David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The strongest economy and the most sustained recovery. We even reached the point where we were running a surplus, not just a Social Security surplus, but a surplus in the general fund of this government. We retired $400 billion worth of the national debt. But our Republican friends might not be convinced by that historical lesson. It does not reflect very well on them. So let me just ask the gentleman, look back to some previous Republican administrations. Is it not true that in 1982, when the Nation went into a recession and President Reagan had pushed through some tax cuts and the deficits were mounting, that with Senator Robert Dole's leadership some of those tax cuts were rescinded and some spending was cut? The Congress and the President found themselves in a hole, and they quit digging. They at least quit digging. They did not make the problem worse. To some extent they halted the deterioration of our fiscal situation. Then think about the first President Bush. I am sure you remember that battle. President Bush said ``read my lips'' and had gotten himself locked into a situation. But when the economy declined, when the fiscal situation deteriorated, he had the courage and the statesmanship to work with Democrats across the aisle and to put a 5- year budget plan in place. So the first President Bush, when he found himself in a hole, he quit digging. So if our Republican friends do not find the 1993 episode instructive, then maybe they will find those earlier episodes instructive. Then the question comes back, why is it that this White House seems to feel none of that restraint? Why is it that this Republican leadership seems to feel none of that concern, but is perfectly willing, finding themselves in a deep and dangerous fiscal hole, to propose that we should just keep digging?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I turn to our colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a long time member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I particularly appreciate his focus on the plight of the States. My colleagues may recall that the governors were in town a few weeks ago, Democratic and Republican governors who went to the White House, I understand, and talked about the ways that in a temporary way there could be some help for the States and, as we said earlier, help for the States is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. It gives good bang for the buck. They suggested such obvious ideas as a little better cost-sharing on Medicare temporarily to tide them over. What kind of reception did they get down there, Republican and Democratic governors alike?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of my colleagues who were part of this Special Order tonight. Often we have very heated debates in this House and we have a good bit of rhetoric filling the air; sometimes there may even be an exaggeration or two. But I must say with respect to this bill tomorrow and with respect to our fiscal situation, we are not exaggerating. We are not exaggerating the danger we face. We are not exaggerating the unprecedented character of the risks that are being taken with our fiscal future by this administration and by the leadership of this House. We are not exaggerating the differences between the parties. There is a simple three-point test that any proposal ought to be able to pass: Is it effective? Does it stimulate the economy? Is it broad based and fair? Is it fiscally responsible? The two plans before us tomorrow could not be more opposed or more different in the way those basic questions are answered. So I thank all of my colleagues for helping us line this out tonight and address our colleagues about this critical debate. It is not an exaggeration to say that our fiscal future is on the line, and I appreciate all those who have helped point that out so forcefully this evening.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Sure and that is what we need to face. If you are going to have tax cuts then, for goodness sake, have the honesty and the integrity to pay for those tax cuts so it is not coming out of the hide of the most vulnerable among us. There are some tax cuts in the Democratic proposal, but they are aimed at the broad middle class in this country. They were designed to stimulate the economy and they are paid for. And in all three of those respects they contrast with these upper-bracket tax cuts which our Republican friends are trying to peddle as an economic stimulus when I do not know any economist who is going to tell you you get much bang for the buck from cutting the tax on dividends for goodness sake. The estimate I have heard is 9 cents on the dollar. That is not a very good return.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody within our hearing tonight who could not think of better public and private uses for that than throwing it down the rat hole of $300 billion, $400 billion of interest on the debt each year. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize our colleague from Virginia, another colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Budget and a much respected Member of this body who has made himself an expert on budget affairs, and we appreciate him having his usual array of charts tonight to illustrate the situation we are facing.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The situation the gentleman is describing reminds one of the old saying: if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is simply an unprecedented situation. If we look back at previous Republican administrations, what is striking is that when they found themselves at a certain point in a deep enough hole, they did stop digging. In the Reagan administration in 1982 under Senator Robert Dole's leadership, some of the tax cuts of earlier times were reversed and some spending was cut, and the fiscal erosion was halted. Then in 1990, under the first President Bush, despite his ``read my lips'' pledge of no new taxes, when the fiscal hole got deep enough and the economy was in a severe downturn, the President, in a considerable act of statesmanship, worked with congressional Democrats and came up with a 5-year budget plan that set us on the path to more sensible fiscal policy. So in those past Republican administrations, when the hole got deep enough, some leadership was exerted and they stopped digging. In this administration, it seems there is no limit to the fiscal folly.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if I can interrupt for one second, I wonder if the gentleman could talk about the effect of these tax cuts on the economy. It is often said this is the way to stimulate the economy and that particularly the President's new round of tax cuts is going to be the key to turning the economy around. I just saw some figures released today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and they talk about how different measures would stimulate the economy. If you extended emergency Federal unemployment benefits, for example, for every dollar that you use for that purpose you get $1.73 of economic stimulus, because these folks are going to use that extra money for the necessities of life and they are going to pour it right back into the economy. If you help State governments, for example, with their Medicaid expenses, for every dollar you put into that you get $1.24 worth of stimulus. But what about dividend tax reduction? For every dollar of revenue you lose to dividend tax reduction, the stimulative effect on the economy is all of 9 cents. Nine cents. So would the gentleman say these upper bracket tax cuts do very much to improve our economic situation?

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Teaching Fellows Act of 2003 with fourteen original cosponsors. The most critical education issue we face is the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers. In order to keep pace with anticipated retirements and the growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next ten years! These projected shortages are especially serious in some states and districts--especially inner cities and the rapidly growing West and South--and in subjects such as special education, mathematics, physical sciences, and foreign languages. While all the education improvements and reforms we envision are dependent on a first-rate teaching force, neither political party has given teacher recruitment and retention top billing on its education agenda or has moved beyond stereotypical responses to the challenge. Neither offering federal stipends or student loan forgiveness to prospective teachers--as proposed by the Clinton administration--nor exhorting individuals to pursue teaching careers--an approach favored by the current administration--is likely to produce the kind of intensive, sustained effort we need to nurture prospective teachers, strengthen their professional identity, and help them succeed once they enter the classroom. There is no single, simple solution, but I believe that North Carolina's successful Teaching Fellows program offers a model for national emulation. The Teaching Fellows Act would create two federal programs to encourage our best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of teaching by offering them scholarships as well as professional development and mentoring assistance. One program would offer fellowships and intensive training for high school seniors and college sophomores who want to become teachers, while another would enable teaching assistants and other community college students to earn their four-year teaching certificates. In exchange, these scholarship recipients would be required to teach for at least four years in a public school or three years in a low-performing school following graduation. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every teacher be ``highly- qualified'' by the 2005-06 school year. In order to meet that need, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and retention effort. The Teaching Fellows Act gets to the heart of the need for quality and quantity in America's teaching force. We know that such programs work, and with the federal support this bill would provide, these state programs could be building blocks for the intensive national recruitment and retention effort that is essential to strengthening our public education system. I would like to invite all members of the House to cosponsor the Teaching Fellows Act, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure our schools will have the teachers they need to be successful.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), indeed does have a veterans hospital in her district. So she is well-acquainted with the good work that they do in these facilities and also what these cuts might mean.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, that is an important point. It was the Democratic budget that made the needed adjustments in veterans health care and other funding to meet the need. The President's budget fell far short of that. The veterans organizations made the case for much more adequate funding. And then our Republican friends in the House cut it even below the President's level.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and I would like to address our ranking Budget Committee member. Is there any way that our Republican friends, who voted for this motion to instruct conferees, saying quite specifically, do not touch these programs, is there any way that they can now consistently vote for the Republican budget resolution?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments. We will be hearing in the remainder of this hour about many, many deficiencies and defects in this Republican budget, but I must say none of them match the sheer insensitivity and callousness of cutting veterans health care funding. It is just beyond belief that our Republican friends would attempt to do this, especially in a time of war. They are driving the budget as a whole over the cliff while at the same time squeezing these vital programs. As we said, it is the worst of both worlds. I do appreciate the fine work of our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, and particularly his effectiveness tonight in highlighting the differences, and believe me there is no comparison, between the alternative he put forward on this floor and the Republican budget.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we had before our subcommittee a couple of weeks ago the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, and so I had an opportunity to ask him what he thought of the House Republican budget and what they had done to his Department. I also asked what he thought of the accusation that there was that much waste, fraud and abuse in his Department. He hesitated a moment and he said to me, ``Congressman, what we need at the Veterans Administration is an increase, not a decrease.'' He went on to cite the aging of the World War II veteran population and the kind of pressures that his Department is under to deliver quality health care.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. On the contrary, I do not know of any economist who believes that the tax cuts this administration is proposing would have a stimulative effect on this economy. These are tax cuts that would exempt dividends from taxation and rate cuts that would affect mainly the top brackets, people who would not be spending the money and stimulating the economy.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, let me just read what the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans says about that very subject. He says it better than I could. ``Has Congress no shame?'' he said a couple of weeks ago when this Republican budget was before the House. ``Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifice of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' That is his diagnosis, and I think it is hard to argue with.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking out this Special Order tonight to discuss the fiscal folly that this administration and the Republican leadership of this House are engaged in. The President's budget and the budget passed by Republicans in the House really give us the worst of both worlds. The Republican budget takes us over the cliff fiscally, with $2 trillion being added to the publicly held debt over the next 5 years, by 2008. At the same time there are deep cuts in basic domestic obligations and priorities that we simply must meet. All this is to make room for the President's tax cut, mainly benefitting the upper bracket taxpayers. I appreciate the gentleman giving us a chance tonight to hear from a number of Members who will talk about various aspects of this budget and the way that it will affect our constituents and the American people. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee that oversees veterans affairs, I am especially glad that we are bringing much-needed attention to the issue of veterans benefits. The budget adopted on a party line vote in the House on March 21 includes cuts of more than $28 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years. That includes cuts in both entitlement funding and in discretionary funding, and these cuts, Mr. Speaker, come at a time when the VA health care system is already in a state of crisis. Indeed, there are more than 200,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer now for their first medical appointment with the VA. The cuts are in both entitlements and discretionary spending. The House Republican budget cuts appropriated programs for veterans below the level needed to maintain 2003 purchasing power over the next 10 years by a total of $14.2 billion. This would necessitate major cuts in veterans health care, because health care makes up 96 percent of the discretionary spending that we do for veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs projection shows that there is going to be no decrease in the core population of eligible veterans over that time period, nothing that would reduce the demand for health care, and the population of noncore, that is, Priority 7 and 8 veterans, is projected to increase over that period. So the funding reductions in veterans health care in the House Republican budget would reduce the number of veterans that the VA could treat; our estimate is a reduction of an average of 280,000 persons per year, or about 5.7 percent, over the next 10 years. That is a drastic cut. That is a slap in the face to people who have served this country honorably and well and whom we have promised would have their health care needs met. Our Republican friends are also wanting to cut entitlement spending for veterans. The so-called reconciliation instructions in the Republican plan require $14.6 billion in unspecified reductions in veterans benefits to root out the waste, fraud and abuse that House Republicans apparently believe can be found in veterans programs. This $14.6 billion cut represents a cut of 3.8 percent in mandatory spending, far below the levels in current law. The Republicans have claimed that this is a 1 percent reduction. The red line on this chart is what it would take to maintain the current purchasing power of these veterans entitlement programs. The blue line is the claimed 1 percent reduction, but the green line is what the Republican budget actually would do. Those are the cuts that we would see, the erosion in present purchasing power of programs for veterans. What would we have to do to achieve these savings? Well, maybe one option would be to eliminate burial benefits for veterans, or maybe we could reduce the cost-of-living allowances or compensation payments for veterans with service-connected disabilities for the next 6 to 10 years. Our Republican friends do not say, but with numbers this drastic, cuts this drastic, there is no question that we would be seeing a serious erosion in benefits. I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and a champion of veterans, and would invite her to comment on the situation that we are facing.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1559, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, including $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism. In the months and years ahead, questions will persist as to whether alternatives to a U.S. military invasion might have succeeded in removing the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program. And there are important debates still to come about the postwar program for rebuilding Iraq, the multilateral cooperation we must secure to ensure a postwar transition to democracy, and the efforts our nation must resume to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. This Congress must hold the President and our country to these critical objectives. But today, our task is more straightforward: we are here to give our courageous men and women in uniform the support and the resources they need to carry out their mission swiftly, effectively, and decisively. I have no doubt that that support, in the form of this supplemental appropriations bill, will be provided with near unanimity later today. This bill also must address the protection of our citizens here at home. This Administration has made a total supplemental appropriation request of $74.7 billion. Homeland Security accounts for less than 6 percent, or only $4.2 billion, of this total. The Republican leadership of the Appropriations Committee has made significant improvements in the Administration's request and has courageously refused to cede the Congress's responsibility to apportion spending to the discretion of the President or Secretary of Defense on any other executive officer. But the bill still falls short of our minimal homeland security needs, and unfortunately, the leadership of this body has rejected constructive efforts from our side of the aisle to improve it. Let me give two examples: port security and support for first responders. Although Congress and the Bush administration have taken important steps to improve airline safety, very little has been done to secure the 361 seaports around our nation that receive nearly 21,000 containers a day from hundreds of overseas ports. Maritime shipping moves 95 percent of non-North American U.S. trade. Testifying before Congress last August, Robert Bonner, Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said, ``There is virtually no security for what is the primary system to transport global trade . . . The impact (of an attack) on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating--all nations would be affected.'' Despite the vital role seaports play in linking America to the world, both economically and militarily, port vulnerability studies for the nation's 50 largest ports are not scheduled to be completed for five more years. The Coast Guard estimates the 10-year cost for port security improvements at $4.4 billion, and $963 million for the first year alone. In this time of crisis, we cannot afford to delay this effort. Despite no request from the Administration, Congress has appropriated $400 million for grants to critical ports to conduct vulnerability assessments and make needed security improvements. The Democratic amendment provides $250 million more to better meet the security requirements of our ports. Our first responders are our first line of defense--the ones who intercept terrorist activities and are first on the scene in the event of disaster, putting their life-saving skills to work. I have traveled throughout my district meeting with local leaders and first responders. They tell me that they need equipment, training, and funding to meet the demands of their new responsibilities. Yet, they still have not received the funding that they have been promised; in fact, they are facing funding cuts in the President's 2004 budget. The Democratic amendment provides critical support, first, in securing interoperable communications equipment. Incompatible communications equipment hinders the ability of our first responders to adequately respond to disasters and costs lives. Only 40 percent of fire departments can communicate with police or EMS personnel. The technology to obtain interoperable communication equipment exists now. DHS is developing national guidelines. The Democratic amendment provides $350 million to be directed immediately through grants to this effort in our effort to correct a universally accepted need. Fire fighter grants were authorized at a level of $900 million for Fiscal Year 2003, but funded $150 million below its authorized level. The Democratic proposal makes up this shortfall by providing the additional $150 million to the grant program. This additional money would make up shortages in basic needs such as portable radios, self-contained breathing devices, and map coordinate systems. Not only major metropolitan areas but also smaller communities located near critical infrastructure are faced with an increased burden of security as a result of the ongoing high threat level. The Democratic proposal provides $300 million through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to help these communities fund the heightened security requirements they must address. This additional $300 million would provide a total of $3.5 billion to ODP for Fiscal Year 2003, which is equal to the Administrations original Fiscal Year 2003 budget request. Mr. Chairman, members of this House understand the importance of providing our troops with the resources they need. We stand united behind them today, and we remain steadfast in our faith in them and our support of their mission. However, it is also our duty protect all of our citizens and to provide funding to ensure homeland safety and security. It is in that respect that the bill before us falls short. Having been denied the opportunity to strengthen this bill today, we on the Democratic side will persevere in future appropriations efforts, hopefully with bipartisan support, to address urgent priorities in homeland defense. Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget and in support of the alternative budget being offered by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Mr. Chairman, the 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus projected less than 2 years ago is gone, completely gone, thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts mainly benefiting upper-bracket taxpayers. Now the Republicans offer a budget with over a $2 trillion deficit for the same 10-year period, $4.4 trillion if we exclude the Social Security trust fund. That is a fiscal reversal of almost $8 trillion. Unfortunately, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, the Republicans' response is to propose more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems to be: just keep digging. The Republicans' budget proposes $1.3 trillion in new tax cuts, every penny of it funded by increased government debt. The result, Mr. Chairman, is that the Republican budget would provide the worst of both worlds. We would go over the cliff fiscally, while at the same time radically reducing money available for education, the environment, transportation, healthcare, and law enforcement. At a time when our veterans are waiting 6 months for an appointment at VA hospitals, the Republican budget would cut compensation for service-connected disabilities and education benefits by $15 billion and veterans healthcare funding by another $14 billion over the next 10 years. As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, healthcare and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' The Republican budget not only fails to fund No Child Left Behind, the bipartisan education program enacted a year ago; it actually would require cuts in school lunch programs and in student loans. The Republicans mandate billions in cuts from appropriated health programs, but do not say where the ax would fall. From major disease research at the National Institutes of Health? From community health centers. There would be $2.5 billion in cuts required next year alone. From where? The Republican budget does not even keep up with inflation in funding for homeland security. And what new money is proposed is largely offset by cuts in law enforcement programs on which our police and other first responders have depended in years past. The Democratic alternative provides $10 billion for the States immediately for homeland security, as provided in our economic stimulus plan. The Republican budget does not contain one dime of this funding. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget has its priorities straight. A fast-acting and effective economic stimulus, a serious prescription drug plan, protection of veterans benefits, prudent investments in education and homeland security, and all of this with $821 billion less in deficits and debt than the Republican proposal. The Democratic alternative is realistic and responsible, fair and fiscally sound, and I urge colleagues to support it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and congratulate him on a very fine and thoughtful statement. Mr. Speaker, there is a good possibility that our country will be at war in Iraq before the month is out. The President held out little hope for any alternative approach to disarming Iraq at his press conference last Thursday. Yet a majority of the American people continue to urge for more time for inspections while we are facing something close to a diplomatic meltdown with major allies. A failure to secure allied support will have major consequences for every American. Our citizens alone will shoulder the financial burden of this war and its aftermath. Our troops will need to be kept indefinitely in post-war Iraq, our country alone as an occupying force will be the target of hatred, resentment and hostility from many in the Arab world, and America will risk losing our standing among the world's democracies as one who leads by moral suasion and example as well as by military might. Pollsters here at home say they have rarely seen an issue where the public's reaction is more conditional or ambivalent. Tonight I want to suggest this is because the Bush administration has not answered basic questions about this war and has backed us into a situation where we seem to be choosing between equally unsatisfactory ways of dealing with what most agree is a deadly challenge. The distinguished historian William Leuchtenburg citing Thomas Jefferson's maxim that ``great innovation should not be forced on slender majorities,'' recently contrasted George W. Bush's unilateralism to the behavior of previous wartime Presidents and found him ``unique in his defiance of so much international and domestic opinion.'' Many of our constituents believe that the full range and intensity of public opinion has not been visible or audible in Congress. One reason is that, by our vote of October 10 which gave the President an open- ended authorization for the use of force, this institution forfeited its coordinate decisionmaking role. Mr. Speaker, an up or down vote on a resolution authorizing force is at best a blunt instrument for checking the executive's constitutional dominance of foreign and military policy; but by granting unchecked authority months in advance, we made that instrument blunter yet. Still, I believe the questions and the challenges to the President's approach emanating from the Congress, and from Democratic Members in particular, have been more persistent and more consistent than most media accounts have acknowledged. It is true, Democrats were divided on final passage of the October resolution. And, in fact, this is not an issue on which a stance of absolute opposition is called for. We all understand Saddam Hussein to be a brutal dictator who is implacably hostile to our country and what we stand for. There is near unanimity in this body and in the international community that whatever capacity he has to make or use weapons of mass destruction must be ended. But critical questions remain regarding alternative means to this end. Many Members of this body have raised these questions with increasing intensity in recent weeks; and unfortunately, the Bush administration has rarely provided satisfactory answers. What accounting do we have for the costs and risks of a 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 antiterrorist and diplomatic objectives? And do we have a credible plan for rebuilding and governing postwar Iraq, and have we secured the necessary international cooperation to ensure that this does not become a perceived U.S. occupation? Administration officials, for example, have persistently refused to put a price tag on a U.S. invasion which, unlike the Gulf War, would have almost no financial backing from allies. The President's budget omits any reference to an Iraq war. With deficits for 2003 and 2004 already predicted to break historic records and $2 trillion slated to be added to the national debt by 2008, the addition of $80 billion to $200 billion in war costs could not come as welcome news. But it is an insult to this body and to the American people to submit a budget that absolutely fails to give an honest accounting, even within broad limits, of what those costs would be. Daily dispatches from Korea leave little doubt that North Korea is taking advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to dangerously ratchet up its nuclear program, and that the administration's diplomacy has not been up to this challenge. And now we learn that the Bush administration, which, truth to tell, has never had its heart in Middle East peace-making, has rebuffed its so-called quartet partners, the European allies, Russia, and the United Nations, and insisted on yet another postponement in publishing the long-anticipated ``road map'' to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Why? Because of the crisis in Iraq. President Bush in December demanded that release of the timetable for reciprocal steps and negotiations be delayed until after the Israeli elections. Now he is insisting again that the effort be delayed, this time until after we deal with Iraq, seemingly thinking that victory in Iraq will be the key to solving this and most other problems in the Middle East. As the New York Times editorialized last Sunday, ``The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the President is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.'' The fact is that the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Bush administrations's failure to do anything about it represent an enormous obstacle to enlisting the support we need to achieve our objectives in the region, including the war on terrorism. That is certainly the way the Europeans see it; and the President's rebuff has further poisoned the atmosphere, even as the administration struggles to gain allied support for military action against Iraq. Among the angriest allies reportedly is Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who for months has pleaded with President Bush to become more involved in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The administration's torpedoing of the Quartet initiative is also ill advised and ill timed with respect to Palestinian efforts at reform. It comes precisely at the time that President Arafat, under considerable pressure, has nominated Mahmoud Abbas, otherwise known as Abu Mazen, for the new position of Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Abu Mazen, with whom the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and I had a cordial and useful visit in Ramallah in December, has been an outspoken critic of the militarization of the Palestinian uprising. How successful his appointment proves in reforming Palestinian governance will depend, among other things, on how much real authority he and his position are given. But President Bush could hardly have picked a more inauspicious time to throw cold water on the plans to get back to negotiations. ``There was a lot of dismay when the road map was put off before, and the dismay right now is even worse,'' one European diplomat told a New York Times reporter. ``Without hope, the power of extremists will only grow,'' added another. Such, Mr. Speaker, are the costs of allowing Iraq to trump everything else on our antiterrorist and diplomatic agenda. Mr. Speaker, the world welcomed the President's decision last fall to take the Iraq matter to the United Nations and, apparently, to give more extensive inspections and the supervised destruction of weapons a chance to work. But his rhetoric since that time has led many to believe that he has always regarded the inspections as foreordained to failure and war as the only recourse. Suspicions have deepened as administration statements about links between Iraq and al Qaeda have become less and less measured. Such statements have helped persuade some 42 percent of the American public that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the 9-11 World Trade Center attacks. But prospective allies examining the rationale for war have understandably been less impressed. Inspections, of course, are a two-way street. They will never work without Iraq's willing cooperation; and that cooperation, as Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei have made clear, has been far from satisfactory. No matter how numerous or how skilled the inspectors are, they cannot find what amounts to needles in haystacks without honest and complete information regarding the weapons and the material which the Iraqis claim to have destroyed and the whereabouts of any remaining stockpiles. Still, it does matter how we reach the conclusion that Iraq has effectively continued its defiance that the inspections have failed, and that war is the only remaining option. In fact, the report of the inspectors at the United Nations last Friday significantly undermined the American position, arguing that progress has, in fact, been made and discounting the dangers of any Iraqi nuclear program. It is essential that the world know and face the fact, as the President said last Saturday, that Iraq is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. But we undermine our own credibility when we scoff at the destruction of a stockpile of Al Samoud missiles as a matter of no consequence, or insist on a U.N. resolution with so short a time frame as to make it seem merely a pretext for war. In fact, the U.N. inspectors themselves have specified the tasks remaining before them, and there is every reason to support the systematic pursuit of those objectives within a tight, but feasible, time frame. In the meantime, we must resist the notion that the alternatives confronting us are either to invade in the next few days or to appear to ``back down'' in a humiliating and dangerous fashion. It is true that the massing of 235,000 troops has created a momentum of its own, and they cannot stay in place indefinitely. But the risks and the costs of an invasion undertaken in the face of major allied opposition remain, and we need to give full consideration to options that avoid either leaving Iraq's weapons in place or inexorably marching to war. What might those options be? Michael Walzer has suggested intensifying what he calls the ``little war'' in which we are already engaged and challenging the French and the Germans and the Russians to become part of the solution. This could include extension of no-fly zones to cover the entire country, maintaining an embargo on strategic and dual-use materials, and intensifying the program of inspections and weapons destruction under international control. If such a program succeeded in destroying or neutralizing Iraq's weapons capability, the U.S. and the U.N. could credibly declare their mission accomplished, and most of the troops could return home, having created the military pressure that helped prompt compliance. I realize that at present, prospects for such an outcome appear to be fading. But when we are in an untenable position, contemplating outcomes that are equally unacceptable, we have an obligation to press in new directions. Mr. Speaker, whatever course our President and our country take, we will give our men and women in uniform our full support, and I am confident that a unified Congress will provide whatever resources they need to succeed. I have been moved by the farewell ceremonies for National Guard units in my own district, and I have the utmost respect for the service and sacrifice that these men and women exemplify. The debates we have over foreign and military policy do not change that in the least. In fact, we owe them, and all of our citizens, this debate, so that we do not choose our Nation's course either impulsively or by default, but with due consideration of our Nation's interests and values, and consideration of how our vast power can be a force for what is just and right in the world. May God grant us wisdom and courage for the facing of these days.

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. Chairman, since the House last considered a ban on cloning, the National Academy of Sciences and the President's Council on Bioethics have both issued reports on the ethical and social questions raised by cloning. H.R. 534 does not reflect the recommendations of either body. In moving to head off the morally unacceptable practice of cloning human beings, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that we must take great care not to limit the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer which holds considerable potential for developing new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge. The 17 members of the President's Council on Bioethics were divided on a final policy recommendation, but even the most conservative members of the council recommended only a 4-year moratorium on therapeutic cloning, not an outright ban as the Weldon bill would mandate. There is a compelling moral case for therapeutic cloning based on our obligation to relieve human suffering and to affirm human health and life. The Greenwood substitute maintains the critical scientific and moral distinction between reproductive cloning, which we all agree should be banned, and therapeutic cloning which has tremendous potential for human benefit. Vote against H.R. 534 and for the Greenwood substitute.