David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, how fitting it is today that the skies are Carolina blue. We are still basking in the glory of the University of North Carolina's crowning as the 2004-2005 NCAA Division I Men's National Basketball Champions. All season long, the Tar Heels were touted as the most talented players in the country, but some questioned whether the team could win it all. Monday night they proved any remaining doubters wrong. After playing 40 minutes of inspired basketball, the Tar Heels showed that they have the heart, the team spirit, and the determination of true champions. North Carolina established itself long ago as one of the elite programs in college basketball history. But with their fourth national chairmanship win on Monday, the Tar Heels proved they are back among today's elite. We hope and expect this year's run will be the first of many under native son Coach Roy Williams, who led the Tar Heels back to victory in just his second year back at his alma mater. The victory was especially sweet for North Carolina's three seniors, who have helped lead an impressive comeback from their freshmen year challenges to the glory of their final game. Three ACC schools, Mr. Speaker, are located entirely or partly in North Carolina's Fourth District, so I am no stranger to divided loyalties! But last night's victory is something all North Carolinians can feel proud of. That include this proud alumnus, and my staffers, who are still radiating Carolina blue, thanks to an inspirational team who has made us all proud. Go Heels!

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, colleagues will remember the Biblical story of the prophet Nathan coming to the mighty King David. Nathan told David a story about a rich man who had many sheep but took the one little ewe lamb of a poor man to feed a visiting friend. David flew into a rage at the rich man and proclaimed that anyone who should do such a thing deserved to be put to death for abusing his power and showing so little compassion. Then Nathan turned to David and said, ``You are that man.'' This story should lead us to look into the mirror. Are we in danger of becoming ``that man''? The Republican budget removes support for housing, education, Medicaid, community development, and small business lending. It raises taxes on the poor. And it does all this so the Republicans can afford new tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. If ever there were a moral issue before this Congress, surely it is this one. One might expect that these cuts would at least result in significant decreases in our deficits, but this is not the case. We continue to face the worst-of-both-worlds scenario in which we suffer both devastating cuts and dangerous increases in the deficit. We continue to borrow from our children to pay for tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the President's Social Security privatization. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the resources of our government, not simply to look at our immediate desires, but also to the needs of our children and our children's children, including their need to be free of a crippling debt. Republicans claim to be the party of moral values, but their budget belies that claim. The Democratic alternative maintains current funding levels for our country's critical domestic and security programs while also providing meaningful tax relief for middle-class Americans. Furthermore, the Democratic budget recognizes that fiscal responsibility is also a moral value by reinstating a real pay-as-you- go rule and by balancing our budget within 7 years. The Republican budget, on the other hand, continues to run up record deficits for as far as the eye can see. Mr. Chairman, the budget process provides each party with a chance to put its money where its mouth is, to act on the rhetoric we all hear around here year round. A budget is a statement of moral priorities. May we do justice to those imperatives in the vote we cast tomorrow.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dreier-Price Democracy Assistance Commission resolution. House Resolution 135 will establish a Commission in the House charged with helping parliaments in emerging democracies play a more independent, transparent and representative role. I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) will be taking the lead role on the Commission, and I look forward to working closely with him to make this Commission a success and to make it a worthy successor to the Frost-Solomon Task Force, which helped build the capacity of new parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe between 1990 and 1996. The Frost-Solomon Task Force, under the leadership of our former colleagues Martin Frost and the late Jerry Solomon, went in at the ground level with 10 parliaments from former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states, providing them with the kind of basic resources and technological infrastructure required for any legislature to play a meaningful role in an emerging democracy--things like computers and other office equipment and reference materials for parliamentary libraries--and helping them establish the systems and procedures necessary to create an efficient and well-functioning legislature. A bipartisan group of House Members was actively involved, as were key House and Library of Congress staff who offered extensive consultation. I had the opportunity to participate in the activities of that task force, and to witness firsthand the positive impact that it had, not only on the maturation of parliaments receiving assistance, but also in engendering a positive image of the United States, and of the U.S. House of Representatives, abroad. It was one of the most worthwhile and rewarding experiences I have had as a Member of this body. The spread of democracy is continuing, and the U.S. Agency for International Development and its partners in the nonprofit world have been active in assisting new parliaments all around the world. Many other developed democracies have also gotten into the act of providing assistance to parliaments in emerging democracies. But there is still an important role for the U.S. House to play. In fact, there is a role that I would argue the House is uniquely positioned to play. After all, the U.S. House is the oldest directly representative democratic body in existence in the world, one of two Chambers in the oldest democratic federal legislature in existence. We have been doing something that the world admires for a very long time. We should pass along the benefits of our experience to our colleagues in emerging democracies abroad, always in the spirit of realizing that, for all of us, the fullness of democracy is still a work in progress. Our knowledge and experience as Members and support staff of this great institution are something we can share directly with our counterparts in emerging democracies, helping build their capacity to better perform the essential role that legislatures must play in democratic government, through oversight of governmental expenditures and military operations, constituent services, committee operations, information services and research. Mr. Speaker, today is the culmination of 2 years of hard work, starting in early 2003 when I first began talking with Representative Doug Bereuter about resuming the work of the Frost-Solomon Task Force. We spent a lot of time talking with USAID, with Frost-Solomon Task Force veterans and with other stakeholders, trying to figure out the best way to move forward, how to ensure that the Commission's work did not duplicate other assistance efforts and in fact complemented them with the unique contribution that House Members could make. We introduced the first version of this resolution, H. Res. 543, a little over a year ago, and a second improved version, H. Res. 642, last summer. Both resolutions were approved by the House Committee on International Relations, but there were still some refinements needed to get the consensus needed to move the resolution to the floor. We have now been able to make those refinements, thanks to the support and feedback we received from Scott Palmer and other staff members of the Office of the Speaker. I want to thank the Speaker and the minority leader for lending their support to this enterprise, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) of the Committee on International Relations. John Lis, a staff member of the Committee on International Relations, played a critical role in helping bring us to this point, and will continue to play the lead staff role in the Commission's work. Francis Miko and Paul Rundquist with CRS, Dan Freeman with the Committee on International Relations, and Kristi Walseth, formerly of Representative Frost's staff, all of these played important support roles for the Frost-Solomon Task Force and have been extremely valuable advisers on the best way for a reconstituted Commission to work. We will continue to call on them for advice and, in some cases, to help carry out the Commission's duties. I also want to thank successive members of my staff who put many hours and substantial effort into fine-tuning this resolution: Tom Rice, Marian Currinder and Darek Newby. Over the course of the next several months, the Commission will be appointed by the Speaker and minority leader, and the staff will be evaluating candidate countries from around the world for potential participation in the Democracy Assistance Program. The Commission will eventually narrow that list down to five countries that will be invited to participate in the program beginning in fiscal year 2006. Assistance will be provided through visits by Commission members, other interested Members of the House, and staff to participating countries, and members and staff of those parliaments will also have opportunities to come to the United States to become more familiar with both State and Federal legislative institutions and practices. We are working closely, and will continue to work closely, with USAID, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute to coordinate the delivery of equipment and other related material assistance where the Commission identifies particular needs. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting endeavor, and one that I am looking forward to helping move forward. I hope that many of my colleagues will agree and find some way to contribute to the work of the Commission, to help support the spread and consolidation of democracy around the world. The passage of H. Res. 135 is the essential first step, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a year ago I stood before this Chamber during debate of this same legislation and remarked that by increasing fines for indecency violations we were addressing the symptoms of a problem but not the underlying causes. One year later, despite all of the public outcry, despite the millions of citizens who contacted the FCC and Congress advocating for localism and decency standards and unbiased news, despite all of the politicians bemoaning what is on our airwaves today, not much has really changed. Last year we fought unsuccessfully for an amendment that would have addressed the true effect of media consolidation by commissioning a GAO study on the relationship between consolidation and indecency on the airwaves. This amendment was not made in order by the Republican majority. It should come as no surprise that we will not get a vote on this amendment again this year. Once again, the leadership has shown us that the concerns of ordinary people are trumped by the interests of media conglomerates and of the Bush administration. We should allow the GAO to study the consequences of media consolidation and we should turn these results into action, passing legislation to ensure that a handful of companies will not get to dominate our airwaves, be it with filth or foul language or political propaganda or anything else that viewers would opt not to see. And I tell you, we Members who are involved in this are not going to rest until we put control of our airwaves back where it belongs, in our local communities and in the hands of the American people. To this end, I have joined with a number of colleagues in forming a media reform caucus, which will be working to make sure that the voices of the communities we represent are present at the table as Congress revisits the issues of media ownership and telecommunications regulation. And for those who share our concerns about the state of the media industry, I urge you to join in this fight. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, you have not heard the last from us; this fight is not over. Let me just comment on this court decision which a number of people have cited. Last June the 4th Circuit echoed the concerns I have been addressing here today, when it stayed the implementation of the FCC's relaxed ownership rules. But we have no guarantee that the FCC will not pass a new version that would again make it easier for a few big conglomerates to control our airwaves. In fact, it is quite likely that they will. We will have this fight all over again. So we should spare ourselves and the American people all of that trouble and do the right thing right now, and that is to commission this GAO study on the relationship between filth on the airwaves and consolidation, and in the meantime forbid any further action on putting the control of the airwaves in the hands of these big conglomerates. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is a House of diverse and talented Members, but among these Members, Bob Matsui stood out in many, many ways. He stood out as an effective legislator; a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the third ranking Democrat. Bob was a leader on trade issues. He was a prominent spokesman among Democrats for those of us who favor an expansive trade policy for our country, with safeguards, to level the playing field in terms of environmental and labor standards. He was the foremost Democratic expert on Social Security, determined to fortify that program for future generations. Bob Matsui stood out as a committed leader of the Democratic Caucus. He did an extraordinary job in what is our party's toughest assignment, that is, the chairmanship of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recruiting our candidates, raising untold amounts of money, keeping us motivated and focused. He had the toughest assignment in our caucus, and he did it with grace and with great effectiveness. Bob Matsui stood out for his extraordinary and distinctive personal story. As a child he was one of 120,000 Japanese Americans interned in camps during World War II. I learned about Bob's story early in my service in Congress as he helped many of us understand the need for the Japanese American Redress Act, belatedly passed by this Chamber in 1988. Bob Matsui stood out as a warm friend and supportive colleague. He was a man who took time to get to know his colleagues. He was a wonderful listener, a great encourager, always willing to share credit and to seek a common basis for action. Bob was one of our most reasonable Members. Surely he was one of our most reasonable colleagues. He was persuasive precisely because we knew he was a man of his word, and we knew he was a man of utter integrity. Like many here, I considered Bob a close friend, generous with his counsel, with ready encouragement and will miss him greatly. My wife and I have also treasured our friendship with Bob and Doris Matsui as a couple. Doris has made major contributions of her own to our country, particularly as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public Liaison in the White House for the Clinton administration, and she has been a strong and loyal partner to Bob in his endeavors. We extend our heartfelt sympathy to Doris and her family, hoping that she may draw comfort and strength from the outpouring of affection and respect from Bob's and her many friends and admirers this evening and in the days to come.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while many institutions help to develop Americans' knowledge and skills and shape their civic character and commitments, our nation's schools bear a special and historic responsibility to provide our students an adequate civic education. On September 20-22, 2003, the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education was launched. The conference was sponsored by the Alliance for Representative Democracy and co-hosted by the four leaders of the U.S. Congress. One of the very positive outcomes of the Congressional Conference was the establishment of state delegations that would return to the state to enact specific policies designed to restore the civic mission of our schools. I would like to recognize the North Carolina Civic Education Consortium at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, facilitator of our state's delegation, for helping the delegation design a strong action plan to improve civic education. This action plan and related efforts have led to the following accomplishments: hosting a successful statewide policy summit on the civic mission of schools for state and local policymakers; securing grant funds to pilot model practices and policies in two school systems that could have statewide implications; developing a new resource guide for schools to help them implement new civic education legislation; and gaining visibility and support from the State Board of Education. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to North Carolina's continued leadership in civic education reform and their participation in the second annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education, which will be held on December 4-6, 2004.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Count Every Vote Act, legislation to provide additional time, when needed, for conducting recounts of votes in presidential elections. At its core, our form of government is based on the premise of ``one person, one vote.'' The presidential election of 2000, however, demonstrated how precarious that tenet can be. In the midst of an ongoing challenge to the election result in the state of Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that manual recounts could not continue because there was not enough time to undertake a proper recount prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. The unsatisfactory result was a president who took office with a cloud hanging over him in the eyes of many Americans. Given the close nature of the current presidential race, there is a very real chance that we could be faced with a similar situation five weeks from now. We could easily wake up on November 3rd with a swing state election controversy, the outcome of which could decide who will be the President of the United States for the next four years. And it could take more than the 35 days allowed under current law to resolve the controversy without risking the loss of a state's electoral votes. Mr. Speaker, I request that a June 15 Roll Call column by Leonard Shambon, a counsel with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and former assistant to the co-chairman of the Ford-Carter Commission on Election Reform, be reprinted in the Record following my remarks. In his column, Mr. Shambon makes a strong case for the need to reform the timing of the Electoral College, and I have drawn from his expertise in this particular area of elections law. I appreciate Mr. Shambon's tireless research and collaboration in developing a solution to this problem. The bill I am introducing today has the support of leading scholars renowned for their research in the electoral process, including Thomas Mann, the W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution; John C. Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of and contributor to After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College; and Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, columnist for Roll Call, and contributor to After the People Vote. It would establish a contingency date for the meeting of electors in all states, but only when a challenge to a state's presidential election result remains unresolved as of three days prior to the Electoral College meeting date defined in current law. For the upcoming election, if a recount in any state were ongoing as of December 10, the bill would establish January 3rd as the new meeting date for the Electoral College, providing 59 days--24 days more than current law--to ensure that the recount is given as much time as possible to be resolved. In a dissenting opinion on the 2000 election contest that the U.S. Supreme Court later upheld, Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding appropriately noted, ``The circumstances of this election call to mind a quote from football coaching legend Vince Lombardi: `We didn't lose the game, we just ran out of time.' '' We cannot afford to run out of time when it comes to ensuring the integrity of our presidential election contests. That is a conclusion on which everyone should agree. I invite my colleagues to join me in ensuring that our electoral process is given the most time possible to resolve any contested election results by cosponsoring the Count Every Vote Act. [From Roll Call, June 15, 2004] Electoral-College Reform Requires Change of Timing (By Leonard M. Shambon) This is a modest proposal to reform the Electoral College. No, it would not abolish the Electoral College, just change its timing. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court called off the Florida recount because it believed that the recount could not be concluded in time to conform to the schedule established by federal statute for the electoral college. One of the Florida Supreme Court justices, whose position was upheld by the Supreme Court, analogized the Gore camp's predicament to a quote from Vince Lombardi: `` `We didn't lose the game, we just ran out of time.' '' But running out of time should not control the outcome in 2004. Under the federal statute, each state's presidential electors are to meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. If a state appoints its presidential electors at least six days before that date, then its choice of electors cannot be overridden. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore believed it was imperative to block the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court because the recount could not be completed by the six-day cutoff before the electors' meeting. But the aftermath of the Bush v. Gore decision, no one seriously examined the question of whether the federal statutory dates make any sense. Fearing endless debates about whether the Electoral College should be completely abolished, no one looked at the peculiarities of the federal law. But there's still time for Congress to do so this year. Congress should amend 17 words in the statute to push those dates into January, so that any state recounts and contests that occur this fall can proceed at a more orderly pace. The federal statutory scheme, first adopted in 1792, provides the dates for four events: (1) the states' appointing their electors, on Election Day; (2) having the electors meet and vote; (3) reporting the results to Congress; and (4) the Congressional counting. Congress has changed the dates on which those events are to occur five times, most recently in 1934 in response to the ratification of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which moved the date of inauguration back from March 3 to Jan. 20. In 1934, the Roosevelt administration recommended to Congress that the period between Election Day and the date of the electors' meeting be set at 41 days. Records reveal that a government attorney chose the 41-day period arbitrarily, without any further explanation. Congress, without any legislative explanation, went along with this change even though it significantly shortened the period from its pre-existing statutory length. One Member of Congress, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatton Sumners (D-Texas), did speak out against the shortened period during the House debate, and in subsequent years, Sumners kept up the drumbeat, noting that it ``requires no great imagination to visualize what might develop in a close election when feeling was running high with a belief that wholesale fraud had been perpetrated in one or more pivotal States with no possibility of a final judicial determination.'' Sumners' ``serious situation'' arose in 2000, and it could easily happen again this year. An era of electronic communication and overnight couriers, Congress should immediately lengthen the period between Election Day and the date of the electors' meeting. The electors' meeting should occur as few days as possible before the Jan. 6 Congressional counting date. The six-day deadline for a state's choice of electors should be changed to the new date for the electors' meeting. And delivery of the electors' votes to Congress should be accomplished by any rapid and secure method, not just by registered mail as is currently required. Making the date, say, Jan. 3, would provide an additional four weeks this year for an unrushed review. We should not be hamstrung by a redundant and slow transmission scheme built for an earlier time. The states should have the maximum time, within the framework of the existing November election date and the Congressional counting date, to resolve any contested elections. This time, the game clock should not control the outcome.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, with an unprecedented fiscal meltdown in this country, going from $5.5 trillion in projected surplus over the next 10 years to over $3.5 billion in additional debt, fiscal turnaround of over $9 trillion, would we not like to think that, at least for that degree of damage to the Federal budget, that we have gotten the maximum economic stimulus, or that we have at least been able to fund our major priorities like education and research and health care, transportation? Yet I do not know any economist who will claim that we have had the best possible economic stimulus or the economic turnaround. This is as sluggish an economic recovery as anybody can remember.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the President seems to want to claim that, but I have seen analyses, and they are readily available, that show there are dozens of things that could be done in terms of middle class tax cuts, in terms of infrastructure improvements and transportation improvements, in terms of aid to the States that were so hard-pressed and still are hard-pressed. Extension of unemployment benefits to those who are still trying to turn their situation around, any one of those things would not only have been fairer in terms of the people affected, but it would have been a far more effective stimulus. Then to turn to my second point, have we been able to adequately fund our major priorities in this country? If you are going $450 billion into debt each year, additional debt, you would at least like to think you are getting some bang for the buck in terms of things we need to be investing in in this country. But yet at last report this House cannot even pass a highway bill, cannot even agree on investment in our infrastructure, which used to be a no- brainer around here, both Democrats and Republicans agreeing that nothing was better for the economy than having a healthy infrastructure and getting money out to the States to build highways and transit systems.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Has the gentleman seen any economic analysis that would suggest that a massive tax cut, 43 percent of which went to the top 1 percent in earnings, was the most effective economic stimulus that could have been applied?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Virginia will yield, I am struck by what our colleague from Maine has been saying about the national debt and the burden it represents on future generations. We have had a discussion tonight that may strike some people as pretty complicated, with a lot of charts and figures. And sometimes we are criticized for not being able to reduce our arguments to a bumper sticker. Well, I have a couple of bumper stickers to suggest that I think sum up just what the gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Virginia have been saying. People like having that bumper sticker on the car about having an honor student at so-and-so high school. How about this one? ``My honor student will be paying for the Bush national debt.'' Or how about another one. ``George W. Bush: We will be forever in his debt.'' That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about an administration that has managed to engineer a $9.5 trillion fiscal reversal. And I appreciate the gentleman pointing out so competently the dimensions of that and exactly what it does portend for future generations.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of North Carolina's outgoing Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Mike Ward. Dr. Ward was elected State Superintendent in 1996, the first year that schools were scrutinized under North Carolina's ABCs accountability program. The Federal No Child Left Behind law was enacted a year after Dr. Ward began his second term, adding another layer of scrutiny and accountability. Dr. Ward used these challenges as opportunities to raise student achievement, while advocating for improvements in the Federal law--including more adequate funding--so that its purposes might be more fully achieved. It is fitting that on his last day in office he was able to announce that North Carolina's average on the SAT had reached a new high and had closed within 20 points of the national score. During his eight years as the State's chief elected education leader, Dr. Ward relied heavily on his experience as a local superintendent-- which earned him North Carolina's Superintendent of the Year Award--and as a teacher and high school principal. He was a tireless advocate for teachers and other school employees, promoting high standards, better compensation, and opportunities for professional development. Dr. Ward believed strongly in the power of teaching and learning, and he regularly set aside time to be in the classroom working with students. Dr. Ward was respected by his peers and was selected President of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), whose members include State superintendents and education commissioners from across the country. He used this opportunity to raise North Carolina's profile as a leader in improving student performance and school accountability. I am pleased to join my fellow North Carolinians in thanking Mike Ward for his conscientious and effective service: He leaves our schools stronger, our teachers better equipped, and our students better trained than they were when he started. I wish Dr. Ward and his wife, the Reverend Hope Morgan Ward, all the best as they make the transition from North Carolina to Mississippi, where she will become a Methodist bishop. I know that it won't be long until my colleagues from Mississippi realize how fortunate they are to have this family as part of their community.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride that we welcome our newest Member, G.K. Butterfield. George Kenneth Butterfield's roots run deep in eastern North Carolina. He is the product of the Wilson County Public Schools. He interrupted his college career at North Carolina Central University to serve in the United States Army. He returned a few years later, went on to law school. His career in private law practice spanned 15 years before he was elected to the Superior Court in 1988. Governor Easley appointed Justice Butterfield, widely respected by lawyers, judges, jurors and citizens, to the Supreme Court of North Carolina in 2001. In the course of his distinguished judicial career, Mr. Butterfield has served as vice president of the North Carolina Bar and president of the Association of Black Lawyers. He is deeply involved in his home community of Wilson, North Carolina, from his Baptist church to local job training programs and child care. The next phase of Justice Butterfield's career will combine his commitment to public service with his expertise in the law. He knows the issues that matter to eastern North Carolinians. I know that his contributions as a Member of Congress will be significant, and we look forward to working with him. Congratulations to G.K. Butterfield.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Hugh Gregory Gallagher, initiator of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, insightful biographer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and my mentor and friend. Hugh died on July 13 in Washington. Hugh, along with Bill Foster, first introduced me to the ways of Capitol Hill in 1963 in the office of Senator E. L. ``Bob'' Bartlett of Alaska. I was an eager but less-than-knowledgable divinity student at the time, but their lessons took, and I ended up returning to the office as a legislative aide every summer through 1967, eventually writing a doctoral dissertation in political science based on what I observed there. Hugh was my mentor and colleague through this entire period, imparting extensive knowledge of the workings and the history of the Senate as well as remarkable political savvy and the best instruction in writing clear prose that I ever received from anyone save my English-teacher mother. My wife and I have maintained our friendship with Hugh since those years, and we are greatly saddened by his passing. Hugh was stricken with polio during his college years and was rehabilitated at the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation, which stimulated a lifelong interest in Franklin D. Roosevelt. He received a Marshall Scholarship to Oxford University and earned his degree amid considerable physical hardship, for Oxford was hardly outfitted for students in wheelchairs in those days. After a short stint with Senator John Carroll (D-CO), Hugh became Senator Bartlett's chief legislative aide. Statehood was less than a decade old, and adjusting national policy to Alaska's altered status and many needs was a complicated challenge. But Hugh's proudest achievement by far was national legislation which he largely conceived, wrote, and steered to passage: the Bartlett Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, which required that federal facilities and buildings constructed with federal dollars be accessible to the disabled. This bill was the first national disability rights legislation, precursor to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. After Senator Bartlett's death, Hugh worked as a consultant to British Petroleum and other firms. But he turned increasingly to writing, producing an historical account of the Senate's foreign policy role (Advise and Obstruct, 1969), an account of Eskimo activism on behalf of federal land claims (Etok: A Story of Eskimo Power, 1974), a biography of Roosevelt focusing on how he dealt with his disability (FDR's Splendid Deception, 1985), an account of Nazi Germany's treatment of the disabled (By Trust Betrayed, 1990), and an autobiography probing the psychological costs of ``trying to compensate [for] or obfuscate your disability'' (Black Bird Fly Away, 1998). In his foreword to the latter volume, Geoffrey Ward summed up Hugh's contribution: ``It is impossible for anyone not to admire Hugh Gallagher's gallantry--a word I'm sure he'll hate having applied to him--or his extraordinary achievements in and out of the corridors of power in Washington, or his hard-won triumph over the depression that threatened to cripple him as polio never could. Disabled people will draw sustenance from this book but I also can't imagine a more useful volume for any able-bodied person--parent or child, spouse or companion, friend or relation--who wants to understand what the disabled really feel about the challenges brought by each new day.'' Hugh maintained an abiding love for Alaska. One of my fondest memories is of a trip with him down the Kenai Peninsula, all the way to Homer and Kachemak Bay, in the summer of 1966. Hugh kept up with many Alaska friends and traveled there often, including a recent trip to give the Bartlett Lecture at the University of Alaska. Hugh Gallagher lived a rich and inspiring life--a life containing adversity beyond what most of us will ever experience and exemplifying courage, tenacity, and hard-earned wisdom. Hugh had a great deal to say to the world, he said it powerfully and eloquently, and thousands are in his debt. Hugh also had a remarkable gift for friendship, and his many friends mourn his passing and treasure our memory of him. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the account of Hugh Gallagher's life from the Washington Post of July 16, 2004, be reprinted at this point in Record. [From the Washington Post, July 16, 2004] Hugh Gallagher Dies; Crusaded for Disabled (By Adam Bernstein) Hugh G. Gallagher, 71, who died of cancer July 13 at Sibley Memorial Hospital, wrote an early civil rights law affecting the disabled and a praised biography of former president Franklin D. Roosevelt's struggle with polio. Mr. Gallagher, stricken with polio at age 19, played a major role in the 2001 decision to add a statue of Roosevelt in a wheelchair to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington. For years he told reporters, ``Don't let them steal our hero!'' Mr. Gallagher underwent rigorous and at times horrifying treatment for his disease, which he contracted during its last widespread sweep in America before the invention of a vaccine. He was paralyzed below the chest and later suffered from clinical depression. He went on to address his concerns for the disabled through a career in politics and prose. Although many worked to change the image of the disabled--from the pitiable, leg- braced waif in old March of Dimes promotions--Mr. Gallagher was far more concerned about practical questions, the personal and financial costs of living with a disability. While working as an aide on Capitol Hill, he developed and drafted the language of what became the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, a lauded precursor to the sweeping Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. His legislation mandated that buildings funded with federal dollars had to be accessible to the disabled, which many opposed because of expense and aesthetic appeal. ``Hugh's most outstanding contribution to the quality of life of people with disabilities was to successfully place disability rights on Congress' agenda for the first time,'' former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) wrote for an event honoring Mr. Gallagher in 1995. Mr. Gallagher was never a one-issue man, and his social concerns ranged from gay rights to dignified end-of-life care. He also was a prolific writer of newspaper opinion pieces. His earliest nonfiction books concerned a range of subjects, from congressional logjams (``Advise and Obstruct: The Role of the United States Senate in Foreign Policy Decisions,'' 1969) to the efforts of the indigenous people of Alaska to win large land claims from the U.S. government in 1971 (``Etok: A Story of Eskimo Power,'' 1974). By far his best-known book was `` FDR's Splendid Deception'' (1985), about the president's ability to radiate hope and confidence while living in great physical stress. Many critics hailed the book's unsentimental approach to a long-overlooked aspect of Roosevelt's life. In her review for The Washington Post, Marina Newmyer wrote that Mr. Gallagher ``has put together a solid, suspenseful and fast-paced account of the medical tragedy suffered by Roosevelt.'' Mr. Gallagher found that among the 35,000 photographs of Roosevelt at his presidential library, only two featured him in his wheelchair. Media of the day all but ignored the polio, an omission that served the president's political purposes and showed his threshold for withstanding pain, he wrote. He said he understood Roosevelt's stoicism, which Mr. Gallagher took to indicate a near-disavowal of the disability. ``For years, I tried to work harder than any able-bodied person would,'' he told an interviewer. ``My drive to become a superhero exacted a terrible price. I paid no attention to my emotions. I became an automaton.'' Hugh Gregory Gallagher was born in Palo Alto, Calif, where his father taught political science at Stanford University. He grew up in Chicago, New York and Washington. He was at Haverford College in spring 1952 when he suddenly developed polio during parents' weekend. He left school, spent three months in an iron lung and was operated on several times. ``I never realized such pain existed,'' he told a reporter at the time. Once, his iron lung stopped, and Mr. Gallagher had to instruct the unnerved nurses how to pump the device by hand. Much of his rehabilitation took place in Warm Springs, Ga., where Roosevelt also had recuperated. That triggered his fascination with the president. In 1956, he graduated from what is now Claremont McKenna College in California and then went on a Marshall scholarship to Oxford University, where he received the equivalent of a master's degree in political science, philosophy and economics. At Oxford, he had difficulty maneuvering a wheelchair on the cobblestone streets. The only bathroom he could use was a block and a half from his room. Such indignities led to his legislative work on Capitol Hill. He spent most of the 1960s as an administrative assistant to Sen. E.L. ``Bob'' Bartlett (D-Alaska). He also worked for President Lyndon B. Johnson as his legislative signing and veto message writer in 1967 and 1968. He then was the Washington representative for British Petroleum and spent about 25 years as a policy and politics consultant for large oil concerns in Europe. His work took him to Alaska and other oil-drilling areas, where he was often hoisted onto oil rigs in his wheelchair. Over the years, he lobbied to make airports, performance halls and libraries accessible to those in wheelchairs. He wrote from his home in Cabin John, including the books ``By Trust Betrayed'' (1990), about Nazi Germany's treatment of the disabled, and ``Black Bird Fly Away'' (1998), which looked at his own depression about his disability. In 1995, Mr. Gallagher received the $50,000 Henry B. Betts Award for his lifetime work for the disabled. At the time, he reflected on the ``revolution'' in attitudes toward the disabled but added that there were some limits in what was doable or even desirable. ``Making the New York City subway system accessible to wheelchairs is not the best way to spend public money,'' he said. ``Besides, I'm not going down there to get mugged.'' Survivors include his father, Hubert R. Gallagher of Bethesda; and a sister.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious reservations about House Resolution 713. Israel's construction of a security barrier has been a source of great controversy within Israel and in the international community. The debate has less to do with the actual construction of a barrier than with the route of the barrier. The government of Israel regards the barrier as a form of self- defense--a legitimate means for preventing further terrorist infiltration. Israel has a right to self-defense, and if the Israeli government believes that the security barrier is the best means for protecting their citizens, then I support their right to construct a barrier. But as it now stands, the barrier has gone deeply into territory beyond the 1967 borders. That is the fact the authors of this resolution choose to ignore: There would be no International Court of Justice decision to condemn if Israel were building the fence along the Green Line. The Supreme Court of Israel recently ordered portions of the fence rerouted. The Court held that the barrier's current route ``injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way while violating their rights under humanitarian and international law.'' American diplomats also have worked diligently to modify the barrier's route in their dealings with the Israeli government. This resolution threatens to damage these efforts, implying an unqualified endorsement of the barrier and warning the international community against efforts to influence the situation. Roughly one-quarter of the 420-mile barrier has been completed-- clearly there is still much at stake for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our efforts should be directed at negotiating borders that will advance peace. Resolutions such as the one before us today do nothing to advance the peace process. There are legitimate questions as to the propriety and wisdom of the action taken by the International Court of Justice in this matter. But this resolution goes too far. It condemns the ICJ and ``Palestinian Leadership'' indiscriminately, and it undermines worthy efforts underway in Israel, the U.S., and internationally to promote Israel's security in ways that enhance the prospects for a just and lasting peace in the region. If we were truly serious about promoting peace in the Middle East, we would focus on efforts like the Roadmap rather than pass resolutions such as H. Res. 713.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and with the chairman of the subcommittee. I want to first thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his work in overseeing the critical rebuilding effort in Iraq. A key element in our foreign policy is developing and strengthening local governmental institutions. It is my privilege to represent an organization, the Research Triangle Institute, which is helping to fulfill this laudable goal. I joined the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on a Congressional delegation trip he led to Iraq in November, and we saw firsthand evidence of RTI's good work in Kirkuk and elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina and I are coming together on the House floor today to discuss the important ongoing work which Congress supports and RTI conducts. USAID's Local Governance Project has supported the establishment of 16 provincial councils and more than 700 local councils. The project staff of international experts in municipal government, supported by almost 3,000 Iraqi nationals, has worked to link local council leaders, citizens, and municipal service departments to improve service delivery to the citizens of Iraq. They have coached and trained 15 governors, 42 deputy governors, 420 department heads and more than 380 local service departments. Working with USAID and RTI, Iraqis are building the capacity to deliver essential services, to develop transparent and participatory policy processes at the local level, and to develop civil society institutions that foster participation in political processes. USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios has remarked that local government will be the training ground for future national political leaders. Mr. Chairman, that future is now. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for such remarks on the local governance projects as he might want to make?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in some puzzlement. The President came to my part of our State last week and announced, ``The economy is strong here in North Carolina.'' As the Raleigh News & Observer observed, ``Is the President an optimist, or does he need an optometrist?'' Perhaps our economy seems strong to Mr. Bush. After all, he raked in over $2 million at his afternoon fundraiser. But he did not seem to notice that we have record numbers of laid-off workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, 68,000 at last count. Our unemployment rate in the Raleigh-Durham area is creeping up again. The rolls grew by almost 2,000 last month. We have had even heavier losses in manufacturing Statewide, where 158,000 such jobs have disappeared since the President took office. President Bush's declaration of our so-called ``strong'' economy is simply out of touch. He is peddling the idea is that his tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent have worked miracles. But North Carolinians know a sluggish recovery when they see one. Declaring our economy strong does not make it so, and it does not put food on the table either. The News & Observer noted that the President did not take questions from local reporters. Is it any wonder why?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking out this Special Order and giving us a chance to talk about a man whom we know very well and whom we know is prepared to serve this country very well. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), for listening so carefully to the preceding hour and the kinds of statements that were made on this floor. There is one that I thought was particularly striking, and I just want to check my recollection of this, if I might. The gentleman from Georgia seemed to come over here and really challenge John Kerry's faithfulness as a Catholic. That is what I heard him saying. That is extraordinary. That is extraordinary. He also, in the process, restated the establishment clause of the Constitution. He said the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a State religion. No, the first amendment prohibits the establishment by the State of religion. And I would not pretend for a moment that it is always a simple thing to balance that establishment clause and the free exercise clause and understand how it can be applied in specific cases, but I would think one thing it means is that one in our country and under our form of government is not to take a theological interpretation, let us say of when life begins and to make that the law of the land. There are many ways that our faith informs our politics, and that is true of John Kerry and John Edwards. It is true of the present President and Vice President, and we honor that. The wellsprings of political motivation and political values run very deep, and for most of us that involves our religious beliefs and our religious backgrounds. That is very different from saying, though, that we enact specific religious precepts as the law of the land; that we convert those into civil law when there is not widespread consensus on those precepts, as there came to be in the case, for example, of civil rights, and many other religiously grounded values. But where there is not that kind of broad consensus, over the years we have concluded it is best to leave conscience free. It is best to leave the individual and the collective expression of conscience free. The gentleman from Georgia seemed to think that Mr. Kerry was being less than faithful because he was refusing to make that transition from a religious precept to the law of the land. And I wonder, where does that stop? Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line? Are there any limits to transforming religious precepts into civil law? Is there anyplace you draw the line, anything you would be willing to define as the establishment of religion? No, there is great wisdom in that founding document, our Constitution. The State is not to establish religion. The State is not to interfere with the free exercise of religion. And I would suggest we would all do well to honor those precepts and to be very, very cautious in coming on this floor or going anywhere else and labeling a person unfaithful to his religious tradition because he happens to disagree with the interpretation of where these constitutional precepts apply. I did not mean to start this way, Mr. Speaker, but the preceding hour was so extraordinary in some of the charges made and in some of the claims made that I felt I would add my contribution to what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) very ably lined out. The gentleman from the second district will remember very well when John Edwards first came to the U.S. Senate, and in that first year we had a serious test of our ability to deliver for North Carolina and to collaborate in the interest of our State a challenge that came in the form of a hurricane and a flood named Floyd. And that was a test for all of us, but it was particularly a test for our new Senator; and that is where I got to know John Edwards best and came to appreciate the kind of energy and dedication to duty that he exemplifies and his effectiveness. We did get a great deal of support for our State, relief for our State; and John Edwards was a very valuable leading member of the team. We also know him for his leadership on many domestic issues. He is probably best known as the leader in the Senate, along with Senator John McCain from the other side of the aisle, of the fight for a Patients' Bill of Rights. Very, very effective legislative effort. So John Edwards is well-known as a legislator who has looked out for North Carolina and who has looked out for the people of this country. But in the few minutes I have tonight, I want to turn to another aspect of John's leadership and one that, again, our friends on the other side of the aisle seemed determined to denigrate, and that is his experience and his leadership in national security and in foreign affairs. Some have questioned that. But it is actually an important question to ask. Does a candidate for President or Vice president have credible experience and knowledge in foreign affairs, in security matters; and does he bring that to the table as he asks the American people to support him? Let me just mention a number of aspects of John Edwards' experience in terrorism and national security. On many occasions Senator Edwards has transformed key anti-terrorist proposals into law. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Edwards has been an active leader on important issues related to national security, with particular focus on homeland security, intelligence reform, military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and U.S.-European relations. For example, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Preparedness Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Edwards, along with Senator Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, establishes a coordinated national plan for responding to biological and chemical weapons attacks and directs States to develop plans for dealing with such attacks. This was not just a proposal. Major provisions of this bill have been passed by the Senate in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. The Airport and Seaport Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation specified the use of new identification technologies to screen airport employees. Parts of that proposal were passed by the Senate and signed into law. The Cyber Terrorism Preparedness Act. The Cyber Security Research and Education Act. These bills strengthen our Nation's preparedness and ability to ward off a cyberattack by terrorists. Parts of that bill were passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. The Name Matching For Enforcement and Security Act. Senator Edwards introduced legislation to improve the weak capacity of anti-terrorist watch lists and databases to match up variants of foreign names. This legislation was incorporated into the Border Security Act of 2002. John Edwards has been part of a working group of Senators focused on terrorism before 9/11. Before 9/11. In the summer of 2001, John Edwards joined a working group of Senators from the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Armed Services who focused on the growing terrorist threat and considered possible responses. Many of these issues, many of these ideas, such as the mandatory sharing of intelligence between CIA and FBI and other agencies, and the training of Federal, State and local law enforcement officers to recognize and communicate critical intelligence information, these ideas were later implemented in legislation passed after September 11. John Edwards has met extensively with leaders around the globe, traveling in the Middle East, Asia and the gulf states, and Europe. He has wide exposure and wide experience internationally. As several of my colleagues have said, far, far more experience and exposure than our present President had when he was nominated. Present President had very, very limited international exposure, and actually seemed proud of that fact. John Edwards has been a member of the joint committee investigating the September 11 attacks. He has focused in on intelligence failures. He served as a member of the joint House-Senate panel investigating those attacks during the inquiry. He developed particular expertise on the shortcomings of the FBI's intelligence-gathering efforts. He developed relationships with a broad range of experts specializing in intelligence and national security policy, law enforcement, and civil liberties, as well as receiving detailed briefings from the FBI and the director of the British Security Service. Fourthly, John Edwards has played a leading role in post-conflict planning legislation. He played a leading role in improving America's ability to ensure that post-conflict states, like Afghanistan and Iraq, can address security challenges and humanitarian needs and political development. In 2003 Senator Edwards introduced the bipartisan Winning the Peace Act that outlined major reforms to enhance the government's capability to conduct post-conflict reconstruction. And then, finally, John Edwards has worked tirelessly to improve our military. As the Senator from North Carolina, he represents Fort Bragg, the world's largest army complex, as well as the headquarters of the Marine Corps Antiterrorism Task Force. He has been active in the effort to improve the quality of life for all who serve in the military and to reach out to military families. Madam Speaker, others want to speak. I am going to stop with that. I hope, though, that it is evident; and one reason I have mentioned all these various enactments and all these various initiatives is to underscore the point that these are not just empty claims. These are documented claims. This is a record for all to see. This is a Senator who, in his term in the Senate, has been deeply involved in national security and foreign policy issues. He has developed expertise. He has developed a network of people that he works with. He has put forward creative proposals, many of which have been enacted into law. It is an area where he has invested a great deal and where he is prepared to serve. And I thank the gentleman for giving us all a chance to testify to our knowledge of John Edwards's good work and our support for his present effort.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his taking out this Special Order tonight to honor our colleague Doug Bereuter, retiring after 26 years of distinguished service in this body. I first got to know Doug as a thoughtful and productive Member of the House Committee on Banking soon after my arrival here, but I soon came to admire him even more for his knowledge and his involvement in foreign affairs. He is now completing his 22nd year on the Committee on International Relations where he chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. He is in his 10th year of service on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where he chairs the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security and serves as vice-chair of the full committee. For most of his congressional career, Doug has made it his business to understand the foreign policy challenges facing our country, and he has made enormous contribution to the House's capacity for and exertion of international leadership. He has earned the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle and among his counterparts in other parliaments. He has been a delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly since 1986. He has led the U.S. delegation since 1995, and he was elevated to the presidency of the assembly 2 years ago. Doug represents our country's interests forthrightly and effectively in international forums, and he is equally skilled in informal diplomacy, listening well and engaging in candid dialogue, forming ties of mutual respect with leaders abroad. He has taken a particular interest in the challenges facing the NATO alliance after the Cold War, the role of the alliance in conflicts in the Balkans and beyond Europe, and the collective response to terrorism. Under his leadership, the Assembly has played an important role in the eastward expansion of NATO, both in debating the terms of that expansion and in establishing ties with parliamentarians in the new member States. Like others in this body, I have greatly enjoyed and benefited from my travels with Doug, often with his wife Louise and my wife Lisa, on parliamentary exchanges, Aspen Institute seminars and NATO Assembly meetings. Most recently, we have collaborated in drafting a resolution, H. Res. 642, establishing a commission in the House of Representatives to assist parliaments in emerging democracies. It is our hope that this commission might continue the work begun in Eastern Europe by the Frost-Solomon Commission in the 1990s, working in the Balkans, the Caucasus and other areas as they develop freely functioning parliaments. Madam Speaker, as much as we respect Doug's work, we also admire him as a colleague and value him as a friend. Doug's a warm and sincere and genuine person, persistent and determined when he needs to be, but also cooperative, collaborative, willing to share the limelight and eager to help others succeed. One measure of Doug's personal qualities and the loyalty friends feel to him is the longevity of his staff here. Doug's staff obviously believes in him, and they have served for impressive periods of time. Carol Lawrence has served for 26 years, plus 3 years when he was a State legislator. Robin Evans, 22 years; Jodi Detwiler, 18 years; Susan Olson, his chief of staff, 17 years, and we know Susan well from her NATO assembly work; Mike Ennis, 16 years; Alan Feyerherm, 15 years. That is remarkable. That is a remarkable display of not just staff longevity but staff loyalty, a kind of personal loyalty that Doug inspires. Mr. Speaker, Doug Bereuter has made a distinctive contribution to this House and to our country. We will miss him here, but we bid him and Louise farewell in the sure hope that we will have continuing opportunities to see them and to work with them. We know that Doug's talents will find a worthy outlet in the presidency of the Asia Foundation, and we wish him well in that important work.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to our colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for their conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill. Despite the inadequate allocation the committee had to start with, they were able to redirect much-needed resources to a number of law enforcement programs, to antigang initiatives, to scientific research, and to business programs. As I said when the Homeland Security appropriations bill came to the floor, I am concerned about how the cuts to the COPS program and the Byrne grants for local law enforcement will affect our first responders' ability to protect us from, and to respond to, terrorist attacks. But I commend my colleagues for the improvements they have made in the President's budget request. Today, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business to restore funding for the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program. With all due respect to my friends on the Committee on Appropriations, these are the two Members who spend the most time dealing with small business issues and have the best understanding of small business programs. The fact that the two of them have come together to offer this bipartisan amendment should be all the proof that most Members need that 7(a) does, in fact, need Federal funds to survive. But for those who are not willing to take their word for it, let us look at the facts. Small businesses are the number one job creators in this economy. 7(a) loans account for nearly 30 percent of all long-term loans for small businesses in America. This is a program that has returned an estimated $12 billion to the economy with only a $120 million investment. I cannot understand how anyone could say that 7(a) is not good business. The administration is apparently still clinging to their claim that 7(a) can continue entirely as a fee-based program. They say we could simply increase fees to make up the difference in funding. We could. But if we did so, any company hoping to take out a $150,000 7(a) loan would have to ante up something like $10,000 in fees just to get the loan. In private real estate markets that would be like a mortgage broker charging seven points just to process a mortgage application. Such a policy would kill 7(a). That is why the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) have decided to offer this amendment, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, this bill unfortunately shortchanges small business in yet another respect, zeroing out funding for the very successful microloan program. Microenterprises are the foundation of our economy, and although a microenterprise by definition has fewer than five employees, they account for something like 17 percent of our employment in this country. In the 12 years it has been in existence, the microloan program has resulted in 19,000 microloans responsible for the creation of more than 60,000 American jobs. In my district alone, this program has resulted in 223 loans totaling $1.26 million. That is a huge impact. Each of those loans represents a new business, a new American realizing his or her dream. The economic effects of each of these loans ripples and expands throughout the local, State, and ultimately, the national economy. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will offer an amendment later to restore most of the funding for the microloan program, and I urge my colleagues to support their amendment. Mr. Chairman, America's small businesses represent the dreams, the innovation, the drive that have made this country great. Especially as we struggle to replace the 1.2 million American jobs that have been lost in the last 3 years, we need to ensure that the programs best qualified to create jobs are given the resources that they need. The 7(a) program and the microloan program have proved themselves in creating jobs, building businesses, and expanding our economy. I urge my colleagues to give them the resources to continue.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Before I begin, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of the Legal Services Corporation. Legal Services funds 143 legal aid programs around the Nation to help poor Americans gain access to the judicial system. I appreciate the bipartisan full funding of the LSC program, and I hope we can work together in the neare future to remove some of the few remaining obstacles that are preventing this program from reaching its full potential. My primary concern is over the ``private money restriction'' in this bill that applies to any nonprofit legal services organization receiving LSC funding. This restriction precludes these nonprofits from using any of their private funds--including individual donations, foundation grants, and State and local government funds--for any non- LSC-qualified services. Non-LSC-qualified services include representing many categories of legal immigrants, including battered women and children; representing mothers in prison trying to maintain visitation and custody of their children; filing class actions to stop predatory lenders from preying on elderly homeowners; and educating people about their legal rights and then offering assistance in enforcing those rights. As a result of the private money restriction, most civil legal services providers are forced to stop providing non-LSC-qualified services altogether. Many of the most vulnerable individuals and families find themselves without access to legal services at all. LSC recognized that this was a problem, but their attempted ``fix'' of this problem--allowing organizations to use their own private funds for non-LSC-qualified services only if they create physically separate nonprofits with separate staff, offices, and equipment--is prohibitively expensive and will result in fewer families being served. There is a much simpler and more effective way to address the problem. Congress should require LSC grantees to abide by the same longstanding rules promulgated by OMB for nonprofit grantees of Federal agencies, by the IRS for all nonprofit 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, and by the Bush administration for faith-based groups. All of these rules authorize nonprofits receiving Federal funds to engage in various privately funded activities--like lobbying and praying--without requiring them to do so through physically separate entities with separate staff and equipment. I am hopeful that future conversations on LSC funding will consider similar rules so that we can remove the physical space requirement, which will make our LSC-funded providers much more effective. My colloquy focuses on the issue of concentrated media ownership which has concerned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Among the leaders in this fight is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who unfortunately could not join us on the floor here today. On June 2 of last year, the FCC voted to further relax the rules on media ownership in a move which many felt threatened the core democratic values of localism and diversity in the media. As troubling as these new ownership rules were, the process by which the FCC arrived at them was equally troubling. Despite its mandate to include the American public in its rulemaking procedures, the commission held just one public hearing as it wrote these new rules, and it did not release the rules for public comment until just before it voted on them. Our communities were given virtually no say in the type of programming they are subjected to by broadcast television and radio. Mr. Chairman, on June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia Circuit echoed the voice of the American people and many in Congress by reversing most of the FCC's media ownership rules. As a result, aside from the national media ownership cap that was adjusted by Congress last year, the rules in effect before the FCC's June 2, 2003, decision are again in place. As the commission begins the process of proposing any new rules, we must make sure that the process is as open and inclusive as possible. Specifically, I believe the FCC should, first, hold a series of public hearings across the country to collect and analyze the various perspectives raised by citizens. Secondly, allow sufficient time for public comment on the specifics of any proposed rules before the commission votes on them. And, thirdly, take into account any independent studies of the effect of media consolidation on the level of indecent programming on the public airwaves. I would ask my colleagues to comment on these expectations.