortunately, these investments offer little consolation when we look at other areas of the DHS budget. This bill would severely cut federal support for state and local first responders, which is particularly troubling when we consider the fiscal restraints that state and local governments are facing right now. The elimination of firefighter grants is especially galling. That cut is guaranteed to result in thousands of firefighter layoffs across the United States. But while I am concerned about the problems with the homeland security section of this bill, I know that these cuts pale in comparison to other critical domestic services and investments. And that is exactly my point: the strength and security of our country are about so much more than how much we spend on weapons systems or how thoroughly we police the border. They are about the investments we make in our people, in our Nation's ability to recover from the current economic downturn and compete in the global economy. By this measure, this Republican proposal would dangerously weaken our security by undermining the things that make us strong--from education to scientific research to infrastructure--in an effort to achieve an arbitrary level of cuts dictated by the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference. As an illustration, look no further than my own congressional district, the Research Triangle of North Carolina. In just a few decades, the Triangle has become one of the leading centers of research, education, and innovation in the world--an engine of economic growth whose impact extends well beyond state lines. But now my Republican colleagues are threatening to undermine the very basis of our economic success This bill would gut higher education by slashing the maximum Pell Grant award by 17 percent. In my district, over 27,000 students receive Pell Grants--over 249,000 students in North Carolina overall. We cannot possibly ``out-educate'' our competitors by denying a college education to thousands of American students and allowing the most disadvantaged children to fall even further behind. Nor can we ``out-build'' our competitors by slashing funding for high-speed rail, clean energy technologies, and other investments in the infrastructure that will be necessary to sustain the industries of the 21st Century--as this Republican proposal would do. Cuts to transportation and infrastructure in this bill would directly result in the loss of over 20,000 jobs in North Carolina alone. Indeed, the enactment of this measure could sound the final death knell for any hope that the United States will become the global market leader in ``green'' technologies. Instead, we will only fall further behind as China and other countries develop the energy sources that will fuel our economy as the price of oil soars. Finally, this Republican plan would eviscerate our investments in scientific research--in the source of so much of our economic success, especially in the Research Triangle. It would cut cancer research and other NIH funding by nearly $1.6 billion. It would cut National Science Foundation research and education by over $800 million. And it would cut $400 million from agricultural research that keeps our farmers competitive in the global market. These are just a few of the dozens of initiatives which have built the foundation for our Nation's economic prosperity--and, by extension, our Nation's security. To take a wrecking ball to this foundation at a time when we are struggling to recover from a financial crisis and compete again in the modern global economy would be both reckless and reprehensible. We shouldn't even be calling this bill a Continuing Resolution. The ``CR'' could more accurately stand for ``Continuing the Recession'', or ``Choking the Recovery''--because that's exactly what this bill will do. I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous measure.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as Members are aware, H.R. 1 provided no funding in 2011 for firefighter hiring grants, also known as SAFER grants, a reduction of $420 million. Fortunately, yesterday the House resoundingly overturned that ill-advised move and adopted an amendment by Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding. But my colleagues should be aware that funding is only part of the problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that allowed fire departments to use these grants to rehire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid off in the first place. The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to hire new staff. That provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these grants to keep firefighters from being cut off in the first place. After all, the purpose of the SAFER program is to help maintain a safe level of fire staffing across the country. According to the firefighter organizations, over 5,000 firefighter jobs have been lost since 2008, and another 5,200 are currently at risk. Right now, the safety of our communities is being jeopardized by potential and actual layoffs of public safety personnel, not mainly because of a reluctance to hire new personnel. This amendment also continues provisions from 2009 and 2010 that waived certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to fulfill in order to receive a grant. These include not allowing our fire department's overall budget to drop below a certain level, not reducing staff over a number of years, even if budgets continue to suffer, and providing local matching funds. Again, these provisions are fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our cities and counties are right now, and these requirements, quite simply, are impossible for many of them to meet. So, Mr. Chairman, if we don't pass this amendment and waive these provisions, the fire organizations tell me that very few departments will be able to apply for funds. The burden of these requirements is simply too much right now. The result will be more firefighter layoffs, fewer rehires, and a less prepared country. Mr. Chairman, in weighing this amendment I encourage colleagues to consider the intent of the SAFER program: ensuring we have a safe level of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first responders, firefighters, and ensuring that our communities have workable options for keeping their firefighting staffs at full strength. We've already overwhelmingly supported funding for firefighter jobs by adding funding back to the SAFER program. If we really support these jobs, we should vote to allow these funds to be used flexibly, in the best way possible to keep the firefighters on staff. I yield back.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, if there ever were a case of overheated campaign rhetoric overtaking responsible governing, then we are seeing that case here today. Far from continuing to fund the government through to the end of the fiscal year, this measure would dramatically slash the investments in our economic recovery and undermine our national security in the process. I don't know why we even call it a continuing resolution--I guess to avoid a markup in the Appropriations Committee. But it's a brand new appropriations bill, and a very destructive one at that. It's a job-killer of all kinds of jobs but most especially of national security jobs. Let's talk about firefighters. We rely on our firefighters as our preeminent first responders. They arrive at the scene of all types of emergencies--attempted bombings, security incidents, medical, fire emergencies, all kinds of emergencies. But this bill eliminates the SAFER firefighter staffing program, guaranteeing that thousands of firefighters will lose their jobs this year, according to the Fire Chiefs Association. SAFER has enabled our local communities to avoid firefighter layoffs in tough economic times, to keep their fire departments at full strength. This Republican continuing resolution would just simply remove this protection. Let's talk about law enforcement, funded in the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill. We rely on our local police officers, not only as first responders, but also as first detectors of homegrown terrorist activity. Yet this bill eliminates the Community Policing grant program, the COPS program, guaranteeing that local governments which are already laying off workers will have to fire between 1,300 and 3,000 police officers. Now, these job losses could be prevented if we were attempting to govern seriously instead of appeasing the Republican tea party base. The best cure for our budget deficit is a recovered economy, not a bill that slashes and burns government services that are critical to our economic competitiveness and to our public safety. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR. Instead of a continuing resolution, we might say that CR in this case stands for ``Continuing the Recession,'' because that's really what this bill would achieve.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of this amendment. The bill before us eliminates the firefighter hiring program, known as SAFER, and it reduces funding for grants to purchase fire equipment by 23 percent. If adopted, these cuts will result in over 2,400 firefighters being laid off in 2011 and prevent fire departments from purchasing equipment, breathing apparatus, and protective gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of emergency. This is simply not acceptable. During my tenure as chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, we ensured that not only was funding providing for these critical firefighter programs, but that these dollars could be used flexibly in this time of economic stress to retain firefighters that might lose their jobs, to rehire firefighters that have been laid off due to economic conditions, as well as to hire new firefighters. Repeatedly, I hear from communities that were able to use funds for these purposes. For example, in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, SAFER funding was used to hire and retain a total of 73 firefighters, ensuring that seven departments had salaried firefighters and that 12 parish fire stations could be manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The North Las Vegas Fire Department was able to hire 15 new firefighters with a SAFER grant, permitting them to open an eighth fire station, thereby reducing response times and enhancing the level of protection for city residents as well as the millions of visitors to Las Vegas. Spanish Forth, Alabama, recently received a SAFER grant that allowed them to retain their whole roster of firefighters instead of letting some go. Collinsville, Illinois, received a recent grant, allowing them to retain five firefighters who otherwise would have been laid off. Retaining this funding, Mr. Chairman, preserves government services that are critical to our public safety and security. Local governments are already facing serious budget constraints. The CR simply exacerbates the layoffs we're already seeing with public safety personnel. This amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job. Mr. Chairman, I must express some reservations about how the increase in firefighter grants is paid for in this amendment. The gentleman's amendment drastically reduces funding for research and development activities throughout the Department of Homeland Security. It's not desirable or wise to cut the Department's research and development budget so much. But, unfortunately, the majority has prevented us from paying for these amendments from other parts of the bill, and the overall allocation for Homeland Security and the rest of the domestic agencies is completely inadequate. So I support this amendment, but I'll work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill progresses and we get down to responsible budgeting in negotiations with the Senate and the White House. Mr. Chairman, Members have a choice to make: Support this amendment and support your local firefighters, or vote ``no'' and see a decline in critical first responder personnel in this country and in the options available to hard-pressed local communities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this motion is as straightforward as they come. The Patriot Act should be enforced in a manner that doesn't violate Americans' constitutional rights, and those who believe their constitutional rights have been violated should receive fair and equitable treatment by the courts. I can't imagine any of my colleagues from either party voting against this bedrock principle that the executive branch should respect the Constitution when it comes to investigating American citizens. After all, each of us took an oath of office last month to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I know we all take that oath seriously. Indeed, we opened this session of the Congress by reading through the U.S. Constitution on this floor, an exercise in which I was pleased to participate. It's in that same spirit that we offer this motion. For while we have differing views on how best to protect our national security, while upholding our cherished liberties, and in this case, on whether the enhanced authorities in this underlying bill are still needed nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, we should all be able to agree that the United States Constitution is our last line of defense in cases where an American's civil liberties may be threatened. So, by assuring that the exercise of these powers doesn't violate our basic constitutional rights, this motion would provide a safety net to protect Americans' civil liberties in the absence of a more comprehensive review of the Patriot Act. The second part of this motion states simply that Americans who believe their constitutional rights may have been violated by the government should receive the same expedited consideration by the courts that the government already receives. How can anyone argue with that? Why shouldn't our courts be equally responsive to the concerns of American citizens as they are to the concerns of the government, especially when an individual believes his constitutional rights have been violated. A government of the people, by the people, for the people has the utmost responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of every individual, especially when it comes to matters of national security. So this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is simple, straightforward and consistent with the bedrock principle of our Republic. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' regardless of their views on the underlying bill, to vote ``yes'' as an affirmation of the support of this body for our Constitution.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to close for our side with a plea to our colleagues that they not dismantle, in an irresponsible and summary fashion, one of the proudest achievements of post-Watergate political reform in this country. I also can't let pass what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) said about our President. Of course we want President Obama, we want all Presidential candidates, to opt into this system. We've made it about as clear as we possibly could that the bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I have introduced is designed to make it feasible once again for candidates to participate in the public financing system. But the gentleman from Illinois--talk about having it both ways-- comes onto this floor to condemn President Obama for opting out of the system, and then he proposes to abolish the system so that everybody has to opt out! Neither President Obama nor anyone else could participate. The logic of that is way beyond me. Of course we want a system that works. We know the system needs to be adjusted. And we have constructive efforts under way to do just that. What we should be doing, instead of having this up-or-down exercise on the floor today, with no committee consideration, is actually undertaking that kind of discussion, that kind of reform, that kind of improvement. There is a bipartisan history here. There is a bipartisan history of supporting this program; a bipartisan history of participating in the program. I assume that is out of fashion now for our Republican colleagues. But under the pretense of achieving fiscal responsibility, to come to this chamber and abolish one of the proudest and most successful of our reform efforts--that does a disservice to the new majority and to this House. It also violates all the pledges we had 3 weeks ago--of hearings, committee consideration, markups. None of that has been done. This is simply an up-or-down vote, as I say, flying under the false colors of fiscal responsibility. We have a chance to take on this challenge--to mend it, not end it-- to make certain that we preserve this reform, but to adjust it to the realities of modern campaigning. To simply abolish this, to once again turn over Presidential financing to big private and corporate interests, to overlook the abuses, the problems that led to this system in the first place, falls far short of what we should be about as responsible legislators looking out for our country's best interests. I ask for Members to look at our legislation, to repair and rejuvenate the public funding system and in the meantime to reject this summary attempt to destroy one of the proudest achievements of reform.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 359, a bill summarily repealing our system of public funding for Presidential elections. The process by which this bill has been brought to the floor--no hearings, no committee consideration, no markup, no deliberation--is the opposite of responsible legislating. It contradicts everything the Republican majority committed to a mere 3 weeks ago. The process is atrocious; the substance is even worse. This repeal bill would destroy one of the proudest and most successful examples of reform that followed the Watergate scandal. Have we forgotten what the Watergate scandal was about? The Committee to Re-Elect the President, fueled by huge quantities of corporate cash, paying for criminal acts and otherwise subverting the American electoral system. The hallmark of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974--enacted in response to Watergate at a time when public confidence in the government was dangerously low--the hallmark was our voluntary program of public financing for Presidential elections. To this day, this innovative reform stands as the flagship of public financing systems used in the United States and one of the greatest steps we have taken to bring transparency and accountability to our electoral system. The Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutionality of the system, noted its basic purposes: ``To reduce the deleterious influence of large contributions on our political process, to facilitate communication by candidates with the electorate, and to free candidates from the rigors of fundraising.'' Presidential public financing has worked remarkably well--being utilized in the general election by every Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by John McCain in 2008--although in recent years the need for modernization has become evident. Perhaps the best example of this program's success is President Ronald Reagan, who participated in the Presidential public financing system in all three of his Presidential campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984. In his 1976 primary campaign, Reagan had less than $44,000 in campaign money at the end of January of 1976 while his opponent, incumbent President Gerald Ford, had fifteen times more cash on hand. The $1 million in public funds that Reagan received in January and the $1.2 million that he received in February were essential in allowing him to continue his campaign. Reagan was once again short of cash at the end of March and was allowed to continue as a result of an infusion of public money, which matched small private contributions. This illuminates one way that public financing has worked in both parties. It has often benefited candidates who challenge the party establishment. In later elections, due to his broad base of supporters throughout the Nation, Reagan was able to capitalize on his small-donor fund- raising capacity to accrue substantial amounts of public money. In fact, even in 1984 when he was seeking reelection without significant opposition from within his own party, President Reagan raised about 60 percent of his campaign funds from small donors and as a result received $9.7 million in matching funds. This was the maximum amount of public money a primary candidate could receive in accordance with the law at that time. And to this day, President Reagan is the only candidate ever to reach that public funding primary campaign maximum. My colleagues, the Reagan case is merely illustrative of the positive effects that public financing has had in both parties at both the primary and general election stages. It also highlights the system's focus on small donations, rather than big bucks from large contributors. This is no free ride. This is no willy-nilly spending program. All primary candidates must seek the support of thousands of small donors, and only then do they receive matching public funds. Today one could wish not for this Republican juggernaut--flying in the face of the positive history of this program, flying in the face of prior Republican support, flying in the face of responsible legislating--but for a bipartisan effort to repair the system, to restore its effectiveness. I don't know of any policy challenge that exemplifies the maxim ``mend it; don't end it'' better than this one. Yesterday, Congressman Van Hollen and I reintroduced a bill, H.R. 414, that would do just that. The White House has cooperated in formulating this bill. It would modernize the Presidential public financing system and again make it an attractive and bill would bring available funds into line with the increased costs of campaigns, adjust the program to the front-loaded primary calendar, and enhance the role of small donors further. It also would remove public funding of political conventions, as their roles indeed have changed since the system was first instated. This bill has been carefully designed. It deserves deliberation and debate through the normal committee process in this body. At a time when confidence in government is low and assumptions of government corruption are high, why is the new majority trying to return us to the dark days that preceded Watergate? Why would we even want to contemplate such a thing? Let's, instead, restore and improve our public financing system and move on to real solutions to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill lays bare what this new Republican majority is all about. They would repeal benefits and protections that have already dramatically improved health care for families and small businesses, with no credible assurance they would put anything in their place. A ``yes'' vote would take away tax credits available to up to 17,000 small businesses in my district alone--credits that will let them offer their employees insurance coverage just like their larger competitors do. A ``yes'' vote on repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for seniors in the ``doughnut hole'' coverage gap by more than $500 this year and more than $3,000 by 2020. What seniors on fixed incomes can afford this kind of price hike? A ``yes'' vote on repeal would say to parents, who now for the first time can get affordable coverage for their children with preexisting conditions: Once again, you can be denied coverage altogether. This legislation is flying under disgracefully false colors. Fiscally sound? The Congressional Budget Office says it will increase deficits by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Republicans like to call health insurance reform ``job killing.'' But their repeal bill would cost as many as 4 million jobs over the next decade. Our Republican colleagues have put their tea party base above everything else, including the health care needs of the American people. We must recognize their cynical political gesture for what it is. This House can and must do better.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. ``The House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I would like to just underscore what our colleague from Oregon has just said. There is so much concern, obviously--and for good reason--about the future of Medicare. The most conservative estimate I have seen is that health care reform extends the fiscal solvency of Medicare by 8 years, and some estimates are much more than that. So to simply throw that overboard as well as to talk about this doughnut hole--these thousands of dollars that senior citizens are paying full freight on for medicines they simply must have--and this gap in coverage is ridiculous, and we are finally fixing it. What insurance policy do any of us know about that would have that kind of gap in coverage? As the gentleman from Colorado said, $250 payments this year. I mean, I guess this raises the question as to whether even that might be taken back; but in future years, we are going to close that doughnut hole, and we are going to extend the solvency of Medicare. Anybody concerned about the health care for this country's senior citizens simply has to be very, very alarmed about what is going on in this House right now.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding and also for engaging in this dialogue with other Members about the challenge that we're facing to reduce this country's deficit spending and reduce the accumulating debt and at the same time to make certain that quality, affordable health care are available to all of our citizens. As the gentleman has pointed out very, very ably, those two challenges are intricately related. In fact, one of the main reasons for supporting health insurance reform is because we simply must reduce our deficit spending and must reduce this country's debt. One of the main contributors to our country's escalating debt is the kind of increasing of health care costs that we have seen in recent years. It's one of the greatest threats to families, to businesses, to the overall economy. Health care has become the fastest growing component of the Federal budget, as the gentleman well knows. Last year, health care accounted for 17 percent of GDP. That's more than twice the average of other developed nations. Now, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act corrects the failures of the current system without compromising the many strengths that we know that it has. And so it's very disconcerting here in this first week of the new Congress to see our Republican colleagues not only going after the protections in the health care law, but also almost immediately abandoning their commitment to fiscal discipline. Now, the figures that I saw this morning show that the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arbiter of budgets decisions for this body, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the repeal of health insurance reform as proposed by the Republicans would cost the Federal budget $230 billion over the next 10 years. That's a revised estimate, I understand--even greater than was earlier thought. That is an astounding figure. Our Republican friends have made a big show out of their commitment to deficit reduction, but they have made an exception. They have clearly made an exception for the repeal of health insurance reform. So not only is this bad health care; not only would it, for example, say to families who only now are being able to insure their children with preexisting conditions, No, we're going to go back to the old way where the insurance companies can deny coverage to your children. What about those families that now are able to include their 24-, 25-year-olds on their families' policies? No, they're saying go back to the old way where that wasn't possible. What about our Medicare recipients who finally are going to get some relief from these uncovered drug expenses, the so-called doughnut hole? They're saying, Oh, no, you're going to have to once again pay those full expenses. So it's certainly bad policy in terms of health care. But then, to add insult to injury, adding $230 billion to this country's debt burden over the next 10 years, and to do that without batting an eye, without any kind of recognition that this has an impact on the budget deficit, that's just almost unbelievable that the Republicans would be so audacious as to propose this in the first week of a new Congress. And then to add another insult to injury, they're violating their very own pledge of openness in the way this is going to be considered. I'm sure this gentleman has been watching, as I have, the Rules Committee all day today. It's astounding. Yesterday, there was this commitment to open rules, to open debate, to the offering of amendments. Today, they're saying, We're going to shut it down. It's an up- or-down vote. Maybe we'll get around later to some of these other questions, some of the repair aspect of repeal and repair, but right now we're just going to repeal it and let the chips fall. That is horrible procedure. It's a shutting down of this Congress before we even start. It's horrible budget policy. It's horrible health policy. It's a very, very bad way to start this Congress. I appreciate the gentleman for calling us together tonight to talk about this, because we need to talk about it. We need to think about it. We need to fight it in every way we can.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. David Obey has been a master of procedure and strategy, a masterful chairman of appropriations. Finally, let me say this: Sometimes it's thought around here that in order to be effective, in order to be well liked, in order to do the job, you've got to be a go-along, get-along kind of guy. Well, that is not Dave Obey. In fact, it's precisely because of his forcefulness, precisely because of his passion for justice, his unyielding determination to fight for what he believes in, that he has our respect and affection and the effectiveness in this institution that he has. In that respect, as in so many others, he's been a role model for us all, and I'm proud to join in this salute here tonight.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, when I realized this tribute was underway, this spontaneous tribute on the floor of the House, I rushed over here because I very much want to add my word of respect and commendation and friendship as we recognize Dave Obey's years of service in this body and his retirement. I have been drawn to Dave and his knowledge of this institution, to his mentorship and leadership, ever since my earliest days here. I came here from a background as a student of the Congress; here was actually an architect of the modern Congress, generous with stories and accounts of his early days here with the Democratic Study Group and the reforms that transformed this place in the 1970s. He has carried that spirit of reform forward, and is still a reformer at heart. So I have been intrigued with that, as have many colleagues, and have learned a great deal from Dave Obey about that history, but also from our day-to-day association. He has an incomparable knowledge of the history of this place, a mastery of the House and a great loyalty to the institution, and a desire to make it work better. We all know that and admire him for it. In more recent years, Dave has been best known as the distinguished ranking member and then chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has exemplified what those of us on the Committee like to think of as the spirit of appropriations--the work ethic and mastery of the bills; the careful drafting, line by line; the holding of the administration accountable, no matter which party is in charge in the White House; and the sense that appropriations--the power of the purse--is really at the heart of this institution's constitutional role. We need to do appropriations well, we need to do it cooperatively, and we need to assert ourselves as an institution, calling the executive agencies to account.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in qualified support of this tax cut agreement. I do so only after carefully weighing its positive elements against its severe flaws and with a realistic sense of the dire consequences should the measure fail. This conclusion says as much about the gamesmanship of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and, I'm afraid, about what we can expect in the next Congress--as it does about the contents of the legislation. No program or priority has been too sacred for House and Senate Republicans to hold hostage in their fervor to extend President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of how many hard-working families have had to suffer in the process. Programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support--such as unemployment insurance and small business tax credits--have suddenly become ``Democratic'' priorities, fair game to be stonewalled by Republicans until they could squeeze every last concession out of this deal. The disconnect between what they say and what they do should be painfully obvious to the American people. How does their support for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires square with their stated priorities of balancing the budget and growing the economy? Spending $130 billion over the next 2 years alone on tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans--without paying for a cent of it--is certainly a strange way to demonstrate their fiscal discipline. And it's also the least effective step we can take to spur the economy. If economic recovery were really the goal, they would have extended unemployment insurance the first chance they had, because nothing plows money back into the economy more effectively. If this is where the Republican Party's true priorities lie, then I have never been prouder to be a Democrat. I have never been prouder to stand up for hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot find a new one by assuring them that their unemployment insurance will not expire. I have never been prouder to stand up for middle-class families who have seen their savings depleted and cannot afford to have their taxes raised during an economic downturn. To stand up for small businesses by giving them the certainty and support they need to grow and prosper. And to stand up for future generations by allowing expensive tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest while doing nothing to stimulate the economy to expire on schedule, so that we can finally get back on track toward a balanced budget. Two weeks ago, this House approved, with my strong support, a bill that would have done all of these things. This earlier version of the legislation before us today would have given all American families a permanent tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income, including capital gains and dividends; it would have extended AMT relief, the enhanced EITC, and the enhanced child tax credit; and it would have maintained critical expensing provisions to encourage small businesses to invest. Simply put, this bill would have provided tax relief to those who need it most, and with the maximum economic impact. Yet our Republican colleagues dismissed it as a ``symbolic'' vote. Since then, the measure has been amended substantially to reflect the negotiations that have occurred between the White House and Congressional leaders. The result is a much more expansive package that has many positive elements but also major negative ones. It is also an expensive package, adding over $850 billion to the deficit over the next decade. This cost is only justifiable to the extent that the legislation is both effective as an economic stimulus and equitable in its benefits, and each of its provisions should be subjected to these criteria. On the positive side, the measure will extend unemployment insurance through the end of next year. This is both a moral obligation and a sound economic decision: there is perhaps no greater return on our investment in the short run than to ensure that Americans who have lost their jobs and cannot find another one can continue to make ends meet. At the same time, they put almost all of this money back into the economy, maintaining aggregate demand for goods and services--in stark contrast to tax cuts for the wealthy. The agreement maintains the historically low tax rates that lower- and middle-income Americans have enjoyed for the past decade for 2 more years. While doing so will not be cheap, we cannot afford to raise taxes on working families during the current downturn, and the stimulative impact of these extensions will be significant. It also extends several tax credits targeted directly at lower- and middle- income Americans, including the refundable child tax credit, the enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit, and important credits or deductions for child care, education, and other essential services. The fact that the child tax credit is refundable for low-income people whose income tax liability is limited will provide a particularly important boost to them and to our economic recovery. In addition, the package offers critical relief to small businesses, including an extension of the bonus depreciation provision included in the Recovery Act, a 2-year extension of the Research and Development tax credit so critical to the Research Triangle, and several important renewable energy incentives. These and other provisions will provide business owners with the stability and support they need to expand their operations, hire new workers, and continue the economic recovery. Finally, the legislation includes a payroll tax holiday that will result in a lower tax burden for all American workers next year. Some respected advocates, in North Carolina and elsewhere, have argued that this provision could in fact hurt lower-income workers, compared to the Making Work Pay tax credit that expires this year. Some have also claimed that this provision would threaten Social Security by temporarily reducing payments to the Social Security trust fund. To be clear, if I had my choice I would prefer to be voting for an extension of Making Work Pay instead of a payroll tax holiday--but that is not the choice we face today. The choice is between a payroll tax holiday and nothing, and the simple fact is that if we do nothing, then lower-income workers will be much worse off than they are now: their income taxes will be higher; they will lose the many other benefits this bill provides, such as enhanced EITC; and they won't receive any form of payroll tax relief. Moreover, because the benefits of a payroll tax holiday will be more broadly shared, the stimulative impact of a payroll tax holiday will be more broadly felt. And as for its impact on Social Security, both the President and the AARP have assured us that the diversion of funds will be both temporary and repaid in full. There are reasons to be concerned about threats to Social Security's future, but this should not be one of them. Now, these positive elements must be weighed carefully against the major concessions that were made to Republicans during the negotiations that produced this bill. I am referring, of course, to the extension of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000, which will add over $100 billion to the deficit over the next 2 years while doing almost nothing to stimulate the economy. This is not simply my personal opinion or the view of the Democratic Party: it is a fact confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office and any number of respected economists, and well understood by the American people. As I have already stated, the fact that the Republican leadership held this entire package hostage so that millionaires could get an average tax break of $100,000 per year tells us exactly where their true priorities lie: Tax cuts for the wealthy are clearly the ``holy grail'' of their economic policy, to which all other policy outcomes are subjugated. I am equally disappointed by the inclusion of an estate tax proposal that is little more than a gratuitous giveaway to some 6,600 wealthy families. We hear a lot of dire warnings about the impact of the estate tax on small farmers and business owners, but even to the extent that they would be affected, the compromise estate tax proposal passed by the House last December was more than sufficient to protect them. Now, we are considering a proposal that costs $23 billion more than the 2009 proposal and will have no economic impact at all aside from letting a few thousand millionaires and billionaires keep even more of their inherited wealth--an average windfall of $3.5 million per family. As the details of these provisions have become known, I have actively engaged in discussions here and at home, doing everything within my power to oppose the inclusion of giveaways to the wealthiest Americans in the package. I have joined my colleagues in sending two separate letters to the House leadership opposing the inclusion of upper-income tax cuts and a third letter arguing against the gratuitous estate tax provision, and last week I voted for the House's middle class tax cut package which omitted these giveaways. I have also signed several letters arguing for a more sensible package of energy incentives in the legislation, including a reduction of the ethanol credit that was added by the Senate at the last minute. I was a strong supporter of the 2009 estate tax compromise offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, which unfortunately failed to pass the Senate, and I will be voting for it again tonight. While I am deeply disappointed that these efforts have not been more successful, we are now called upon to evaluate this package as it is, not as we would like it to be. The bottom line is that the positive impact of this package for working- and middle-class Americans and our economic recovery outweighs its negative impact on the deficit and its unjust giveaways to the wealthy. We must also consider the consequences of failing to enact this legislation today. Deferring action on these expiring tax provisions until next year would not only create chaos for American taxpayers; it would also likely result in a package that is nowhere near as generous or as equitable, given the extreme views of the incoming Republican majority on many of its provisions. Republicans leaders openly state that their chief concern in the 112th Congress is not economic recovery, not putting Americans back to work, but ensuring President Obama is a one-term President. While their stated goals may be grossly misguided and narrow, mine will not be. Scuttling this package would mean foregoing what will likely be our last opportunity to provide any stimulus to the economy, given that the Republicans have made clear their opposition to additional aid to states, infrastructure investments, and other countercyclical programs. The need to maintain demand and stimulate growth has not fully abated--this economy is not yet out of the woods. The question is not whether the package before us is the most effective one conceivable--it is not--but whether we will do anything to keep the recovery going before the next Congress shuts the door entirely. Under these circumstances, I support this legislation despite its flaws. I cannot in good conscience cast a ``no'' vote that, were it to prevail, would expose working Americans to tax increases and end the EITC and child credit provisions that have benefitted so many people. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote that would rip away the safety net for those not yet able to find work, and in the process hobble an economic recovery. We risk all of these if this bill fails. Our good conscience also causes us to question this bill's violations of tax fairness and fiscal prudence; I have worked and will continue to work to change these things. But tonight we must vote while we have the chance to do so, and on the only vehicle available to us, to protect the vast majority of our constituents and to bring this economy back to health.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to call for a recorded vote on this resolution, I would like to express my serious reservations about both the content of the measure before us and the circumstances under which it is being considered. Once again, we are being asked to consider a resolution about one of our Nation's most important foreign policy challenges that was rushed to the floor without any real chance for debate, without any consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, and without any opportunity for constructive input from the many Members of this body-- Democrats and Republicans--who care deeply about peace in the Middle East. This resolution is significant not for what it says, but for what it leaves unspoken. Of course most of us believe that a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians will only be achieved through a negotiated two-state solution. And of course any unilateral action by either side--or by a third party--that undermines the peace process should be cause for concern for this Congress, and for anybody else who believes that a two-state solution is still possible. But that is precisely the point: this resolution says absolutely nothing about the long history of unilateral actions taken by Israeli governments that have progressively undermined confidence in the ability of negotiations to deliver peace. It says nothing about the fact that formal negotiations broke down last week due in large part to Israel's refusal to extend its freeze on unilateral settlement construction for a mere three months. It says nothing about the understandable frustration felt by Israelis and Palestinians alike when they see their leaders fail yet again to make good on their promises of peace. Moreover, we must ask ourselves whether approving this resolution at this highly sensitive moment would in fact be counterproductive to its stated goal of supporting the peace process. With negotiations on life support and the Administration working overtime to determine the best path forward for the United States, should we really be making definitive statements about what the United States might or might not do if such a unilateral declaration were actually made? Or asking the State Department to shift its focus to preventing other countries from granting diplomatic recognition, rather than continuing to focus on the peace process itself? One would think that we should rather be urging the Obama Administration to stand firm in its efforts to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to the negotiating table. The Administration was wise to abandon its offer to give Israel a generous package of security guarantees to do something that is manifestly in its own self- interest to begin with, but Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell have made clear their commitment to pursuing alternative courses of action. Instead of stirring the pot at this delicate time with pronouncements and condemnations, we should be offering hope and encouragement to their efforts. Ultimately, I agree with the basic points made in this resolution. But I strongly urge the leadership of this House, on both sides of the aisle, to allow for a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative process next time we are asked to express the sense of Congress on a matter of such critical importance to our Nation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), another of our border members, and the chairman of our authorizing Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism.