David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Republican pay-as-you- go proposal makes no fiscal sense. Leaving revenues out of the picture is like trying to fill a bucket with a gaping hole in it. It simply will not work. We did it right in 1990 when Congress and the President came together on a bipartisan basis and undertook a courageous effort to balance the Federal budget. Integral to this effort was a real pay-as-you-go rule that controlled both spending and tax cuts. The result was budget discipline that worked, and eventually the first budget surplus in decades. Deficits are not caused by discretionary spending alone or by entitlement spending alone or by revenue shortfalls alone. All three elements contribute. And it is folly to pretend that fiscal balance can be attained without addressing all three. Mr. Chairman, we could cut every last dime of domestic discretionary spending; we could eliminate funding for education, highways, health research, veterans health care, the environment and all the rest of the domestic discretionary budget and we would still run a deficit. Why? Because we have enacted trillions of dollars in tax cuts mainly benefiting our country's wealthiest people. And we have not paid for them. The President and this Congress have defied the budget rules. They have abandoned fiscal sanity. The result is deficits now approaching $500 billion a year. And far from correcting this folly, this Republican budget reform bill would actually codify it. This bill is a sham. I know it. My colleagues know it. The leadership of this Chamber knows it. And soon the American people will know it too. Vote ``no'' on the Republicans' leaky bucket; vote ``yes'' on the Spratt substitute.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for H. Con. Res. 460, a resolution regarding Israel's security and the principles of Middle East peace. I welcome this opportunity to explain my reasoning to my colleagues. The resolution, which was formulated with more than the usual bipartisan consultation, affirms the goal of Israeli and Palestinian states ``living side by side in peace and security.'' It acknowledges, as President Clinton did in the plan he offered at Taba, that the adjustment of boundaries must take into account the existence of Israeli population centers. But it makes clear that final boundaries would be subject to Israeli-Palestinian negotiation. Presumably this would leave open the consideration of land swaps and the contiguity of Palestinian territory, as did the Taba proposal. The resolution has some curious and unfortunate omissions. There is no specific reference to settlement evacuation, the focus of the plan by Prime Minister Sharon, for which the United States is offering support. There is no mention of the Road Map, our country's primary current diplomatic initiative, very much in need of invigoration. In a more positive omission, the resolution declines to endorse Israeli construction of a ``security'' fence. On balance, the resolution offers a timely endorsement of the proposed evacuation of all settlements in Gaza and some settlements in the West Bank. This proposal is under attack from the right wing of the Prime Minister's own party. It could be a first step toward returning to the path of negotiations envisioned in the Roadmap, and for that reason I intend to vote ``yes.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota for their conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill. The bill directs much-needed resources to transportation security, Customs, and border protection, and it funds the BioShield program that will play a vital role in our preparation for bioterrorist attacks. Given the very limited funds that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) were allocated, theirs was not an easy or enviable task, and I fear the final result does reflect the poor hand our subcommittee was dealt. During recent funding debates, we have often heard Republican leaders say that there are simply no funds available to provide what is needed. I suspect we will hear it again tonight. What we will not hear them say is that since 9/11 we have spent 22 times as much on tax cuts as we have on protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. That is 22 times as much, for tax cuts mainly aimed at the most privileged people in America. Look at the numbers. State formula grants, the bread and butter of first responder funding, have been cut by over 25 percent. Fire grants have been cut by 20 percent. Grants to our police and law enforcement have been hit hard, too. These programs were a critical source of funding for first responders long before 9/11. By cutting them, we are in effect deciding that our police and firefighters need less funding in the post-9/11 era, not more. Listen to how FEMA describes the bleakness of this situation: A new study shows that more than two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Not only are our first responders ill-equipped and understaffed to handle potential attacks, they are also struggling to respond to the everyday disasters of crime and accidents and fires and hurricanes and floods. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that this bill increases funding for the urban area security initiative. That is terrific news for a handful of big cities, and it does make sense, but first responders in rural and suburban areas and in smaller cities need support, too. Increases for this initiative are no match for the Draconian cuts in overall State grants. Mr. Chairman, the House leadership and the President have shown incredible willpower and resolve in ramming trillion dollar tax cuts through this Congress. Yet when it comes to protecting our homeland and supporting our first responders, they say their hands are tied. They claim to be tough on terror, but talk is cheap and, unfortunately, so are Congress and this administration when it comes to supporting our first responders.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from Tennessee would not yield for a question, but let me just say a couple of things. One is that no matter how heated this debate gets I will never call his comments drivel, and if my tongue happened to slip and I used that term, I assure him I would apologize. Secondly, I want to note that the gentleman's notion that the budget allocation, which is what I was talking about, the budget allocation given the Homeland Security subcommittee, is not related to revenue policy, is a noval concept. You do not have to have a whole lot of education to understand that the size of tax cuts determines how much money there is to allocate.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and to commend him and the chairman for the hard work they have done on this legislation. I fear, however, Mr. Chairman, that my brief contribution to this debate today must concern one of the bill's serious omissions. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I drafted a bipartisan amendment that would have addressed the fact that, because of loopholes in current law, contractors in Iraq are operating in a legal fog where they are not accountable to Iraqi laws, to U.S. laws, or to laws governing our troops. The contractors working in Iraq are not comfortable with this, and we should not be comfortable with it either. Our amendment would have fixed this problem by closing loopholes in the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, so that contractors and subcontractors in Iraq and elsewhere would be accountable under the law, and the Department of Defense would have a clear responsibility to place violators of the law before the appropriate bar of justice. Our amendment had the support of the contractors themselves. The Parliamentarian had ruled it germane. It had strong bipartisan support and would have almost certainly passed, and yet we were not allowed to present this amendment before this body today for a vote. Mr. Chairman, this issue is too important for this Congress to do nothing. The gentleman from Connecticut and I have just introduced our amendment as a stand-alone bill. We welcome the support of colleagues, and we hope that the House leadership will not pass up this second chance to do the right thing.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on S. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Price of North Carolina moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 95 be instructed to agree to the pay- as-you-go enforcement provisions within the scope of the conference regarding direct spending increases and tax cuts in the House and Senate. In complying with this instruction, such managers shall be instructed to recede to the Senate on the provisions contained in section 408 of the Senate concurrent resolution (relating to the pay-as-you-go point of order regarding all legislation increasing the deficit as a result of direct spending increases and tax cuts).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Vision Caucus, I rise to recognize May as Healthy Vision Month, and to discuss the importance of the recommendations of the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy to the prevention of blindness and vision loss. Good vision is critical to conducting activities of daily living, and it affects developmental learning, communication, work, health, and quality of life. Unfortunately, far too many people are at risk for losing their eyesight. More than 80 million Americans have a potentially blinding eye disease, 3 million have low vision, 1.1 million are legally blind, and an additional 200,000 are more severely visually impaired. Despite the fact that half of all blindness can be prevented, far too many people do not have access to the care they need. If current trends continue, the number of blind and visually impaired individuals will double by 2030. Healthy Vision Month, a component of Healthy People 2010, is a national eye health campaign to raise awareness about the various conditions that can affect eyesight and cause vision loss. Additionally, a coalition of leading eye health experts have just released the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy to provide our nation with a framework for preventing vision loss. This groundbreaking study recommends that, in order to reduce the occurrence of vision loss and its accompanying disabilities, we must concentrate our efforts on three priority areas: prevention; access to care and treatment; and research. Our public health and prevention campaign must ensure that vision programs at the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have the resources they need to improve communication and education campaigns, increase surveillance, support epidemiology and prevention research; and implement appropriate program and policy changes. In order to ensure access to and availability of treatment and rehabilitation services for individuals with vision loss, we must support programs at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that remove barriers and improve access to eye exams currently covered under Medicare, such as diabetic eye exams and glaucoma detection for high risk populations. We must also strengthen the Medicare program to advance coverage for vision rehabilitation services as provided by orientation and mobility specialists, rehabilitation teachers, and low- vision therapists. Finally, we must bolster our research efforts to improve our understanding of the eye and visual system in health and disease, and to develop the most effective means of prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. This report provides the roadmap we need to raise awareness about vision loss, give individuals the tools they need to prevent it, and give hope to the millions already suffering from vision loss that better treatments for can be found. As a co-chair of the Congressional Vision Caucus, I would like to thank all of the organizations involved in crafting this report, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, the CDC, Lighthouse International, the National Alliance For Eye and Vision Research, the NEI and most importantly, Prevent Blindness America. Prevent Blindness America should be commended for spearheading this effort, for bringing together this coalition of experts, and for its almost century-long dedication to preventing vision loss.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Clare Adkin, Jr., for being recognized as one of five finalists in the National Council on Economic Education (NCEE)/NASDAQ National Teaching Awards. These awards are presented to teachers in grades 6-12 for creative, original and effective efforts in applying economic content and reasoning skills to instruction on market economies, personal finance, financial markets, entrepreneurship, and the capital formation process. Since 1949, NCEE has developed and implemented programs that equip teachers to get economic and personal finance education into the classroom. The NASDAQ Stock Market Educational Foundation, whose goal is to expand understanding of capital formation and financial markets, sponsors the National Teaching Awards. Mr. Adkin was chosen for this honor because of the innovative teaching technique he developed to illustrate and explain various complex economic concepts such as opportunity cost, diminishing marginal utility, and rational ignorance. Using five-by-eight index cards, Mr. Adkin created ``Economic Concept Cards,'' which provide a definition or explanation of an economic concept as well as a narrative description or example and a sample question demonstrating the student's mastery of the concept. After developing the cards, students use them to prepare for tests, including the AP Economics exam, and many students keep the cards to use to study for college economics classes. At the Cary Academy, Mr. Adkin taught Advanced Principles of Economics, Basic Economics, Great Court Cases, and The Sixties: the Tumultuous Decade. He also served as chair of the Cary Academy History Department. In 2003, Mr. Adkin retired from teaching atter a 39-year career. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Adkin for this national achievement. It is a fitting recognition for someone who devoted nearly four decades to teaching, and who developed effective and engaging techniques for teaching students about economics.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, before our colleague from Florida leaves, I do want to make one note.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his good work on this critical issue. Like our friend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), I have been hearing a lot about this from constituents, from town meetings, from people who just understand that it is unthinkable that we should go through another national election with an outcome that is in doubt. And we have put some machinery in place to replace outmoded, inaccurate voting machines. So it would be ironic if some of that machinery turned out to have serious problems of its own. So I want to commend my colleague for understanding the gravity of this issue and introducing the bill H.R. 2239, which offers a very promising remedy. I am proud to be a cosponsor and join in this Special Order today to talk about this issue. The bill of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) would require all electronic voting machines, also known as direct record electronic voting systems, or DREs, would require all the DREs that are used in the upcoming election to produce some kind of verifiable paper trail. This bill would thus create a way for American voters to ensure that their votes are counted accurately. There are very few things that are more important, I think, to the workings of democracy. You have got to be able to assume the legitimacy of election outcomes. If we do not act quickly on this bill, I am afraid we may face the possibility of having two Presidential elections in a row where the outcomes are contested. Often we get so caught up in the debate about electronic voting machines that we forget that there are other reliable and verifiable options to these direct record electronic voting systems. Not all of them are particularly high-tech devices. This may be an area where at least for the present, high tech is not necessarily better. For example, in my district of North Carolina, we use what we call optical scanning systems. You take a piece of paper and take an magic marker and connect arrows on this ballot. You feed the ballot into the machine. The machine reads the vote instantly and produces an outcome at the end of the day instantly, but then there is this paper record if the outcome is contested. In case there is a malfunction, there is a paper record that could be consulted to back up the result. We may well have these more sophisticated, more complicated direct record electronic voting systems in our future. But the current counting mechanisms on many of these machines are not foolproof, as several elections in this past year have shown. I wonder if the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), I know he has studied this extensively, if he could elaborate on that a bit. What have been some of the problems that have been pointed out by the studies in terms of perhaps a potential for hacking, perhaps a potential for fraud, the potential for malfunctioning? Just what kinds of problems are we talking about?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. No matter whether we are talking about a malfunction intended by no one or something much more mischievous or fraudulent, a system like there where you have no way of checking, no back-up system, simply leads people to suspect the worst. And so it would appear to me that we would want to offer maximum assurance. As I said earlier, to move from these punch card systems which were so inaccurate and so problematic to move to high-tech electronic systems with all these bells and whistles which nonetheless have no basic capability to offer a back-up check, that would not seem to be the way we ought to be moving in election reform. Some of these low-tech alternatives might be better for the present.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What the gentlewoman from Florida said about this purging of supposed felons, these purges were exempted from protection under the National Voter Registration Act. So many districts purged, as I understand, their voting roll before the election without notifying the people who were purged.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. So the problem is that thousands of Floridians were purged who had no felony convictions. They were unjustly denied their right to vote. Just think about how frustrating and disillusioning it would be to show up at the polling station and be told you could not vote when you have nothing to compromise your eligibility. So I want to inform my colleagues that I will be introducing a bill next week that will deal specifically with this problem. And I appreciate my colleague underscoring this unsolved problem from the Florida debacle. My bill would ensure that no American is ever denied the right to vote in a future election because he or she is mistakenly labeled as having committed a felony. It would require States to send that notification that our colleague says was never sent, send that notification no later than 30 days prior to an election, informing people convicted of a felony that they have been removed from the voter list and explaining the reasons why. And then the person who is notified can respond. This would let them know about their rights to appeal the decision. It would require the State rule on the appeal. And if the appeal is still pending at the time of election, my bill would say they can cast a provisional ballot. That is legislation that I believe would fill a remaining problem from the Florida experience.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That is a larger issue. My bill would simply deal with these purges and the fact that there often have been mistaken purges. It would give people who were purged the chance to respond. I again want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and all the others today for being part of this. We need to take these next steps in election reform. We have gotten rid of the unregulated soft money, and we have made certain that candidates are going to have to stand up and take responsibility for the content of their ads. We have made some headway. But this legislation that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has introduced in addition to the bill I have just described I believe would take us several steps further to restoring faith in our democracy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. Primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases which affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States. Fortunately, 70 percent of PIDD patients are able to maintain their health through regular infusions of a plasma product known as intravenous immunoglobulin. IGIV helps bolster the immune system and provides critical protection against infection and disease. I am familiar with primary immune deficiencies because of the work that is being done in my district by Dr. Rebecca Hatcher Buckley. Dr. Buckley is Chief of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology at Duke University Medical Center, and she is the leading expert and pioneer in the diagnosis and treatment of Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) also known as ``bubble boy syndrome.'' Children diagnosed with SCID lack an immune system, which is essential to survival. Dr. Buckley has dedicated her life to helping to save the lives of babies born with SCID through early diagnosis and treatment. Although newborn screening exists for SCID, states do not include the test among their required screenings. Additionally, despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is over 9 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer repeated and serious infections and possibly irreversible damage to internal organs. That is why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses within the general public and the health care community. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation for its leadership in this area, and I am proud to join them in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, what would your nightmare budget look like? Can you a imagine a budget that would cut support for homeland security and small business development, that would do virtually nothing to improve one of the most sluggish economic recoveries in American history, that would break the Contract with America by raising the debt ceiling under cover of a budget resolution, that would balloon the debt and the deficit to previously unimagined dimensions, and that would do all of this less than 5 years before the first of the baby boom generation begins to retire? Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that nightmare is a reality; and this reality has been created by the President and the House Republican leadership. In the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, almost $10 trillion since President Bush took office, the Republican response has been to propose more and more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their motto is, just keep digging. There is no clearer example of this than the phony pay-as-you-go proposal in the Republican budget that requires offsets for entitlement spending but not for tax cuts. Yesterday, Democrats and moderate Republicans came together and voted to instruct the House-Senate budget conferees to institute a real pay- as-you-go proposal, akin to the one that brought us out of deficits and into surpluses in the 1990s. But, as has become standard operating procedure around the House lately, when the vote did not turn out the way the Republican leadership liked, they kept that vote open and began the arm-twisting; and after 28 minutes they had twisted enough arms to bring the vote to a tie and to defeat this effort at sound budget policy. So now we are left with a budget in conference that would provide the worst of both worlds. It sends us over the cliff fiscally while at the same time radically reducing funding for education, the environment, transportation, health care and law enforcement. Let me focus, Madam Speaker, for a moment on what may come as a surprise to many Americans who have listened to the Republican leadership and the President spend a lot of time talking about homeland security and the importance of our first responders. This budget shows that talking is about all they are willing to do for our first responders, our police, our fire departments, our medical personnel. The Republican budget makes significant cuts in Homeland Security and Department of Justice funding for first responders that results in an overall reduction in funding for our police of 33 percent, with a 50 percent reduction in funding for police in smaller cities and rural areas. They also cut funding for firefighters by one-third at a time when the Federal Emergency Management Agency is reporting that over two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. The Speaker yesterday concluded the debate on the budget resolution by saying the reason it was important to cut taxes for millionaires was because millionaires are the small business owners who are creating all the jobs in this country. Our friend, the gentleman from Ohio, just repeated that argument on this floor tonight. Some of those millionaires are small business owners, but again the Republican budget shows the true motivation of our friends on the other side of the aisle. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership have fought to zero out funding, in fact, for the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program that provides close to 30 percent of the long-term loans for small businesses; and they zero out countless other small business programs like Microloans and others geared toward minority businesses. If, as the Speaker implied, the reason for tax cuts for millionaires was really to help small businesses, why did it take an extended press and letter-writing campaign orchestrated by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, to get the Republican leadership to finally back off of some of these cuts in Small Business Administration funding? The answer, I am afraid, is obvious. The tax cuts were not meant to help small businesses or to spur the economy. They were meant to provide a windfall for the most fortunate among us. Governing is about getting our priorities straight and taking the public trust seriously. Through the Spratt alternative budget resolution, fiscally responsible Democrats have made our priorities clear: fund the programs America needs like education, health care, housing, homeland security and safety net programs, balance our budget by freezing scheduled tax reductions for those making over $500,000 a year, and target tax cuts in ways that benefit ordinary Americans and stimulate our economy. There is still time, Madam Speaker, for our colleagues to wake up and reject the Republican nightmare budget and to pass a budget that points to a brighter future. House-Senate conferees could start by adopting real pay-as-you-go rules. I urge them to gauge the House's true sentiment and do just that.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on the list.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Jeffrey Obler, longtime professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He lost his battle with pneumonia last Saturday at the age of 62. I, knew Jeff as a fellow educator and colleague, and several members of my staff who attended Carolina also knew him as a mentor, one with an extraordinary talent for teaching. It is at their request--and utilizing their thoughts, words, and memories--that I rise today in his honor. Dr. Obler started his path in education at New York University and earned his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin before landing at the UNC Department of Political Science. A teacher of international relations and political philosophy, he was a leading academic voice on campus and an outstanding citizen in the greater community. For more than 25 years of his life, Dr. Obler served the university with distinction, touching the lives of countless students and leaving an indelible mark on the community. Dr. Obler's work, which focused on the link between moral theory and public policy, has been published in many prestigious academic journals, including Political Theory, Comparative Politics, and the British Journal of Political Science. He received numerous awards and distinctions during his tenure at UNC, including two Tanner Teaching Awards and a Students' Undergraduate Teaching Award. Yet Dr. Obler's most meaningful legacy was built through his unparalleled dedication to teaching. In the classroom, Dr. Obler displayed an intellectual curiosity that never waned, inspiring his students to join him in the pursuit of knowledge with a style of teaching that was more engaging conversation than lecture. He could explain complex moral and political arguments with depth and conviction, while always encouraging students to arrive at their own conclusions and beliefs. This accessible style made Obler a favorite among undergraduates, who regularly lined up outside his door during office hours to seek his mentorship on issues large and small. His abilities also won him great respect among his peers in the UNC faculty, many of whom have described him as the best classroom professor in the department. This respect was so great that Dr. Obler was selected from among the entire political science faculty to lead a course about teaching methods for graduate students. He also served the department as Director of Undergraduate Studies and Director of Internships and Awards. Dr. Obler is survived by his two children, a long-time companion, and students like my staffers who will forever treasure the lessons he has taught them. His legacy is one that will be treasured for generations.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues on the Small Business Committee for their bipartisan effort, which allowed this bill to be voted on just in the nick of time. I would like to especially congratulate Congresswoman Velazquez, who has worked tirelessly to bring about this victory for small business. H.R. 4062 restores the 7(a) program to its former strength by lifting the caps on 7(a) loans. It also takes the important step of removing regulatory limitations that had prevented SBA loans from being a part of larger financing packages. 7(a) loans account for nearly 30 percent of all long-term loans for small businesses in America, businesses that are the number one job creators in this country. So it is essential that we get this program back up and running again. This bill would do that, and it would also extend the important 504 loan program and SBIC programs through the end of this year. The next step is to make sure that these authorized programs in SBA are fully funded. The President's budget provided zero funding for 7(a) and a number of other important SBA programs. Furthermore, it is important that we put safeguards in place to prevent last-minute shutdowns like those we experienced this past January. I am working with my colleagues to restore 7(a) funds and to ensure that in the future there are not caps or program shutdowns that deny small businesses access to critically needed resources. This is the vital next step to the authorization we are passing today, and I urge my colleagues to make certain that we provide the resources to make good on the commitment this bill makes to small businesses.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this chart tells an important story about pay-as-you-go rules, about the importance of the real pay-as-you-go rule that was adopted as part of the bipartisan budget agreement in 1990 and the folly, as our budget goes back into deep deficits, of adopting a phony pay-as-you-go rule going forward. Members who were here in the 1980s remember the well-intentioned, but ineffectual, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedures, where there was rampant gaming of the budget process, all kinds of rosy scenarios that ultimately failed to mask rising deficits. Finally, in 1990, the first President Bush--who, unlike the present President Bush, understood the first rule of holes, which is if you are in one, stop digging--the first President Bush joined with the then- Democratic congressional leadership to conclude a courageous 1990 budget agreement which put the pay-as-you-go rule in effect. That proved to be very hard to game. It proved to be effective, along with the statutory caps on discretionary spending. And so, along with the 1993 Clinton budget plan passed with Democratic votes alone, the two budget plans, 1990 and 1993, with tough pay-as-you-go rules, produced the reduced deficits throughout the 1990s and actually took us into surpluses, now only a fond memory, surpluses that enabled us to pay off almost $500 billion of the national debt. In 1997, we concluded another bipartisan budget agreement. Our friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, was one of 219 Republicans who voted for the renewal of the 1990 pay-as-you-go rule, a real pay-as-you-go rule, the one that they now disparage. We are now going back into deep deficits. What an inopportune time, not only to let the pay-as-you-go rule expire, which our friends on the other side of the aisle did a couple of years ago, but now to propose a defective rule that has no promise for getting ahold of this situation! It is like trying to fill a bucket with water when there is a hole in that bucket. We can simply not balance the budget with constraint on the entitlement side alone. Our friend Mr. Nussle has talked about the revenues that are going to be coming in future years. What he did not mentioned was the revenue picture from 2000 to the present, where we have each year had reduced revenues coming in, the price of tax cuts that were not paid for. So we need a real pay-as-you-go rule that follows the formula that worked so well in the 1990s. The Republican proposal is a sham, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. There have been a lot of numbers used in this debate, thrown around with great abandon. I must give my Republican colleagues credit. They have used numbers and rhetoric very cleverly over these last 2 days, but I would urge my fellow Americans watching this debate to pay very, very close attention to the way the numbers are actually being used and also to what is not being said. For example, Democrats talked for 20 minutes yesterday about how the Republican budget seriously underfunds our first responders. The Republicans responded by saying our numbers were all wrong because their budget increased funding for homeland security. Then they listed numbers showing increases in transportation and border protection as examples. Yet they were strangely silent about funding for police departments, for firefighters, for other first responders, which was actually what we were discussing; and they were silent for the understandable reason that their budget gives these first responders far less support than they had before 9/11! We have criticized the Republican budget for creating a spiraling deficit as their spending plans and their tax cuts kick in over the next 10 years. They say we are confused because the Republican plan is going to cut the deficit in half over the next 4 or 5 years. That, in itself, is debatable, but I promise my colleagues that they will hear no Republican talk about the effect of their budget on the deficit over the next 10 years, as their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extra spending kick in, because the result is deficits in the $500 billion range, as far as the eye can see. We have talked about how the Democratic substitute does not merely reduce the deficit, but actually eliminates the deficit within 10 years, while redirecting more resources toward areas Americans care about, like education, veterans' benefits, first responders, housing and safety net programs. Our Republican friends say, Aha, you do this by raising taxes on Americans. Well, we do understand that there is no free lunch, and we want to reinstate the real pay-as-you-go rule that served us so well through the 1990s. But rather than raise taxes, we are talking about merely freezing scheduled reductions for those making over $500,000 a year and also closing some egregious corporate loopholes. It is true that the tax cuts for millionaires in our plan are less than the tax cuts for millionaires in theirs. But I doubt we will hear our Republican friends putting it quite that way. So, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pay very, very close attention to what numbers are being used by each side and to what is not being said. Budgets are, after all, about priorities, and the Democratic priorities are clear. Fund the programs America needs, balance the budget, and target tax cuts in ways that stimulate the economy and do not merely enrich the most fortunate among us.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this budget represents the worst of both worlds. It sends our national debt spiraling out of control, yet, in the process, it provides very little stimulus for an economy that is still struggling to create jobs, and it cuts services for those most in need of government support and for those charged with keeping our Nation safe. That is what I want to concentrate in the few minutes I have here, the Republican budget's significant underfunding for our Nation's first responders. The administration's homeland security budget cuts the State Homeland Security Grant program by almost 60 percent. It does increase the Urban Area Security Initiative, but overall there is a $150 million reduction in funding. Moreover, there is a shift in funding toward some higher- risk urban areas at the expense of smaller cities and more rural areas. Then, if you go over to the Department of Justice budget, you see the problem is compounded. The COPS program that has furnished support for personnel and equipment for our local police departments is cut 87 percent. The Byrne Grant program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program are both zeroed out in the President's budget and are replaced with a Justice Assistance program, but at a net cut of 40 percent. So when you combine all of this, the homeland security cuts and the Justice Department cuts, the administration is proposing a 33 percent decrease in homeland security-related funding for local police overall, and if you are looking at small- and medium-sized cities, the cuts are more like 50 percent. But the attack on first responders does not stop there. The President's budget reduces funding for FIRE Act grants by one-third, $250 million. It provides no funding at all for the SAFER program that was enacted by Congress last year to help our chronically understaffed fire departments. A recent FEMA study showed that over two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate at staffing levels that do not meet the minimums required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Our fire departments are understaffed, and underequipped, and this budget actually compounds that problem too. There is a dangerous trend at the Homeland Security Department to move funds that had been used for an all-hazards approach toward a terrorism-only approach. Of course, we need to do new things to prepare for terrorist threats, but we also need to make certain that we are not doing worse than we did before in terms of the support we offer to our police, fire and other first responder agencies. The 9/11 attacks reminded us that our first responders are hometown heroes. The President and the Republican leaders are giving them lip service, but they are asking that our first responders actually do more and more with less than they had before 9/11. That is hypocritical, and it is dangerous: one of many good reasons to reject this Republican budget.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a couple from my district, Larry and Jean Elliott, whose lives tragically ended in Iraq this week. In life and death, the Elliotts saw service as God's calling. Missionaries for the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, they intermittently stayed at the mission house of First Baptist Church in Cary when they were in North Carolina. Long stationed in Honduras, they were watching CNN one day when they saw a broadcast of an Iraqi man pulling dirty water from a hang-dug well. It was a scene that struck a chord with Larry. In Honduras, he and Jean had spent years building schools, developing water purification systems to provide fresh water to rural residents, coordinating visits by medical and dental teams from the U.S., and translating for other relief workers. They knew the importance of taking care of basic human needs as a ministry of compassion and sacrifice. Larry and Jean were not deterred by the dangers of Iraq, and they went without hesitation. A friend said their courage stemmed from a sense of peace and a belief that their destiny was in God's hands. They were scouting the best location for their water purification project when they became casualties of the war: they were killed in a drive-by shooting in Mosul on March 15. It happened just two weeks before they were scheduled to return home. Mr. Speaker, family and friends say Larry and Jean were totally dedicated to missionary work. They served without question--not for glory or recognition, but simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. They were the embodiment of the spirit of Christianity, and we are honored to claim them as North Carolina's own. Three children, Gina, Scott and Todd, survive the couple, and their many friends and admirers grieve for them at First Baptist. The Elliotts' deaths leave a tremendous void, but they also inspire the rest of us to work harder and to practice our faith in ways that honor their service. We thank God for the joy Larry and Jean Elliott found in their faith and honor all the candles they lit in lives around the world.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I join the authors of this resolution in commending the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of oppression and in praising the valiant service of the United States and coalition forces in Iraq. We are as proud as we could possibly be of our troops, their sacrifice and their service. But to put forth this partisan resolution in this way is both an affront to our troops and a disservice to our country, sowing division where there should be unity. This resolution is not necessarily objectionable because of what it says, but because of what it omits. There is no reference, for example, to the mid-course correction that is called for in terms of financial accountability, contracting practices, securing international cooperation, and repairing our relationship with long-standing allies whose support is integral to our ultimate success. The minority has been denied the opportunity to improve this bill, to give our troops the body armor they need, for example, to achieve pay equity for National Guard and Reserve personnel, to provide much needed health care and benefits for our wounded servicemen and -women, and to offer condolences to the families of those killed in Iraq. This resolution rightly affirms our support for the Iraqi people as they adopt an interim constitution that upholds the values of open debate and democracy. How ironic that this very bill is structured to shut down discussion and debate. The rule rammed through by the majority is not only a closed rule, making it impossible to offer a Democratic substitute, but it also eliminates the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. That takes to a new level the procedural abuses that have become almost routine in this House. At stake is the manner in which we, as members of the House, are permitted to express our encouragement. We can support our troops serving in Iraq, yet still debate how to extend support to them and their families and to hasten the day when they can return. We can support the Iraqi people, yet still debate how best to ensure the development of a stable, democratic form of governance. To debate such issues does not reflect a lack of patriotism. To the contrary, it's a celebration of it. We should be proud, Mr. Speaker, of the progress we have made in Iraq. At the same time we should address the deficiencies in our prewar intelligence and our post-war occupation plan. No one disputes that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein gone, but we are doing our troops and the American people a grave disservice if we perpetuate the illusion that they are somehow ``safe'' or that our mission in Iraq is accomplished. Many difficult tasks still lie ahead, and glossing over the serious questions that remain unaddressed by this administration jeopardizes our mission to secure and stabilize Iraq. I urge the Republican leadership to honor the collaborative and unifying approach that we are urging on the people of Iraq. This body should support our troops and lead by example, and this resolution falls short on both counts.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, but it is only a partial step in the battle to clean up our airwaves. By increasing fines for broadcasters, we are addressing only a symptom of the problem, not the cause. We cannot ignore the correlation between indecency on our airwaves and the increased concentration of media ownership. It is not a perfect correlation, but it is a strong one. In recognition of that, our colleagues in the other body have improved this bill in several ways. I wish our colleagues in this Chamber had followed suit. First, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I pushed for an amendment, not made in order, unfortunately, which would have addressed the true effects of media consolidation before moving forward with the FCC's newly relaxed rules. This amendment, introduced by Senator Dorgan and adopted in committee, calls for a GAO study, and it stays the new rules pending the completion of that study. I wish the leadership in this Chamber had allowed us to offer the same. Secondly, the Senate Commerce Committee also adopted an amendment, sponsored by Senator Hollings, which would take steps to ensure that parents can use V-chips to block violent programming. The bill would require either that programs be rated for content, so that they may be filtered with the V-chip, or that a ``safe harbor'' family hour be created so that violent programming is simply not televised when children are likely to be watching. My colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and I have introduced a companion bill in this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, at the root of all these efforts is the undeniable fact that we are losing control of our airwaves. I hear from constituents all the time saying, ``Where are the standards? How can I shield my children from inappropriate programming? And why are the people who put this on the air not held accountable?'' They are right. Our communities virtually have no say in the quality of the programming they are subjected to on broadcast television. And the network executives in L.A. or New York do not seem to feel they owe them anything. As big media conglomerates get bigger, they are sinking to new lows. We are witnessing a race to the bottom as these networks seek to expand their influence through shock value instead of quality programming. The Super Bowl was only one example, Mr. Chairman. CBS may blame MTV for its infamous half-time spectacle, but the common denominator for both networks is their owner, Viacom. And the ``wardrobe malfunctions,'' or whatever you want to call these episodes, will not stop there. If we are serious about cleaning up our airwaves, we need to do what the American people are demanding: Give them back their local media. And we need to do much more than impose fines on the broadcasters that, even if they are increased, are hardly going to make these corporations bat an eye.