David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Virginia for taking out this special order and for focusing attention again this evening, as he has so often in the past, on our country's economy and our fiscal meltdown which so threatens that economy in the future. I also want to commend the gentleman from Hawaii, who talked very persuasively about the need to wake up and to speak out and to confront the situation that we face. I am sure that I am not alone in the experience I had during the August work period in the town meetings I held in my District, and these meetings were held in some blue collar areas. They were held in some upscale, very affluent suburbs. They were held all over the 4th District of North Carolina, and I was struck at every one of those meetings, it was the economy that was the number one item on people's minds, and so many of those people were unemployed, and they often had very good training but they talked about having 100 or 200 people applying for every job they went after, and they talked about friends and family members and neighbors who are nearing desperation as they seek for work in this economy. They ask why are we not doing more to turn this economy around? Is that not why we count on government to have a sound fiscal policy and to intervene when the economy needs a boost? I said to my constituents, I don't have a single, simple answer to the economy's challenges, but I do know that this economy is in trouble, and I also know that we could be and should be doing a great deal more than we are doing to get this economy turned around.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And people certainly understand when the claim is made that the deficit spending is for economic recovery. They are very quick to see the hollowness of that promise because it clearly is not having that effect. In fact, it is deepening our problems. It has an impact on long-term interest rates.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to honor my constituent, Catherine Glennon, for the contributions that she has made to the field of oncology nursing. Catherine has dedicated her career to individuals with cancer and their families, and she is currently the Oncology Services Health Center Administrator at the Private Diagnostic Clinic at Duke University Medical Center. Catherine has been a member of the Oncology Nursing Society since 1976 and recently stepped down from serving on the Board of Directors. The Oncology Nursing Society, the largest professional oncology group in the United States, exists to promote excellence in oncology nursing and the provision of quality care to those individuals affected by cancer. As part of its mission, the Society honors and maintains nursing's historical commitment to advocacy for the public good. Catherine Glennon has received numerous awards and recognition for her work on behalf of individuals with cancer including the Oncology Nursing Foundation Nurse Administrator/Manager Career Development Award, participation in the Center for Nursing Leadership, and recognition in Who's Who in American Nursing. She has also authored a number of studies and articles on quality cancer care and the nursing shortage that have appeared in several distinguished publications. In addition, Catherine has given numerous presentations to national audiences on a host of cancer care, health, and nursing shortage issues. Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. Oncology nurses like Catherine are the front-line providers of cancer care with responsibilities ranging from administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, and providing counseling to patients and family members. Without an adequate supply of such nurses, we cannot provide quality cancer care to a growing population of people in need. I was proud to support the passage of the ``Nurse Reinvestment Act'' in the 107th Congress. This important piece of legislation expanded and implemented programs at HRSA to address the multiple problems contributing to the nationwide nursing shortage, including the decline in nursing student enrollments, shortage of faculty, and dissatisfaction with nurse workplace environments. I commend Catherine Glennon and the Oncology Nursing Society for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to improve the lives of those 1.3 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer this year. I am hopeful that growing numbers of young people will follow in Catherine's footsteps and pursue a career in the rewarding and challenging profession of nursing.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill that contains funding for FEMA disaster relief. As a representative from a State that benefits from this funding, I have no problem with including FEMA funding in an emergency supplemental, but I do have a problem with what is omitted from this bill. I am concerned about what we are failing to do for AmeriCorps and all of the faith-based and community-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps participants. The Senate supplemental appropriations bill which was completed 2 weeks ago contains $100 million for AmeriCorps, the amount needed to sustain 50,000 AmeriCorps participants this year. This funding has strong bipartisan support, in the Senate if not in the House. It was sustained on a 71-21 vote in the other body. Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by something like 40 percent, a drastic reduction to around 30,000 participants. Why has it taken so long for the House to act? The Committee on Appropriations did not even consider the supplemental until this past Monday, with no intention of actually bringing it to the floor. And where has the President been? The President spoke in this Chamber, urging us to increase AmeriCorps enrollment to 75,000 participants. But, up to now, he has hardly lifted a finger to maintain even the current enrollment of 50,000 participants. Now we have a bill before us, at the last minute, just before the House recesses for 5 weeks, leaving the Senate with the option of either passing our version or passing nothing until at least September. And our version, the House version, omits AmeriCorps. It was defeated on a party-line vote in the Committee on Appropriations this week. Our only resource now is to defeat the previous question and add the $100 million to the bill on the House floor today. Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and community-based organizations around the country the AmeriCorps positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, hundreds of home-grown programs in the districts of everyone here that make a difference every day. A letter was sent Monday to the House leadership from 43 of our Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, in support of this AmeriCorps funding, and it articulates very well what is at stake. I will close by quoting from this letter: ``Without an emergency appropriation,'' the Governors say, ``the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions now being proposed could seriously affect communities and individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of strong programs which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut, even if only for 1 year. Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be eliminated this year and rebuilt the next.'' These faith-based and community-based groups, who are doing good works in our communities with just a little help from their Federal Government, depend on AmeriCorps participants, and right now they are depending on us to come through for them. September will be too late. Fiscal year 04 will be too late. Let us include the AmeriCorps emergency funding in this supplemental appropriation. Vote against the previous question.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment to provide an additional $150 million for the Housing Certificate Fund for housing vouchers. First I want to acknowledge that Chairman Walsh and his staff improved upon the President's request for the Housing Certificate Fund, particularly by using a more up-to-date estimate of the average annual cost of each housing voucher. But I am concerned that the average cost estimate used may yet be insufficient to actually renew all currently used vouchers. I understand the need to base estimated costs for the housing voucher program on financial statements that have been audited by HUD. But the audit work takes time, such that by the time the audited data is available, it is almost certainly out-of-date. The bill before us does not use the most recent estimates from HUD on the number of vouchers currently in use and the average cost of each voucher. It it true that the most recent data, based on information provided to HUD by State and local housing agencies in April 2003, does not come from audited financial statements. But we should not completely ignore what it tells us about average voucher costs, in particular. The experts at the Center on Budget and Policy priorities have produced a report indicating that, based on this most recent HUD data, the bill before us is very likely $583 million short of what is needed to fully renew all currently used vouchers. That shortfall, if borne out next year, would result in at least 85,000 fewer families with access to vouchers--and the number could be much higher depending on how public housing agencies might decide to absorb the reduction in real funding. Most of the shortfall, according to the Center, comes from an underestimation in the House bill of the average annual cost of each voucher by some $300. And before anyone dismisses this estimated cost out of hand, I want to point out that it is very close to the average annual voucher cost estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for FY 2004. The Nadler-Velaquez amendment is not proposing to provide the full $583 million that the voucher program may well need during the next fiscal year. Instead it proposes a much more modest increase in funding that would provide a margin of safety for the many low-income families around the country who rely on housing vouchers. At the very least, we should provide this incremental amount of funding for the program, and we should also be prepared to supplement funding for the program next year as the more up-to-date can be better verified by HUD.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague Nathan Deal and I have introduced the Steve Grissom Relief Fund Act. This legislation would compensate individuals who contracted AIDS through HIV-contaminated blood products and transplants. It is modeled on the bipartisan Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act of 1998, and honors the late Steve Grissom, a North Carolina resident who was infected with HIV while undergoing treatment for leukemia. A study conducted by the Institute of Medicine at the request of Congress found that ``blood became a vector for HIV infection in the early and mid-1980s and caused more than half of the 16,000 hemophiliacs and over 12,000 blood transfusion recipients to contract AIDS.'' The Food and Drug Administration, the report claimed, failed to protect the blood supply when it chose not to implement screening options recommended by the Centers for Disease Control in 1983. In addition, the report recommended that a fund be established to compensate people who have become infected with HIV from contaminated blood products. In 1995, legislation was introduced to help hemophiliacs who contracted HIV through such transfusions. The Ricky Ray Act established a trust fund for making one-time payments of $100,000 to persons with hemophilia who contacted HIV through tainted blood products. The bill passed with overwhelming support, and was fully funded in 2001. However, the bill did not address the problem of people like Steve Grissom, who received blood transfusions or transplants for other reasons. Our bill would resolve the current inequity and extend the same benefits to non-hemophiliacs, their secondarily infected spouses, and children infected perinatally. Steve Grissom was a resident of North Carolina's 4th District and my constituent. An Army veteran, Steve was an avid pilot and outdoorsman, a loyal husband, a loving father, and a tireless advocate for others. He advanced legislation for terminally ill parents at the state level, and founded the National Association for Victims of Transfusion- Acquired AIDS (NAVTA) organization. In 1998, he tried very hard to get individuals like himself included in the Ricky Ray Act. However, rather than contribute to the demise of this legislation, Steve pulled back so that at least some would be compensated for the horrors that occurred during the early 1980s. Americans who have contracted AIDS through HIV-contaminated products deserve the same consideration regardless of whether they are hemophiliacs. We owe it to people like Steve Grissom, and their survivors, to try and compensate for this terrible tragedy. I invite my colleagues to join us in completing the work begun with the Ricky Ray Act by cosponsoring the Steve Grissom Relief Fund Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2427 is both a diversion and a danger. It is a diversion from the prescription drug coverage we should be providing. What have we done instead? We have instead passed a Republican Medicare bill which actually denies the Secretary of HHS the ability to negotiate volume discounts. So much for my colleague's elephant in the room. And it is a danger. This bill is a danger. It would allow distributors to import drugs that have been sold, stored and transported outside the FDA's closed regulatory system. Massive and haphazard reimportation is the wrong prescription for a very real problem, the lack of drug coverage under Medicare available to all beneficiaries. I urge colleagues not to be diverted, to vote against the inferior and dangerous solution which H.R. 2427 represents.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Hinchey amendment. The FCC's decision of June 2 to loosen the rules on concentrated media ownership will lead to fewer voices controlling more of the news we watch, read, and listen to. It will undermine our access to the independent, unbiased local information that matters to our communities. Last week, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have stressed, the Committee on Appropriations took an important step in voting on a bipartisan basis to suspend changes to the national TV ownership cap, a key part of the media ownership rules the FCC voted to relax on June 2. The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment would finish the job by suspending the two remaining rules that the FCC weakened: the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule and the local TV multiple ownership rule, which would open the way for more duopolies and even triopolies in owning and controlling local media. These amendments, together, are the appropriations equivalent of H.R. 2462, introduced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 88 Members. Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving localism, diversity, and competition on our airwaves, standards basic to a vibrant democracy. Mr. Chairman, the richness and diversity of community life in America has been recognized by observers since Tocqueville as one of our country's abiding strengths. The broadcast media emerged in the 20th century as critical in relating individuals and groups of individuals to each other and to the world beyond. The term ``media'' suggests a linkage beyond the locality to the worlds of politics and economics and entertainment and culture; but it also suggests communication within and across a locality or a region, whereby isolated consumers of media have their identities as members of the community strengthened, their knowledge increased, their participation enhanced. If the day comes, and I am afraid it is fast approaching, when local media are merely a conduit for nationally generated information and entertainment, or when a single or few companies monopolize broadcasting in most local communities, we will have lost a critically important component of community life. There are those who say that the presence of 200 options on cable or satellite television renders the public interest criterion of diversity a moot concern. They could not be more wrong. It is competition among local broadcasters in offering news and public affairs, weather, sports and other programming that produces the kind of diversity and the kind of audience engagement that enhance community life. The Hinchey-Price amendment also concerns concentrated power and influence. This concentration has already gone too far in radio. I cannot imagine why we would want to take television down the same path. Regardless of one's political views, it is unsettling to hear of Cumulus Media banning a vocal group from the play list of all of its outlets on political grounds. Then there is the example of a prominent Raleigh media executive who owns a Fox affiliate. He has been able to reject some network ``reality'' shows as inappropriate. He wonders with good reason whether the managers of Fox-owned and -operated stations would have that same discretion to respect community standards. Mr. Chairman, in the history of media policy, there has never been a moment when the public was more engaged than they are right now. A recent poll demonstrates that half of Americans are well aware of this media concentration issue; and of those who follow the issue closely, 70 percent are opposed to the new FCC rules, while only 6 percent are in favor. Our constituents see this issue quite clearly: this is big media companies and their allies in government squaring off against the public interest. The question is, how do we see it, and to whom will Congress listen? Mr. Chairman, it is time to stand against an FCC decision that was taken with scant public input and in defiance of the public interest. Colleagues, let us not get diverted by convoluted, tactical second- guessing. If Members favor the substance of our amendment and if they oppose the substance of the FCC decision, they should stand up for what they believe. I ask my colleagues to reaffirm the core values of our country's media policy--localism, competition and diversity--and to support the Hinchey-Price amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, and to highlight the new provisions for recruiting and training teachers that it contains. Our Nation faces the unprecedented challenge of recruiting and retaining an additional 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. This is necessary to keep pace with anticipated retirements and a growing student population. It is also a critical aspect of education reform. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every teacher be ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-06 school year. In fact, there is hardly an aspect of educational reform that does not depend on a well- trained and highly motivated teaching force. That is why I introduced the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 1805, modeled on a program established in 1986 by the North Carolina General Assembly that has brought some 4,000 young people into our State's teaching force and that offers, I believe, a model for national emulation. I am grateful to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a cosponsor of H.R. 1805, and to the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon), and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and to many other subcommittee and full committee members for their cooperation in writing major elements of the Teaching Fellows Act into the bill that is before us today. Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 2211, as amended in committee, would establish State scholarship programs for prospective teachers and give them the preparation and support they need to make a long-term commitment to the field. Scholarships could be offered to high school students embarking on a 4-year program or to students farther along in college when they might be better prepared to make a career choice. The bill also contains a second recruitment initiative: Through partnerships between community colleges and 4-year schools, H.R. 2211 would offer fellowships to 2-year students, particularly those in training as teaching assistants, to go on for their bachelor's degree and full teaching certification. This community college component of the program is especially promising for rural and small town areas. Too often our beginning teachers are lured away by schools in the big cities and the affluent suburbs, leaving rural and inner-city schools behind. But community colleges typically contain people more deeply rooted in these underserved areas, and enabling them to complete a 4- year degree would be a promising strategy for identifying and training a cadre of ``home-grown'' teachers. The program we envision would not merely throw money at individual students, but would seek, through rich, extracurricular programs, to promote espirit de corps and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as teachers. Students would participate in various community and school-based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher preparation. In North Carolina, these enrichment programs have featured orientations to school systems, communities, and educational issues, as well as experiences like Outward Bound and international travel. In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent to the length of their scholarships. In this the program would resemble the National Health Service Corps, which helps finance students' medical and dental education in exchange for service in underserved areas, and early National Service proposals, which envisioned young people being given scholarships as compensation for community service. The ideas of reciprocal obligation and community service would thus be enlisted in the service of teaching, which is surely one of the best ways one can imagine of giving back to the community and to the next generation. Finally, the legislation assumes that the route to success is not through regimented, top-down administration, but through a decentralized structure that engages and empowers local leaders and participants. States would be given the option of running their programs through nonprofit organizations separate from their department of education, an arrangement that has fostered innovation and flexibility in North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2211 does not include all of the elements of the Teaching Fellows Act, and it leaves future funding levels indeterminate. It will require us to work with the Department of Education to get an energetic program up and running, and to push in this body for adequate annual appropriations. But I am enthused at the opportunity this bill affords to initiate and expand State scholarship programs for prospective teachers. I want to commend and thank those colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this effort.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, many of us will vote for House Resolution 294 because we indeed deplore the terrorist attacks inflicted on Israel. We wish to express solidarity with the people of Israel. And we understand the necessity of the Palestinian Authority confronting and fighting terror and terrorist organizations. I am baffled and dismayed, however, by the resolution's failure to straightforwardly endorse the effort of our government and our Quartet partners to implement the so-called ``Roadmap'' which, at this moment, represents Israel's best hope for ending terror and the Palestinians' best hope for achieving self-determination. We must condemn terrorism without qualification, and that is consistent with promoting the simultaneous accommodations by both sides which the Roadmap envisions. We must affirm Israel's right to defend itself, but that is consistent with urging on Israel tactics and timing that do not undermine the Roadmap initiative, as our President and our Secretary of State have recently articulated. What this resolution fails fully to grasp is that concern for Israel's security and integrity is a major motivation for many of us, most of us, as we push for American leadership via the Roadmap. This effort will require all of the energy and persistence and support we can muster, in this body and in our government, in the critical weeks that lie ahead.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate in this first-ever debate on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, for their leadership of our subcommittee and the fine staff, majority and minority, for their good work. Our task was to develop a budget where none had previously existed for a Department that is struggling to master its mission. Hearings could not even be arranged for many of the largest and most important of the Department's 11 major agencies. As a result, we did not have the benefit of questioning important agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and Office of Domestic Programs. Those four agencies alone constitute 31 percent of the Department's total budget. The bill before us today provides over $35 billion for the new Department, which is $1 billion over the administration's request. In addition to providing for big-ticket items such as $5.6 billion for Project Bioshield, it provides $4.4 billion in grants to our first responders, which is 25 percent more than the President requested, and $900 million for the science and technology directorate to promote the research and development of security-related technologies. I am also pleased with the attention paid to the equally important non-homeland security traditional missions of the many agencies now incorporated in this new Department. For example, the bill before us today rejects the administration's proposal to discontinue the section 404 postdisaster hazard mitigation program and combines it with $200 million for predisaster mitigation activities to both learn from the past and prepare for the future. I am also encouraged that the bill recognizes the potential of our Nation's institutions of higher learning: $80 million is included for the rapid development of promising homeland security technologies by universities, national laboratories, nonprofit institutions and private companies, as well as $35 million for university and fellowship programs, including $25 million for the creation of university-based centers of excellence. There are, however, Mr. Chairman, ample grounds for concern: for example, the security of our Nation's ports. Despite no request from the administration, the subcommittee has appropriated $100 million for port security grants to shore up our significant vulnerabilities there. Unfortunately, our Republican friends rejected a Democratic amendment that would have added $500 million toward the $4.4 billion the Coast Guard estimates is needed for port facility security improvements. We would have paid for that by a small reduction in the tax cut going to people making over $1 million a year. Still, the subcommittee has been assured and must continue to demand the completion of port vulnerability assessments at the Nation's 55 largest ports by the end of 2004. I remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, with overall fiscal year 2004 appropriations for law enforcement and emergency services. Given the importance of our Nation's first responders to the security of our communities, I want to ensure that the overall funding levels for the Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services, (COPS), the Byrne grant programs, and related accounts remain at or above fiscal 2003 levels. I support this Homeland Security appropriations bill with the expectation that other appropriations bills, unlike the President's budget request, will provide adequately for first responders. We cannot allow those on the front lines to fall victim to an appropriations shell game, giving with one hand, taking away with the other, to the detriment of our local communities. Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year and a half since September 11. Much has been accomplished; yet many, many challenges remain. I rise today in support of this appropriations bill, while recognizing the progress we have yet to make in providing for the security of our homeland.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. What about our Republican colleagues in the House? They are supposedly in closer touch with these local communities. Does their bill contain one dime of help for the States?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for a very fine presentation. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. As to the pressing nature of these needs, many of them carry out of the State level at the time that our States are flat on their back fiscally, and our Republican friends are offering no help in that regard whatsoever. The gentleman talks about tax cuts. And we know people would rather pay less taxes than more. We are all pleased when we can offer tax cuts; but it does matter what kind of tax cuts.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And the Democratic plan, $44 billion, it is temporary, it stimulates the economy, it helps bail the States out. It will help avoid counterproductive things at the State level, cutting back services, raising taxes. What good is it going to do to cut taxes here if they have to be reimposed at the State level?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the gentleman to underscore what he just said. Are you saying that the amount that it would take to make Social Security whole for the next 75 years is less than the amount of this Republican tax cut?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Yes.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Before we run out of time, I want to turn to one of our most passionate and effective advocates in the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would put the chart back up giving the distribution of who benefits from these tax cuts, because on the talk shows these days you sometimes hear it said, well, of course, the tax cuts are mainly going to benefit the wealthy because they are the ones that pay the taxes. As a matter of fact, is it not true that this tax cut compounds the advantage of the wealthy? It does not just mirror their advantage. For example, if you look just at millionaires, millionaires in this country pay 19 percent of the income taxes, but what percent of this tax cut do you think they get? Twenty-seven percent. They get 27 percent of the tax cut; they pay 19 percent of the taxes. So it just does not wash to say, well, they are paying more taxes, so naturally they get a better tax cut. The fact is this is a grossly unfair tax cut, and it targets those in the upper brackets. That is not fair, but it also does not do what needs to be done in terms of turning this economy around.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Stiff-armed, I understand.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Why on Earth would our Republican friends want to do such a thing? It clearly is something that they do not intend to stick by. They do not really intend for these tax cuts to expire. Why would they write such a bill?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with several of my colleagues to discuss our Republican friends' proposed tax cut package and the way it will affect the Federal budget and the American people. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has presided over the Nation's worst economic performance since the Great Depression and the worst fiscal reversal in all of American history. Since President Bush took office, we have lost more than 2.7 million private sector jobs, and real GDP has inched at only 1.5 percent annually, the worst record for any administration in over 50 years. The 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus projected when President Bush came into office is gone, totally gone. In its place the administration has proposed a budget with over $2 trillion in deficits over that same time period. That is a fiscal reversal approaching $8 trillion. These charts tell the story. Here we have the fiscal reversal illustrated going from a $5.6 trillion surplus 2 years ago projected until now looking at a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. And this chart gives the picture on jobs. In the first 28 months of the Clinton administration, 6.8 million private sector jobs gained, 1993 through April of 1995. In the first 28 months of the Bush administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs lost as of April of this year. Unfortunately, in the face of all this, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, the response of our Republican friends is to propose more and more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems to be just keep digging. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe that a stimulus plan should be based on three simple principles, principles that should be self-evident but that our Republican friends incredibly seem unable to grasp. First, a stimulus plan should be fair. It should put money back in the pockets of average Americans, boosting consumer demand and the business investment needed to meet it. Secondly, a stimulus plan should actually stimulate the economy. It should be fast-acting with its impact concentrated to provide an immediate jump-start to the economy. It should get the most bang for the buck by targeting consumers likely to spend and businesses likely to invest and hire new workers. Finally, a stimulus plan should be fiscally sound. It should be paid for. It should not pile up national debt. It should not contain gimmicks which disguise its true cost. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan that we will be debating tomorrow is organized around these three principles. The Republican plan fails to meet the standards by a country mile. It is not even close. Tomorrow the House is scheduled to debate the Republicans' $550 billion tax cut, every penny of it borrowed money, funded by increased government debt that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. Tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy during a downturn make good sense. However, the Republican plan only puts in place 9 percent of its tax cuts this year, precisely when they are needed the most. The House Republican plan centers on tax cuts, on stock dividends and capital gains, both of which economists have rated as very ineffective in stimulating the economy. These proposals would benefit mainly upper- income individuals who are much more likely to save such windfalls than would be low- and moderate-income families. Under the Republicans' proposal millionaires would receive approximately $139 billion in tax cuts through 2013. That is essentially the same amount of tax cuts that would be received by the entire bottom 89 percent of households combined. Mr. Speaker, it is simply irresponsible to be considering large upper-bracket tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit to the tune of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, to be doing this at a time when we should be paying down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, which after all begins in only 5 years. Moreover the Republican plan is full of phony sunsets and other gimmicks that actually understate its true cost. By contrast House Democrats have proposed a stimulus package that is fast, fair acting, fiscally responsible, and paid for. It uses a proven approach to creating jobs and growing the economy, puts money directly into the hands of average Americans, the very people most likely to spend it, and it provides tax relief to businesses most likely to invest. It focuses on jump-starting the economy now at a fraction of the cost of the Republican tax cut proposal. It provides permanent tax cuts for most American families, including an immediate increase in the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket. The House Democratic plan also extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks. It increases the level of benefits and provides temporary aid to States to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and part-time workers. These benefits would provide financial help to 5 million out-of-work Americans, and economists have rated that as one of the most effective stimuli that would we could apply. In contrast the Republican plan would allow the Federal Unemployment Benefits program to expire on May 31, leading to millions of families being denied this unemployment insurance to help tide them over. What about the States? As a result of a bad economy, States are facing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. States across the country are cutting education and health programs and raising taxes, undermining jobs, undermining economic recovery. The Democratic jobs and growth plan in stark contrast to the Republican plan which has said to the States go elsewhere, the Democratic plan would provide $44 billion in aid to States to minimize tax increases and service cuts and to prevent the job losses that would otherwise occur. The second chart compares the stimulative effect of the proposals I have been discussing. If we extend Federal unemployment benefits for every dollar we spend, the stimulative effect in the economy, the amount of economic activity generated, comes to $1.73, one of the most effective things we could do. If we support the States through Medicaid and education and homeland security funding, for every dollar we invest that way we get $1.24 in bang for the buck, also a good stimulative effect. The centerpiece for our Republican friends' dividend tax reduction, 9 cents of impact for every dollar of revenue lost. If what we are talking about is stimulating the economy, then this chart says it all. Finally, the Democratic plan would provide companies with a tax credit worth up to $2,400 for hiring somebody who has been out of work at least 6 months and includes $29 billion in tax incentives to generate investment and jobs now, such as allowing small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. In other words, businesses would be encouraged to invest sooner rather than later, again fueling economic growth. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the Democratic plan would create almost twice as many jobs as the Republican plan in the first year. Let me be specific. The Democratic plan would create 1.1 million jobs compared to the Republicans' 600,000 jobs. And the Democratic plan would achieve this at a fraction of the cost. Instead of saddling our children and grandchildren with a mounting national debt, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan that will help revive the economy, promotes economic growth, offers tax relief to those who need it most, uses honest accounting, and is paid for. A number of Members are going to be speaking over this hour about the choices that we have tomorrow and about what we can do now, what we can do effectively to turn this economy around and to do that in a fiscally responsible way, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a valued colleague from Virginia, a member of the Committee on the Budget who over the years has stood for fiscal integrity, fiscal responsibility.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Before we yield to our colleague from Washington State, let me just commend the gentleman for a powerful statement and also for reminding us of a little bit of history, not too ancient history, but history that goes back to 1993 and a night on this House floor that many of us will never forget, where without a single Republican vote we passed a far-reaching plan to move the budget toward balance; and in fact from every year from then forward, until this President took office, every year for 8 years the deficit came down.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the subject of the special order today.