David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James Wesley ``Willie'' York. Mr. York was a builder, developer, realtor and philanthropist whose creativity and generosity have shaped Raleigh and the State of North Carolina in ways we will appreciate and honor for years to come. He died in Raleigh on March 2, at the age of 91, after an outstanding career that spanned the 20th century. Long before shopping malls and urban planning became the norm in America, Mr. York took the bold step of developing land that combined multifamily housing and shopping facilities in a community setting. When it opened in 1949, Raleigh's Cameron Village was the first shopping center in the Southeast, and it has flourished through multiple changes in the years since. From that visionary development, Mr. York completed numerous other construction projects that have become landmarks in Raleigh. They include York Industrial Park, the Raleigh Farmers' Market, the Velvet Cloak Inn, Mission Valley Inn and Shopping Center, and Northgate Shopping Center in Durham. Mr. York was also a public servant and made numerous contributions in this arena to enhance the public good. As a member of the Raleigh School Board, he became a leader in the peaceful desegregation of the school system. J. W. York Elementary School was named for him in 1965 in recognition of his efforts. From 1976 to 1985, Mr. York brought visionary leadership to the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority to ensure that it would continue to meet the demands of a growing region. By organizing major bond campaigns, he raised over $163 million to finance construction of a major runway, additional terminals, and ground transportation. A 1933 graduate of North Carolina State University, Mr. York was also a life-long Wolfpack fan and devoted supporter of that institution. His leadership and generous contributions shaped development of the campus and gave life to the J. C. Raulston Arboretum. Mr. York is survived by seven children, 13 grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of his son Smedes, who has continued his father's development and philanthropic work. Smedes' tenure as mayor of Raleigh from 1979-83 was a progressive era for our capital city, and he has been a respected voice in many projects before and since. The Fourth Congressional District and all of North Carolina are more livable places because of Mr. York's vision and gutsy determination to enhance the character of our infrastructure and the life of our communities. His legacy is much more than the bricks and mortar of his buildings; they are visible symbols of his strength and imagination. They will continue to be welcome reminders of his leadership in the years ahead.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of North Carolina's most beloved leaders, former State Senator John Winters, who died on February 15. John was one of North Carolina's towering business and political leaders of the Twentieth Century. John was a member of the Raleigh City Council beginning in 1961, went to the N.C. General Assembly in 1974 as one of two African American state senators elected since Reconstruction, and served from 1977-1983 on the N.C. Utilities Commission. John had a dignity about him, and a tenacity as well, that infused every job he held. He began as an amateur boxer in New York City and later worked as a milkman and skycap in the 1950s. He opened John W. Winters & Co. in 1957 and built new homes or apartments almost every year afterwards. His developments included Biltmore Hills, where he named streets after famous African-Americans, Madonna Acres, Wintershaven, and several small shopping centers. John understood that homeownership was an important way for people to build economic independence and a stake in their community, and he made it available to hundreds of families. He practiced his craft of bringing people together during the most turbulent of civil rights times by being respectful, confident, compassionate, and wise in the ways of political and business leadership. As we go forward from February's Black History Month celebrations, it is appropriate that we remember this African-American pioneer now and throughout the years as a model of kindness and practical assistance to those who sought a step up. He completely understood how to ``walk with kings and princes but not lose the common touch.'' I personally benefited from his counsel and encouragement and appreciate the trail he blazed for all seeking social justice and expanded opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record ``The Lion in Winters,'' an editorial from the Raleigh News & Observer extolling John Winters' personal qualities and numerous civic contributions. John Winters had a gentle smile, but he was tenacious at everything he did, and possessed of the grit and courage to back it up. It helped, because during the era in which Winters came along, an ambitious black man faced many obstacles constructed of the stern stuff of prejudice. Winters, a former Raleigh City Council member and one of the first black state senators elected since Reconstruction, died Sunday at the age of 84. What a marvelous life he led, and what a gutsy one. Winters used savings from his days as a milkman and skycap to build a successful development business with a multitude of projects, many of them in southeast Raleigh. Federal and state initiatives would help make home ownership possible for people of average means, but in this area Winters had an important role in offering people a chance at that dream. All the while, he was working as a City Council member to advance civil rights and make Raleigh's transition into an integrated community a peaceful one. Winters was a forceful advocate for his beliefs in equality and opportunity, and in the North Carolina of the 1960s that wasn't an easy thing to be. Thankfully, he lived long enough to see many of his dreams realized. Former Gov. Jim Hunt called Winters a ``bridge-builder,'' and that's a good description. That Winters was a skilled business leader helped with the bridges, and gave him a chance also to help others who aspired to follow him into a business community where opportunities for minorities were few in that era. John Winters made his mark. His hometown of Raleigh will wear it proudly, forever.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, my colleagues Doug Bereuter, David Dreier, Martin Frost and I introduced H. Res. 543, a resolution establishing a House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments. This resolution would provide for the establishment of a commission in the House of Representatives to assist parliaments in emerging democracies. The legislative branches of governments of emerging democracies are largely comprised of new legislators who face the challenges of creating new democratic systems without the benefit of previous legislative experience. The legislatures of these fledgling democracies often lack the training, equipment, and resources they need to carry out their work effectively. For democracies to mature and to withstand cyclical turnover in government, strong government institutions--particularly national legislatures with appropriate infrastructure--are critical. From 1990 through 1996, the House of Representatives, through a task force ably led by our colleagues Martin Frost and the late Gerald Solomon, provided equipment, technical assistance, orientation, and training to new parliaments in Central and Eastern European countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia in an effort to develop and strengthen those institutions. The program was designed to improve the efficiency of parliaments and the professionalism of its members and staff, as well as to increase transparency and accountability. The ``Frost-Solomon Task Force'' not only served the United States foreign policy goal of helping to establish democratic institutions in other countries, but also developed significant goodwill in the countries in which it was implemented. As one who participated in the Task Force, I found our work immensely rewarding and was struck by the ways the parliamentary leaders we worked with looked to the U.S. Congress for inspiration. Since its founding, the United States has championed the development of democracy around the world. This goal continues to be in the national interests of the United States. The House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments would help emerging parliaments function effectively and responsively, and would enable this body to champion democracy and representative government in a tangible way. I invite my colleagues to join us in carrying on the work begun by the Frost-Solomon Task Force by cosponsoring the House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments Resolution, H. Res. 543.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of one of North Carolina's most respected law enforcement officers, a man whom I am proud to have called a friend. Deputy Mark Reid Tucker served our community as both a Wake County Sheriff's Deputy and a U.S. Marshal for eastern North Carolina. No matter the rank, law enforcement was a job he loved--and a job he did exceedingly well. He was killed in the line of duty earlier this month at 49 years of age. Always equipped with a strong sense of right and wrong, Mark thought of law enforcement as a calling. It was a job that suited him perfectly. Mark joined Wake County's Sheriff's Department in 1976. I first knew him as the president of the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, and he has championed the interests of rank and file law enforcement officers from that position since 1988. After serving with the Sheriff's Department for some 20 years, Mark's lifelong interest in politics spurred him to pursue a federal marshal appointment in the Clinton administration. It was a long, hard battle, but Mark showed characteristic stamina as the process dragged out for several years. When his nomination appeared indefinitely stalled because of partisan battles over Presidential appointments, President Clinton decided to use a rarely invoked recess appointment privilege, and Mark went on to be confirmed to a full term as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 24, 2000. There is no federal appointment that has given me more satisfaction, both because we worked on it so long and because Mark served with such dedication and distinction. Mark was thrilled to be a part of the U.S. Marshals Service. He took security very seriously, working with local judges, Federal agencies, and my office to ensure that the courthouse was brought up to the standards for Federal judicial facilities. He also recognized that he had a responsibility to maintain good relations with the community. Taking on the role of an unofficial goodwill ambassador for the Marshals Service, Mark usually carried a deputy's badge in his pocket that he could award to a smiling child or interested citizen. When President Clinton left office, Mark returned to the beat in Wake County, going back to his roots and to the people who had long relied on his commitment to the job. Mark was only the fourth officer to be killed in the line of duty in the Wake County Sheriff's Office's 71-year history, and the overwhelming response of his fellow officers makes clear how acutely they felt his loss. An entire community of law enforcement officers-- from the DEA to the Marshals Service to local deputies--came together to find the person responsible, making an arrest within 48 hours. They said it was the least they could do for the deputy they described as ``well-respected,'' ``dedicated,'' and ``a gentlemen, as well as a friend.'' Close to 1,500 people from law enforcement across the State attended his memorial service. Mark leaves behind his loving parents, Dallas and Virginia Tucker, his wife Patricia, and sons Chad and Matthew. This tragedy has thrust the whole family into the media spotlight, and Patricia in particular has spoken of her husband and the circumstances surrounding his death with courage, compassion, and dignity. Mark Tucker perfectly exemplified the dedication of our law enforcement community, and his death is a reminder of the risks these officers take for us every single day. But Mark was one of a kind, a unique combination--a cop's cop, a skilled political leader, an active and engaged citizen, a solid family man, a magnetic personality. His death is a great loss for the community, and we will miss him terribly. May we find comfort in the outpouring of affection and respect and gratitude that his memory has brought forth.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to inform my colleagues that last Friday, the American Association of School Administrators selected Wake County Superintendent Bill McNeal as the 2004 National School Superintendent of the Year. Bill has a career of service to Wake County that dates back to 1974, when he arrived to teach middle school social studies. He rose through the ranks to serve as an Assistant Principal, Principal, Assistant Superintendent and Associate Superintendent. He is a graduate of Merrick Moore High School in Durham, North Carolina and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from North Carolina Central University. Bill is the definition of a homegrown leader, and I couldn't be more pleased that his outstanding commitment to education has been recognized on the national level. As Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services, Bill played a key role in developing Goal 2003, Wake County's groundbreaking effort to take elementary education to a new level. Adopted by the Wake County Board of Education in 1998, Goal 2003 aimed to have 95 percent of the county's third and eighth graders performing at or above grade level in 5 years. Upon assuming the position of superintendent in 2000, it was Bill's challenge to implement strategies for achieving this goal. The tremendous academic improvement which has been achieved as a result is a testament to Bill's leadership and to the power of pursuing a common endeavor on behalf of our children. Today the Wake County Public School System serves more than 104,000 students from kindergarten through 12th grade in 79 elementary schools, 25 middle schools, 16 high schools, and 5 special/alternative schools. It is North Carolina's fastest growing, highest-performing large urban school district. With a record-high average score of 1067 on the SATs, a low dropout rate, end-of-grade test scores higher than the state average for every ethnic group and income level, and continued academic growth among struggling and advanced students alike, it's evident that Bill's emphasis on academic excellence for all children has had a tremendous impact. As a former teacher himself, Bill has worked hard to make sure that the views of educators are valued and utilized in the school system's planning efforts. He has convened the Superintendent's Teacher Advisory Council to provide him ongoing feedback about teacher and classroom issues. In addition, he recognizes that the success of schools depends on teachers accepting increasingly complex roles and leadership responsibilities. The challenge is to create the conditions necessary for success and to structure the work of teaching to make it more attractive and rewarding. Mr. Speaker, as I join in recognizing Bill McNeal for this tremendous honor, I also want to thank him for his service to the schools of North Carolina's 4th District. Just this week, Forbes Magazine named the school system he leads third in the nation on its Top Ten List for the Best Education in the Biggest Cities. I know that Bill's outstanding efforts in Wake County will continue to serve as a model for others across the country.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the contributions of one of North Carolina's most tenacious and visionary leaders: Tom Howe. Many North Carolinians might not recognize Tom's name, but they surely have seen his work. Tom is the Director and General Manager of UNC-TV, our state's highly respected public television network. Last month, he received the Governors' Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Nashville/Midsouth Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This prestigious Emmy award is given annually to recognize an ``outstanding industry leader,'' a designation that fits Tom perfectly. For more than a decade, Tom has presided over our state's 11-station public television network, bringing us comprehensive coverage of public affairs and a deepened understanding of North Carolina's past, present, and future. I have had the privilege of working with Tom in the policy arena. He fought a courageous and somewhat lonely battle for years for equitable treatment for UNC-TV and other systems similarly situated from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System. The successful resolution of this matter is still yielding benefits and will for years to come. More recently, Tom has spoken out effectively on the preservation of localism and community standards on our airwaves in the context of the Federal Communications Commission's decision on media concentration. Tom has been ahead of the curve in television's digital conversion, anticipating industry trends and leading the way in innovative technology. Not only has he beaten the FCC deadline for digital conversion, he has also brought 4-channel multicasting to UNC-TV, ensuring even greater coverage and enhanced educational opportunities for viewers. His dedication and persistence have ensured that UNC-TV continues to be an exemplary network, both in terms of the technology he utilizes and the programs he broadcasts. Tom Howe knows television, and he uses the power of the medium to effect positive change: to inform, to educate, and to bring viewers the kind of meaningful programming that is increasingly hard to find. I congratulate him for this well-deserved award, and I thank him for his commitment and leadership.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we began this effort years ago with a relatively simple concept: let us add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, giving help to the countless older Americans who so desperately need it. But this bill has ended up doing the very thing seniors do not want us to do--to privatize their coverage. Little do they know that the so-called prescription drug benefit will operate nothing like their other Medicare benefits. An enormous sticker shock awaits them. If a senior needs $5,000 worth of medication, he or she will have to pay $4,000 in order to get it. If drug costs are $3,500, he or she will pay $2,500. This bill has a gaping so-called doughnut hole where any drug costs that fall between $2,250 and $5,100 are not covered at all. Do you think that is what our constituents have in mind when they think of prescription drug coverage? But this spotty coverage is not the worst of it. An even more unpleasant surprise awaits. This bill forces Medicare beneficiaries to get drug coverage through private companies or an HMO. Our Republican friends would apparently rather do anything than strengthen basic Medicare, so they have devised a convoluted scheme to throw enough money at private companies to induce them to offer drug- only policies, policies which these same companies say make no sense in terms of insurance principles. The Senate bill offered a fallback plan to provide Medicare coverage if these private plans did not materialize, but that fallback has been fatally weakened in the bill before us. We have heard a lot about choice tonight, but the only real choice most seniors will have under this bill is whether they obtain their prescription drug coverage through a private drug plan or an HMO, and whether they would rather have medications they can afford or a doctor of their own choosing. Under this plan they cannot have both. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a betrayal of our seniors. This is not an improvement, an expansion of Medicare. It is just the opposite. We should defeat this bill and go back to the drawing board immediately.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the week of October 20-25th has been designated as World Population Awareness Week with the theme of ``Water: Our Most Precious Natural Resource.'' Over the next 20 years, the world's population of 6.3 billion is projected to increase to nearly 9 billion before leveling off. Since the entire population depends on 1 percent of the earth's water, many fear a future where water scarcity will undermine health and security and lead to political and social unrest. Acting on the global consensus that water scarcity must be a top development priority, the Population Institute has decided to dedicate the nineteenth World Population Awareness Week to the issue of water. More than 80 nations, 165 organizations, 127 mayors, and 22 governors have proclaimed World Population Awareness Week. Governor Michael Easley of North Carolina is among those doing so, and I am pleased to call that proclamation to my colleagues' attention.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces a tremendous challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, with troops in the field and the threat looming of a reversion to tyranny or chaos. Because we cannot walk away from the need to sustain our troops and to stabilize these countries, I voted to report this bill from the Committee on Appropriations. But the Bush administration's Iraq policy has been marred by appalling failures of planning and execution and something close to a diplomatic meltdown with long-time allies. We must correct this course. The first step that this House must demand is an accounting of funds thus far expended, a more detailed justification for the present request, and an honest estimate of costs yet to come. I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations improved the President's request in significant ways, providing critical new equipment for troops, including body armor and communications equipment, and eliminating funding for questionable and overpriced projects such as prison construction. The committee adopted additional provisions offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that would require the administration to provide detailed justification to Congress on the use of appropriated funds in Iraq and Afghanistan; would require an analysis of the impact of military operations on our troops and overall military readiness; and would mandate open and competitive bidding for rebuilding contracts. Despite these improvements, much still needs to be done. The administration must explain to Congress and American taxpayers how the $87 billion, every penny of it borrowed, is to be paid for. It is neither fair nor fiscally prudent to leave in place, much less to extend, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, cuts that have helped produce unprecedented annual deficits and that mock the very idea of shared sacrifice. We also need to secure greater international cooperation in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. These ideas were incorporated in amendments offered in committee and defeated along party lines, but we must and we will press them further during floor debate. Success in Iraq and the means by which we achieve it are fundamental to the United States' overall foreign policy strategy. This effort affects our relations with nearly every nation around the world, and should, therefore, not be divorced from those charged with developing and maintaining these relationships, the Department of State. While the Department of Defense adeptly demonstrated its prowess in securing a military victory in Iraq, it is not designed for the art of nation- building nor is it sensitive to the requirements of diplomacy around the world. For this reason I plan to introduce legislation along with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Coordinator within the Department of State. It is now time to place experts in diplomacy and nation-building in charge of the reconstruction, and to allow the military to operate within its area of strength: security. This will help the United States build a true multi-national coalition to support reconstruction, and bring our efforts in Iraq in line with other foreign policy objectives. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, so that our Nation can move beyond the quagmire that confronts us. Mr. Chairman, there is too much at stake to turn away from Iraq before the job is done. But there is also too much at stake to continue along the same self-defeating course. Congress must reassert itself as a coordinate branch of government, calling this administration to account and getting our policy in Iraq and the entire Middle East on a more positive and promising course.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States--affecting an estimated 62 million Americans. It is increasingly evident that we must become more vigilant in preventing and treating this serious illness. I am pleased today to share with my colleagues a nationwide quality improvement initiative that is headed by researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute in my district and involves leading cardiologists from around the country, including another prominent research institution in my district, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress ADverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) is studying cardiovascular care in hospitals around the nation and adherence to the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) acute coronary syndrome guidelines. These treatment guidelines help doctors who evaluate and treat patients arriving in emergency departments with serious heart conditions, known as unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (heart attack), and those undergoing procedures to clear clogged arteries. The CRUSADE program has found that many doctors and hospitals are not following the ACC/AHA treatment guidelines and reports significant under-use of other recommended therapies that can improve patient outcomes. CRUSADE has determined that heart patients are faring significantly better at hospitals that follow the guidelines. As Dr. Eric Peterson, the principal investigator for the CRUSADE initiative states, ``Our mission is to not only document non-adherence but to actually change the behavior of healthcare professionals and help patients.'' Historically, national efforts to prevent heart attacks have focused on the 600,000 acute myocardial infarction patients--and over time these initiatives have made a tremendous impact in decreasing mortality rates for patients around the country. I would like to urge the agencies at Department of Health and Human Services that are responsible for research, quality, and hospital-based initiatives to expand our cardiovascular programs to include the early heart attack population that the CRUSADE program seeks to assist. There are approximately 1.4 million patients in the U.S. in this category, and they are at higher risk for death than the smaller number of patients who are treated aggressively and tracked by our current federal programs. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that researchers at Duke University and UNC- Chapel Hill have undertaken this important fight to save more lives from heart disease, and I congratulate the cardiologists and emergency medicine physicians across the country who are participating in this important program.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Syria Accountability Act today, but I will do so with some serious reservations. Permit me to take a moment to explain. I will vote for the bill because I deplore the terrorist attacks inflicted on Israel and understand that a strong signal must be sent to the Syrian Government that it must aggressively confront and fight terror and terrorist organizations. It must close terrorist offices, expel terrorist leaders, close terrorist supply lines, and get out of Lebanon. This resolution, however, has no monopoly on that message. I and many others who have been able to visit with President Asad in Damascus in recent years, and he has received us often, have delivered that message unequivocally but with only limited success. Our Secretary of State has also been unwavering on the unacceptability of Syria's sheltering of terrorists. That message, however, has not been and should not be the sum total of our diplomacy. What this bill fails to grasp is the utility of engagement and the necessity of flexibility in our foreign policy. Our experience suggests that Syria can sometimes be moved through engagement. In recent months, the fruits of engagement have included cooperation in the pursuit of al Qaeda, and a reduction in incidents along the northern Israeli border. Nor should we forget that at two points in the last decade, once in secret negotiations under the Netanyahu government, and then in the U.S.-Israel-Syria tripartite talks at Shepherdstown in early 2000, engagement brought an Israeli- Syrian settlement very, very close to realization. Events in the Middle East move quickly. Diplomacy requires flexibility, but the directives in this bill at the high waiver standard move in the opposite direction. A law is a clumsy instrument with which to engage in the art of diplomacy. This bill is overly prescriptive, and it could make the complex work of our diplomats far more difficult. A more sophisticated policy of incentives, as well as sanctions, carrots as well as sticks, is called for as our Nation attempts to engage in a worldwide war against terrorism. We must solidify a network of nations to confront terrorism, not stake ourselves out as an isolated combatant. That struggle could be far more successful with Syria as a full-fledged partner. But if that is to happen, our diplomacy will have to be far more skilled and flexible than the formula prescribed by the Syria Accountability Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the town of Edenton, North Carolina, is a beautiful town. At one time, it was capital of North Carolina. It took a devastating hit in this storm, and the previous high-water mark, I think, was probably Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s, to say nothing of Fran and Floyd later, and this storm in that part of North Carolina topped all of those. The damage was far greater, and so it is important to stress that while the Outer Banks are hurt very badly, and there has been a great deal of attention focused on that area, and that carries with it, of course, a lot of agricultural damage, those inland areas in northeastern North Carolina are hit fully as hard and have a huge challenge in this road back.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for taking out this special order tonight. It is a real service, I believe, not only to the people of North Carolina but to our fellow citizens across this country to point out the dimensions of this disaster and to point out the human needs and to line out what we in the Congress, and in government at all levels, are going to need to do to meet this challenge. I also thank the gentleman from the 1st District (Mr. Ballance) for his words. He is a fine Representative for that part of North Carolina and has shown that once again in these recent days by being out there with his people, assessing the needs, offering words of support and comfort and coming back here to fight for the support that is needed. So we are facing, once again, a challenge. As the gentleman indicated, it is one that we have had some personal experience with. North Carolina has had more than our share, it seems, in recent years of these kinds of disasters, I believe, being days without power in the aftermath of Hurricane Fran, days without power in very cold weather last December with the ice storms. This time in our area it was only a little over a day without power; although I think most of us did spend most of our weekends, the last couple of weekends, cleaning up debris and getting our property back in order. The fact is that to the east of the 4th District and of the 2nd District, the devastation is far worse, and we understand that, and we understand the need for all the members of our congressional delegation to pull together and to look out after our friends and neighbors in eastern North Carolina, particularly the northeastern part of our State, an area which the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance) represents so well. We are mindful also of the needs of our friends in Virginia, in Maryland, in all the States and counties along the path of this devastating storm, Isabel. Once again, we are facing the daunting challenge of recovering from a major hurricane. It has devastated our coast in North Carolina. It has caused major damage to homes and public facilities. It has displaced thousands of families. Preliminary damage assessments indicate that at least $55 million in damage costs have been incurred by local governments. The losses to individuals are still being determined, but that is going to be a very high number. Agricultural damages are over $160 million, and that number also is very, very likely to climb. Twenty-six of North Carolina's counties have been designated as disaster areas. We are almost certain that 10 more will be added and perhaps more after that. As with Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Fran, the North Carolina congressional delegation is already working together to support the State's recovery efforts in every way that we can, and as my colleagues have expressed tonight, we are very, very grateful for the partnership that we have experienced with Federal agencies being on the scene, State agencies, local governments, volunteer groups, congregations, civic-minded individuals, people who have demonstrated once again the importance of reaching out to those in need, the importance of that value of community, that notion that we are all in this together and that when adversity strikes a portion of our community, we have all got to do our part to make the community whole. The Federal relief agencies, of course, we in the Congress pay special attention to, and I am happy to say that they have been on the job. This storm did give some ample warning. We had actually very accurate predictions this time of when this storm would arrive, and where it would go, and FEMA and other Federal agencies were on the ground as the storm approached. That is also true of our State agencies. They came in before the storm. They have remained in the State, and they have worked together cooperatively. I think we can be proud of the Federal-State-local cooperative effort, the public-private cooperative effort that this storm has brought forth. Once again, adversity sometimes brings out some of the best aspects of our communities, and we have experienced that. Most of the Federal assistance, Mr. Speaker, is going to come through FEMA's regular disaster assistance programs. They will pay 75 percent of the costs borne by the State and local governments associated with the disaster. In the worst hit counties, FEMA will make special assistance available to individuals. They will help make repairs to their homes and for other immediate needs. Congress replenished recently FEMA's disaster account by some $1.4 billion through two supplemental appropriations bills. This funding was provided in response to an administration request based on disasters in other parts of the country earlier in the year. Unfortunately, the money that Congress has thus far provided does fall short still of the administration's request, and the administration's request itself was not intended to cover Isabel or future disasters. So, once again, we have a disaster coming in the period between two fiscal years, and we have some important questions we must address about the funding that is available from existing resources and also the funding that is available in the fiscal 2004 Homeland Security bill. That bill, by the way, was signed by the President today in a very impressive ceremony over at the Department of Homeland Security. That bill contains funding for FEMA, money that we are going to have to draw on. I am not sure the money in that bill will be sufficient to carry us through the next fiscal year. In fact, I am fairly certain that it will not be because there are surely more disasters to come, and we are still in the midst of assessing the costs for this disaster. I spoke last week on the House floor, Mr. Speaker, about the shortfalls that could occur in the disaster relief accounts and the impact of such shortfalls on disaster victims. Our colleagues know that when the balance of these accounts begins to shrink, FEMA is obligated to stop the flow of relief to ensure that they have enough funding to help victims of disasters that might be just around the corner. So I am determined, Mr. Speaker, that we are not in this case going to put either FEMA or the victims of Isabel in that kind of position. I am a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds FEMA, and I am already conferring with that agency about the status of their disaster account and whether or not it has sufficient resources to also cover the needs resulting from Hurricane Isabel, and we are going to assess that in very short order. We will be working with the administration and with the Congress to act quickly on any supplemental spending requests, if they are needed, so that the disaster relief account has adequate resources, and FEMA assistance is able to flow quickly and efficiently to North Carolina and to other affected areas. There are other disaster-related programs, Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Transportation, at the Natural Resources Conservation Service, at the Small Business Administration, and they are also going to need to be tapped. So we will need to keep an eye out for those programs as well. As we get more details about the agricultural losses, and I know that our colleague from the 2nd District is in a particularly good position to assess that, because of the nature of these districts and also his service on the Committee on Agriculture, we will need to work with the administration and our colleagues in Congress to provide relief to farmers, as we normally do following major disasters. So we have a lot of work to do. There is a lot to be heartened by, the kind of human sympathy and compassion that has been displayed in the face of this awful disaster, the kind of cooperation we have seen among governmental agencies and private organizations, but there is a lot of work yet to do. We are going to need to cooperate with Members from all over the country, but particularly with Members from Virginia and Maryland and other affected States, and we are going to need to work across party lines, with the administration and with each other, to ensure that the Federal Government is a full partner in this effort, that it does all that it can do and all that it should do to aid in this recovery effort. So I am appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the chance here tonight to join with these colleagues and to highlight some of the needs and to serve notice that we are going to be working as hard as we know how and as cooperatively as we can possibly manage, to address these needs in the weeks ahead, and I thank my colleague for giving us the chance to make our case and to look toward the challenges facing us in the future.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the President's request of an $87 billion supplemental appropriation on top of $79 billion already appropriated has prompted renewed debate over our military operations in Iraq, our plans for the subsequent reconstruction of that country, and our broader policy objectives in the Middle East. We must take to a successful conclusion the securing of Iraq, the rebuilding of the country's economy and infrastructure, and the transition to an indigenous democratic government. We must provide our forces in Iraq the resources they need to complete their mission and to enhance their safety and security while they are performing their mission. But the Bush administration must give a full accounting of how we plan to reach these goals, how we are going to meet the costs, and how we are to enlist the necessary international support. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to specify certain key questions and expectations that Members of Congress must bring to the consideration of the President's request. This request is considerably overdue. For far too long the Bush administration refused to estimate the precise costs of the war as it pushed for tax cuts upon tax cuts, mainly benefitting the wealthiest Americans, and as it presided over a 2-year, $8 trillion fiscal reversal, the largest in our country's history. But now the bill is coming due, and that stubborn fact, in addition to the critical situation on the ground in Iraq, has forced the President's hand. That is not to say he has totally come clean. The President's request of $20 billion for reconstruction covers less than half of the projected costs. And it is bound to increase if his optimistic estimate as to oil revenues and contributions from allies do not materialize. Nor are we ever likely to hear the President acknowledge that every dime of that $87 billion is borrowed money, adding to what was already a record Federal deficit. How much money is $87 billion? It is three times what we spend each year on major disease research at the National Institutes of Health. It is more than double our entire post-9/11 Homeland Security budget. It amounts to $3.5 million each week throughout 2004 for each of the 435 congressional districts in our country; $3.5 million dollars each week for each district. I will leave it to colleagues to calculate what this could mean in terms of covering the uninsured or upgrading our schools or improving roads and mass transit. So the cost of our Iraqi intervention is immense and we are reminded daily of the human cost as well. American fatalities since the President declared the combat phase concluded now number 158, more than the 139 incurred during active combat. Honest acknowledgment of these costs is essential both to assessing our Nation's course thus far and to charting our course ahead. As it became more and more evident last winter that nothing was likely to divert the President from the course he had chosen in Iraq, I, like others, took to the House floor to raise questions that the administration had not answered, questions which were basic to any rationale for war: ``What accounting do we have of the costs and risks of military invasion? How are we to secure and maintain the support and engagement of our allies? Can Iraq be disarmed by means that do not divert us from, or otherwise compromise, equally or more urgent anti-terrorist and diplomatic objectives? Do we have a credible plan for rebuilding and governing post-war Iraq? Have we secured the necessary international cooperation ensure that this does not become a perceived U.S. occupation?'' I must say in retrospect that those were legitimate and important questions. In some areas, the administration had no answer or wrong answers, and in others they refused to level with Congress and the American people. On one of the few instances when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed the war's costs, he echoed OMB Mitch Daniels with an estimate of ``something under $50 billion.'' That was in January, and a few weeks later his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, described Iraq as ``a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' Such statements help us understand the fix we are in in Iraq and the pressure the administration is now facing to give an honest accounting, along with a credible plan, complete with cost and deployment estimates, going forward. The President's $87 billion supplemental appropriations request has been accompanied by a return to the United Nations to seek the support, for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, of the allies the administration once spurned. This appears to be, as Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times termed it, a case of ``reality trumping ideology,'' based on the realization that under present policies the President does not have the means to achieve his ends in Iraq. But it does not yet amount to the mid-course correction that is called for. The administration still has a long way to go in presenting to the American people and to our prospective allies a credible plan for securing and rebuilding Iraq. There is no time to spare, as the New York Times editorialized on September 14, ``If Mr. Bush does not demonstrate a clear and convincing strategy soon, he may face political pressure to bring home American troops under conditions that would be embarrassing for America and perilous for the Middle East.'' In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the President must provide a straightforward account of how the $79 billion already appropriated has been spent and what the newly requested $87 billion will buy. Accountability for funds thus far expended; justification for the present request; and an honest estimate of the costs yet to come. Is the request consistent with our first priority of combatting terrorism in Afghanistan and beyond? Is it based on realistic estimates of funding from oil revenues and from allied contributions? Even if we succeed in enlisting additional allies, that will only partially ease our financial burden. Current plans, for example, are for Poland to lead a multinational force of some 19 countries in the central-southern region of Iraq. But of the estimated $240 million cost of the operation, Poland is expected to pay no more than $40 million, with the U.S. covering the rest. It is critically important, I believe, to focus separately on the portion of the President's of $87 billion request that is targeted to Afghanistan: $11 billion for military operations and $800 million for reconstruction. Those numbers pale in comparison to the Iraq request, and they may not be sufficient. In crucial respects, our Afghan operations offer a contrast to Iraq. Afghanistan was a war of necessity. It was directly related to the 9/11 attacks. It was endorsed and supported almost unanimously by the world community. The NATO alliance has now assumed responsibility for ongoing operations there. Yet the country is largely unsecured outside of Kabul and the top leadership of both the Taliban and al Qaeda is still at large. Our decision to deal with the Iraqi challenge through a massive military invasion has arguably set back the broader war on terrorism, allowing the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup. There is no place in the world where it is more important to position U.S. Special Forces than in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region where Taliban and al Qaeda forces are still operating. Our Special Forces must be fully supported, and they must not be further diverted until their mission is concluded. The Afghan reconstruction funding will partially address such critical needs as road and school construction, irrigation projects, and training a self-sustaining Afghan security force. This aid may also help shore up some support for the embattled, pro-Western President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. However, decades of civil war have left the nation without such basic needs as a modern electric power infrastructure, urban sanitation systems, or an advanced medical infrastructure. There is much left to do, and it will take a concerted multinational effort to meet these needs. The administration must also explain to Congress and the public how the $87 billion, all of it deficit spending, far beyond the scale of most emergency supplemental appropriations requests, is to be paid for. In particular, is it either fair or fiscally prudent to leave in place, much less to extend, massive tax cuts for those in the highest brackets, tax cuts that have produced unprecedented annual deficits and that mock the very idea of shared sacrifice? Secondly, the administration must deal with the question of troop strength. The supplemental appropriations request assumes American troops will remain at present levels for at least another year. We in North Carolina have particular reason to recognize the spectacular performance of our men and women in uniform during the combat phase and the valor and commitment they continue to display under trying conditions. Tens of thousands of these troops have been deployed from our State, including National Guard and Reserve units that have been subject to repeated call-ups. By the same token, however, North Carolinians have been especially attentive to evidence of administration misjudgments as to the troop levels that would be required in post-war Iraq, to extensions in the tours of many units, and to the mismatch between what these troops have been trained for and the security and reconstruction functions that they are being called upon to perform. Secretary Rumsfeld has offered dubious assurances, despite the continuing level of violence, that no more troops are needed; but the administration has not explained how even the present level of deployment in Iraq can be sustained. Of the Army's 33 active duty combat brigades, 16 are currently assigned to Iraq and five elsewhere overseas. Almost all of the others are needed for rotation purposes, mainly in Iraq, and for emergency standby related to North Korea. As of last week, more than 128,000 Army Guard and Reserve members, or 23 percent of the force, were mobilized in support of operations overseas and in the United States, many on yearlong tours, with thousands more to be deployed or redeployed soon. Thirdly, what is the administration's plan for securing allied participation and how much relief can this realistically afford relative to American financial and personnel requirements? The tens of thousands of additional troops and the billions of dollars of additional funding that we need in Iraq, as well as our broader antiterrorist and peacemaking endeavors in the Middle East, will require intensive diplomatic repair work in the coming weeks. The return of Secretary Powell and of the President to the United Nations is a necessary first step toward the cooperative ties we must forge with allies ranging from Germany and France to India and Turkey and Egypt. At the same time, we must press ahead with the recruitment and training of indigenous Iraqi police and security forces and the transition to Iraqi self-rule. Finally, we look to the President for a reaffirmation of America's commitment to Middle East peacemaking. After almost 2\1/2\ years of ill-advised disengagement from the quest for a fair and enduring settlement between Israel and its neighbors, the President has commendably joined with our ``Quartet'' partners, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, to announce the ``Road Map'' initiative for mutual, step-by-step Israeli-Palestinian accommodations. Recent weeks have not been auspicious for the Road Map initiative. Hamas suicide bombers have conducted devastating attacks, killing and maiming dozens of Israelis, many of them teenagers and children. The Israeli government has stepped up its targeted assassination of Hamas leaders and members and has tightened its chokehold on the occupied territories. In fact, the two sides seemed locked in a death grip. Violent deaths since the collapse of the peace process number 858 among Israelis and 2,468 Palestinians. Who would not be moved by the story of two of the victims of the September 9 Jerusalem bombing, Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter Naava, out on an errand the night before what was to be her happy wedding day? Such wrenching stories underscore again and again the urgency of reaching a settlement that ensures security and integrity for Israel and a viable state for the Palestinians. And in the post-9/11 world, Middle East peacemaking has assumed an added dimension. ``Suicide bombing is becoming so routine'' in Israel/ Palestine, Thomas Friedman recently wrote, ``that it risks becoming embedded in contemporary culture. America must stop it. A credible peace deal is no longer a U.S. luxury: it is essential to our own homeland security. Otherwise, this suicide madness will spread, and it will be Americans who will have to learn how to live with it.'' The simultaneous steps that the Road Map envisions are politically difficult and vulnerable to sabotage. The Israeli government, reluctant to challenge the settlers in any case, is doubly so when the likely reward is another horrific bombing by Hamas, whose structure of terror remains intact. As for the Palestinians, they feel they are being asked to risk a civil war by taking on militant groups by force without assurances that settlements will actually be removed from Palestinian territory or statehood achieved. That is why American leadership is absolutely essential, to help ensure that both sides in fact comply with the road map and that the process is steadied against the predictable attempts at sabotage by the enemies of peace. If the process remains stalled and the violence continues, American leaders may need to think outside the Road-Map ``box'' in terms of putting a peace plan on the table proactively. What is not even thinkable is for our government again to disengage and to let that death grip tighten. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical juncture in the war on terrorism and in our Nation's engagement in the Middle East. We must push ahead with the reconstruction and democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq, preventing either a return to tyranny or a collapse into violence that would allow forces deadly to our country's vital interests to take root. That is what the supplemental appropriations requested by the President must help underwrite, and that is why I expect that most of us in this body are likely in due course to support something close to the requested amount. But while Congress was willing to provide a blank check in the past, it does not seem likely to do so now. We must have an accounting of the administration's strategy going forward, its timetables and objectives, its costs and personnel requirements, how our allies will share in its obligation, and how past mistakes will be corrected or avoided. The committees of the Congress must schedule sufficient hearings to allow administration officials to make their case and to allow Members to question them fully. The need for mid-course correction raises serious issues, yet unresolved, about the path to war that the President chose. We will no doubt debate these questions for years to come, and we cannot allow them to paralyze us now. But if we are to correct our course and go forward successfully, we must confront the flawed premises and the failed diplomacy that set the terms of the Iraqi invasion. In closing, I want to underscore the importance of one of these pieces of unfinished business, not merely to clear the air but also to clarify what Congress and the American people must demand of this administration or of any administration in the future. I am referring to the intelligence and to the interpretations of intelligence on which the decision to invade Iraq was based. We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, of the perils of 20/20 hindsight. And on some questions, most notably Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons, even hindsight is still unclear. Iraq possessed and used such weapons in the past. Yet after 5 months, no stockpiles have been found. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay is soon expected to make an interim report to Congress on the Iraqis weapons program. By all reports, he will suggest that Saddam may have intended to produce weapons when and if U.N. inspectors left Iraq. However, intent does not constitute an imminent threat. While Mr. Kay has work left to do, he has yet to uncover the threat that we expected. Regarding Iraq's development of deployable nuclear weapons and the tenuous linkage between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, we are not simply talking about 20/20 hindsight. We are talking about evidence that Members of this body knew, or should have known, to be shaky as early as the October congressional vote authorizing the use of force and certainly in the winter months leading up to the invasion. The President and administration officials continue to obfuscate the Iraqi-al Qaeda link, which now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as Iraq becomes a magnet for terrorist operatives from around the region. As for the claims by the President, the Vice President, and others that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program, we have the testimony of retired foreign service officer Joseph Wilson, who was dispatched to Niger in early 2002 to investigate reported sales of uranium ore to Iraq. ``Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war,'' Wilson wrote, ``I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.'' The House and Senate Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence are currently conducting investigations which we are assured will focus not only on the prewar performance of U.S. intelligence agencies but also on how the White House used intelligence information to make the case for war. These investigations must be thorough and objective, following the facts wherever they lead. We commend these colleagues for the hard work they have done thus far. They know we are counting on them for a conscientious and comprehensive job. If this investigation takes a partisan turn, or if there is any hint of pressure to protect the administration, sentiment may well shift toward an inquiry by an independent commission of the sort the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has proposed. We must never conclude, despite the undisputed fact that Saddam Hussein was a blood-soaked tyrant, and that both the Iraqis and the world are better off with him gone--we still must never conclude that the credibility of the reasons that our government gave to the American people and to our potential allies for going to war do not matter. These reasons, which centered on the grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons program, do matter. If they are found to have been based on fallacious or manipulated evidence, the blow to our international credibility and to the integrity of the discourse on which our democracy depends will be profound. Mr. Speaker, there will be many calls for national unity and resolve as we consider the President's $87 billion request and contemplate the long, hard road ahead. I will join in those calls, for the challenges confronting our country transcend political divisions and the differences we have had in the past. But the administration needs to understand its end of the bargain, for in a democracy, where power is shared between the executive and legislative branches of government, critical decisions must not be taken in an atmosphere of deception or political intimidation or stealth. Going forward, we must hold one another accountable for the clear-eyed development of a strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, planning carefully and realistically, dealing truthfully with costs and risks, and working cooperatively with allies who share our values and goals. This is the mid-course correction, indeed the new beginning, that we need to signal and to achieve as we consider the request the President has made of this Congress and of the people we represent.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, once again we are considering a supplemental appropriations bill that ignores the crisis affecting many of our community service organizations around the country. Before the August recess, this House, at the insistence of the Republican leadership, sent the other body a take-it-or-leave-it supplemental package that omitted the $100 million the other body proposed for AmeriCorps. That omission, unfortunately, remains in this conference report. Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and community-based organizations around the country many of the AmeriCorps positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, and hundreds of homegrown programs in the districts of everyone here that make a difference every day. For some organizations that depend on AmeriCorps, unfortunately, the damage is already done. But for others, an infusion of funding to support additional volunteers could still make a difference between the elimination or weakening of a program and sustaining and building their efforts to support our communities. Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by something like 40 percent overall to around 30,000 participants. Every Member, Mr. Speaker, of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee in the other body favored this funding for AmeriCorps. It had the support of Chairman Stevens and the support of Senator Bond, the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over AmeriCorps. The other body voted to sustain this AmeriCorps funding by a strong bipartisan vote of 71 to 21. These faith-based and community-based groups are doing good works in our communities on a daily basis, and it should shame this House to let them down. This conference report is another missed opportunity; in fact, it is a missed obligation, because we owe it to the community and faith-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps volunteers to help them sustain the programs on which our communities depend. Mr. Speaker, the supplemental appropriation attached to the legislative branch bill has a second glaring weakness, and this is one which Members will have an opportunity to remedy in just a few minutes. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will be offering a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to include the level of funding provided in the Senate bill for disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, North Carolina is again facing the daunting challenge of recovering from a major hurricane that has devastated our coast, caused major damage to homes and public facilities, and displaced thousands of families. Other States, including Virginia and Maryland, have been severely affected and are counting on Federal disaster programs to help them recover. FEMA personnel are on the ground as we speak doing what they do so expertly, providing relief to the victims and initiating an assessment of the damage. It is our job to make sure the disaster relief account has sufficient resources to ensure that once the assessments are complete, relief funding can quickly flow to those in need. The supplemental we are considering today provides only $442 million for disaster relief, the level recommended by the House, while the Senate proposed $1.55 billion. Some may argue that $442 million is enough, but that is not correct. When combined with the money we appropriated in late July, it will still fall short of what the administration initially requested, $1.55 billion. And the administration request was meant to cover disasters we already knew about, not Hurricane Isabel. The Homeland Security bill for next year contains $1.8 billion for disaster relief, but I can guarantee you that this amount will not be enough to carry us through the coming fiscal year, and we still have several weeks of hurricane season to get through this year. Now, when the disaster relief account begins to get low, FEMA is obliged to slow the relief funding flow to victims of existing disasters because they just do not know what new disaster might be around the corner. We should not, Mr. Speaker, put FEMA in that position. Let us not put the victims of Hurricane Isabel in that position, the position of unnecessarily having to wait for the disaster relief they urgently need. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) later today, so that timely relief for the victims of Hurricane Isabel can be assured.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Just to add to the gentleman's thought, we got off of a disciplined path toward debt reduction. Whatever else we did in the way of new investments or tax cuts, we certainly should have reserved a certain amount of that anticipated revenue to protect Social Security in the future and to protect ourselves against exactly the kind of eventuality we are now facing. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for a helpful discussion. As we face this $87 billion supplemental appropriations request, of course, we will do the right thing by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and meet our international obligations, but we will and we should ask some tough questions of this administration for an accounting of where we have been thus far and where we are going, and above all, how we are going to pay for this and how this fits in with the overall fiscal health of the country we love.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this did not have to be. There are historical examples of other kinds of leadership. This chart indicates where we have been with the deficit and for a brief couple of years the surplus in this country as a result of some courageous decisions that were taken in this body and by the first President Bush who displayed leadership qualities which unfortunately seem to be missing at the White House right now. There was a budget agreement in 1990 concluded on bipartisan terms, and then a budget passed entirely with Democratic votes in 1993; the economy responded positively to that discipline and it thrived in the 1990s, and we got out of deficit spending and ran $400 billion in surpluses and paid off a chunk of that national debt. Just think what would be the case if we could have continued on that path.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We have had an economic downturn that was more severe than expected, and 9-11 and homeland security expenses and expenses associated with the war on terrorism. Those demands needed to be met, and they will continue to be met. But the large tax cuts aimed mainly at the upper- bracket taxpayers, I think that counts as self-inflicted damage. It was justified 2 years ago because we had surplus money, supposedly, and now it is being repackaged as a stimulus even though it has very little stimulative effect. It mocks the idea of self-sacrifice, and that is the centerpiece of this President's economic policy.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Absolutely. That is money down a rat hole as the gentleman very convincingly, maybe did not use quite those elegant terms, but that is what the gentleman said earlier. That is money anybody in this body could think of better public and private uses for than simply interest on the national debt. So the economy is in sad shape, and we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are not getting an economic stimulus that is anything like what we should be getting, and yet we are over the cliff fiscally. We are undergoing a fiscal reversal that will take us and our children decades to grow out of. The unemployment numbers are graphically demonstrated here. The unemployment rate now from a very, very low figure in early 2001, now up in the range of 6 percent, hovering here for months now, and there are a few scattered economic indicators that are looking somewhat better, but the term ``jobless recovery'' has entered the lexicon because there certainly are not many jobs being produced. What I heard at my district at every meeting I had in August was that this is not just an abstract economist estimate. This is something that is affecting the real lives of real people. They are nearing desperation, and this actually underestimates the problem because there are many, many people who have good training, good experience, and yet they are taking lower-end jobs now that really cut their standard of living. So it is a tremendous challenge for our country, and one that I believe this administration barely senses.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That is right.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The figure I recall is about $1.76. That is because people who are in those straits are trying to support their families and tide themselves over until they can get work. So they are going to turn around and spend that money immediately.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned that the administration does not recognize the problem, but when we look at the administration's record, we would think the economy would be agenda item number one with them as well. The private sector has shed 3.3 million jobs since January 2001 when President Bush took office. That is the worst record for any President since the Great Depression. Our long-term unemployment has almost tripled in this country. Real GDP growth, the growth of the economy has averaged 1.6 percent. That is the worst performance since World War II. Real business investment has fallen 10 percent since the President was inaugurated. That is the worst economic record for any President since World War II. Our trade gap has increased to almost $100 billion. Do we need anymore indications that this economy is in trouble? We are also running record deficits. The gentleman from Virginia and others tonight have talked in alarming terms, properly alarming terms, about the fiscal reversal we have suffered with a $5.6 trillion surplus in view when the President took office, now going way over $2 trillion in further debt. That is an almost $9 trillion reversal now, the largest in our country's history. We might ask ourself is there any justification for the kind of deficits that we are running, and I think the answer is no, but we could at least take some comfort if we thought that we were getting some economic stimulus for all that deficit spending and for those huge deficits and the mounting debt, and yet who can say that this medicine is working. In fact, the evidence is pretty clear that it is not working. In fact, the President has picked some of the measures that are least likely to stimulate the economy, such as the tax cut on dividends, for example. That produces a grand total of 11 cents for every dollar in lost revenue in terms of economic stimulus, and he has turned his back on some of the most effective measures such as the kind of extension of unemployment benefits that we have typically done in situations like this. This gives us $1.76 for every dollar we spend in terms of economic stimulus, and yet he turns his back on that. He champions these upper-bracket tax cuts. Yet all the analyses show that is one of the poorest ways to stimulate the economy. So we have the worst of both worlds.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Eleven cents. Eleven cents. That is the stimulus you get for every dollar of lost revenue. So there must be some other reason, do you not think, for that tax cut on dividends and for those tax cuts on the wealthiest people in this country. For people making over $1 million, tax cuts that average about $88,000 a year, and yet that money is largely not going to be used as an economic stimulus.