David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. That is an extremely important point. It is very disappointing to realize that now for 3 years we have been actually buying down the national debt. We have reduced the publicly held debt by something like $400 billion. That has strengthened our country, strengthened our economy, and made us pay less interest each year on that debt service. Why do we want to reduce the debt? Because it is a huge drag on this economy to owe $3.5 trillion in externally held debt. The debt service alone on that burden is $200 billion a year. Any one of our constituents could think of more productive public and private investments. That is simply money down the rathole; $200 billion a year in interest payments. I think the greatest problem is the burden this represents for future generations, particularly at precisely the time when the baby boomers are going to be retiring. These surpluses we are running in Social Security are not going to last forever. Baby boomers are going to start retiring in about 6 or 8 more years and then around 2015 or 2016, all of a sudden we are going to be putting out more money in Social Security benefits than we are taking in in Social Security revenues. What do we have to do at that point? We have to start cashing out those bonds that the Social Security trust fund has been holding all these years. The best single way we could prepare for that obligation is to reduce that publicly held debt, so that we are no longer laboring under that burden, no longer putting out $200 billion worth of interest each year. But I am afraid the situation has precisely been reversed and this budget today that we have been discussing foresees and, in fact, facilitates a huge turnaround in our debt situation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is absolutely right about the threat to the long-term interest situation, and the gentleman from Florida is right about the implication of this kind of debt service, burdening us down each year. I think the year the gentleman is referring to, the interest payments were actually more than Medicare. As I recall, interest payments were the third largest item in the whole Federal budget, surpassed only by Social Security and by the defense budget.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In the meantime, of course, we will have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into interest payments, which could have financed, for example, prescription drug coverage under Medicare about three times over, could have rebuilt our crumbling schools, shored up our infrastructure, could have done so many things for our country. Sometimes these numbers just seem beyond comprehension, but these national debt numbers are not just abstract numbers. They are a yearly drain on this country's resources which, unfortunately, this budget approved here today will only increase the problem.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We need to be systematically and in a disciplined way paying down that debt, and in these fortunate years where the Social Security trust fund is running a surplus, that is exactly the way that surplus should be applied; not for tax cuts, not for new spending, but for debt reduction and for the strengthening of the future of Social Security. That is the path we were on, that is the path we have been now knocked off of. We all know that we have to do some extraordinary things at this time of national crisis, and you will find no disagreement here today about that, about the need to prosecute this anti-terrorism offensive, about the need to shore up our homeland defenses. But the entire fiscal solvency of the country cannot be wrapped up in the anti-terrorism offensive. We need to do this and to do it well and to do it right, but we need not to do it at the expense of our country's long-term fiscal strength and fiscal solvency. And that is the debate I am afraid our Republican friends have failed today, as they have projected actually a 5 year budget. They have gone from 10 to 5 year numbers to make it look better, but the fact is our long-term budget prospects are being sacrificed.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Is there any provision for the supplemental appropriations bill that we know will be before us in a few weeks?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. So as bad as these figures look, about the disappeared surplus from $5.5 trillion to $0.5 trillion, that is actually an optimistic view.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) again for taking out these special orders and allowing us to explore these issues in more depth in a way that the 1- minute sound bites on the House floor do not permit. It is a real service, and I am grateful for being able to participate in it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Girl Scouts of the USA in celebrating their 90th anniversary. Since the organization's inception in 1912, the Girl Scouts have taken on the mission of giving all girls the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. For the last 90 years, Girl Scouts has empowered girls to become leaders, helping adults be positive role models and mentors for children, and helping to build solid communities. We have experienced this in our own family and still remember fondly the visit with our daughter to founder Juliette Gordon Low's home in Savannah. Through Girl Scouting, girls acquire self- confidence and expertise, take on responsibility, and are encouraged to think creatively and act with integrity--the qualities that are essential in good citizens and great leaders. Today, Girl Scouting has a membership of 3.8 million--2.7 girl members and over 900,000 adult members--making it the largest organization for girls in the world. Girl Scouting is available to all girls ages 5-17 through participation in more than 233,000 troops throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. The Pines of Carolina Girl Scout Council, which serves girls in North Carolina's Fourth District, boasts a membership of more than 21,000 girls. As an organization, the Girl Scouts have recently rededicated themselves to ensuring that Girl Scouting is available to every girl in every community, reaching beyond racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or geographic boundaries. The positive impact that Girl Scouting has on our communities cannot be overstated, and I am proud of the work of the Girl Scouts of the USA, particularly the work which benefits thousands of families in North Carolina. It is my pleasure to congratulate and commend this organization on its 90th anniversary.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for his clarification. The FEC will no doubt issue regulations that carry out the intent of this language. I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation, to restore the faith of the American people in the integrity of our election process, an indispensable keystone of democracy.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill, which would plug two gaping loopholes that have made a mockery of the law. It would ban unlimited, unaccountable soft-money contributions; and it would place issue-advocacy ads that mention candidates under the same rules that govern other campaign ads. Campaign reform is not just about money, however. It is also about encouraging truthfulness and a focus on the issues. We cannot and should not regulate the content of ads, but we can and must ensure that candidates take responsibility for the content of their ads and their campaign materials. That is the intent of the provisions in the bill that would strengthen the disclaimers contained in radio and TV ads. I am grateful to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for working with me to include most components of my Stand by Your Ad bill, H.R. 156, in this bill. The Shays-Meehan bill improves upon similar Senate-passed language, giving candidates and representatives of political committees the option of appearing full screen in their television ads and delivering the disclaimer directly, or delivering the disclaimer in voice-over with a ``clearly identifiable'' picture on the screen. This tracks the law passed in North Carolina in 1999, which most believe had a positive effect on the 2000 gubernatorial elections. There is one aspect of the bill's language about which I wish to seek additional clarification, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to get an answer to the following question. I would like to clarify for the record the authors' intent with respect to the voice-over option. To my mind, the postage stamp-sized picture that often accompanies disclaimers cannot be considered ``clearly identifiable.'' Is that the gentleman from Massachusetts's view, or could he provide any further sense of the intent of the term ``clearly identifiable'' with respect to the size of the photograph that would appear on screen?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), one of our colleagues who is most attentive to the budget process, for his statement. And I certainly want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means, with whom I cochair the Democratic Budget Group. We meet every Wednesday morning and go over the sometimes arcane budget figures that we are dealing with. Those figures now are coming to life as we understand how much things have changed in this past year and as we stop and see what these figures portend for our country's fiscal solvency and the kinds of things we need to do over the next 10 years. These are figures we must attend to, and I commend my colleague for taking out this Special Order today to focus on our fiscal situation. A year ago we were looking at a unified budget surplus over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion. Today that figure has been reduced to $1.6 trillion. I would just like to ask my colleague to elaborate on the fact that this is actually an optimistic figure, this $1.6 trillion. Is it not true that it does not include the likely extension of certain popular tax credits like the research and development tax credit, as well as the repair of the alternative minimum tax that we all know is going to have to take place unless many, many middle-income people are going to run up against that tax? It does not include the farm bill that is likely to pass in this Congress. It does not include the defense and homeland security requests that are going to be coming from the President and that we are going to want to support. None of that is included in this estimate. So when we say that the surplus is now only $1.6 trillion, that is actually an optimistic estimate. If we do all these things, then we are looking at a figure that is considerably lower. The figure that is now $1.6 trillion could go well under $1 trillion, something like $700 billion dollars or $800 billion. And natural disasters are not, I believe, in the mix either, the normal expenditures we make for recovery and relief after natural disasters. So the figure we are looking at is really a best-case scenario. Yet, how much worse it is than what we thought we were facing just a year ago!

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, here, too, we are talking about a best-case projection. The figures that we have from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the Republican tax act, including interest, is going to cost $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is 41 percent of the reduction in the surplus that we are talking about. As the gentleman has stressed, there are other factors that reduce the surplus. There is the war on terrorism; there is the declining economy. But the most important factor is the Republican tax act; and as the gentleman knows, there are some very unrealistic sunset provisions in that Republican tax act; assuming, for example, that the estate tax comes back online full force in 2011. We know that is not going to happen. So the figures that we have been given show that if that tax act does not sunset, if it in fact stays in effect, then we should add another $400 billion to the tab. What it costs over this period will go to something like $2.1 trillion. So this is, again, a conservative estimate of the kind of burden that we are going to bear. Let me now refer to the gentleman's chart dealing with the national debt. It was only a year ago that the Congressional Budget Office was estimating that the debt held by the public would essentially be bought down, or that all of it that could be redeemed would be redeemed, by about 2006. CBO was also estimating that the publicly held debt would essentially be wiped out by 2008. Again, what a difference a year makes. That debate we were having a year ago, about how much of the debt we could realistically hope to buy down on favorable terms, seems like a very quaint debate right now, because we are in a different world, fiscally. Dr. Crippen, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, in our hearing before the Committee on the Budget yesterday, confirmed that what we are now looking at by 2006 is not buying down the redeemable debt but buying down a very small fraction of the redeemable debt and leaving something like $3 trillion in publicly held debt in place. By 2008, the debt will still be in the neighborhood of $3 trillion. What, I asked him, are we foregoing by failing to buy down this debt? Of course, our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, focused on one aspect of the answer, and that is that we are going to be paying an additional $1 trillion in debt service. If there ever was money down the rathole, it is that money we pay in debt service, $1 trillion more than was estimated a year ago. Think of the more productive public and private investments that those funds could be going into. Yet it is going into debt service. In addition, we are not going to be paying down nearly the amount of publicly held debt we need to pay down in order to be in a position in the next decade to meet our obligations to Social Security and Medicare. We are building up assets in the Social Security Trust Fund at present, but we are going to need to redeem those bonds as the cash flow in Social Security reverses and the baby boomers retire. The best way we can today be preparing to meet those obligations is to be getting rid of that publicly held debt and that annual burden of debt service. That is exactly what we are going to be unable to do unless we get hold of our fiscal situation and maintain a disciplined and systematic schedule of debt reduction, to remove this burden and get in a position to meet those obligations to Social Security when the bill comes due. So I thank the gentleman for focusing on this. The opportunity costs for Social Security are obvious, because this is an obligation we are going to have to meet. There are also other costs. We need to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That is a very expensive proposition; yet there is nothing more important to modernizing Medicare and meeting the health needs of our senior citizens than making that prescription drug benefit a central part of Medicare, available to any beneficiary who wants it. Yet I do not need to tell my colleagues that the fiscal situation we are describing here today is going to make it ever so much more difficult to meet that obligation. Again, I thank my colleague for focusing on this fiscal situation. We have a job to do in, first of all, telling the truth about this budget and making certain that we have a common understanding here of the situation we face. After all, both parties have counted on this surplus. Both parties have pledged their fealty to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and have said that we are going to reserve those Social Security revenues for paying down debt and for ensuring the future of Social Security. We have counted on these revenues, and now they are going to be borrowed to pay for the President's tax cut. We have a job to do in being truthful about the situation that we face, and together, one would hope in a bipartisan way, figuring out how to maintain fiscal responsibility and maintain our commitment to Social Security. We must begin now to formulate a responsible budget that will preserve our solvency and our fiscal options for years to come. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for the very sobering information he has presented here today.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and I am proud to stand in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, last year's election revealed dangerous cracks in our voting system. This was most obvious in Florida where a month-long spectacle left Americans skeptical of the fairness and the legitimacy of our election system. But the problems were not limited to Florida. Studies have indicated that the votes of more than 6 million Americans went uncounted during last year's election cycle. The American people deserve better than that. They expect real election reform that ensures that every single vote counts and is counted. H.R. 3295 takes a significant step toward improving the integrity of the election system and making certain that every vote will count. The bill grants $2.25 billion to help States educate voters about their rights; to improve equipment, ballots, and voter instruction; to recruit and train poll workers, and to improve access for disabled voters. The States would be required to implement basic standards for fair and accurate voting. This would include a statewide voter registration system linked to every jurisdiction, in-precinct provisional voting for voters whose credentials are challenged, and means for voters with disabilities to cast secret ballots. H.R. 3295 also incorporates and builds on legislation I helped author, the Voting Improvement Act, H.R. 775. In particular, it would provide $400 million, up to $6,000 per precinct, to buy out unreliable and outdated punch card machines, the type of equipment that has the highest error rate. Punch card machine use is widespread. Thirty-four percent of the American people cast their votes on this kind of machinery, including eight counties in my State of North Carolina. But a 12-year study done by CalTech and MIT found the spoilage rate for punch cards was unacceptably high, almost 3 percent nationwide. That means a million votes have been lost since 1988 due to punch card machine error and malfunction. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to make certain that every American can participate fully and with confidence in our democratic form of government. We must ensure that every vote is counted. I urge my colleagues to take a significant step toward achieving this goal by joining me in support of H.R. 3295.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, during my time in this body, I have generally supported trade agreements and the granting of so-called Fast Track negotiating authority to the President. The vigorous pursuit of bilateral and regional and world trade agreements is an essential adaptation to the economic reality our country faces. But not just any agreements will suffice. As we consider giving negotiating authority to the President, it is important to make certain our negotiating framework has kept pace with changes in the scope and impact of trade. In my judgment, the bill before us today fails that test. It is not a totally deficient bill. In fact, it takes some important steps towards addressing labor and environmental standards. But the bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his collaborators produced should have been a starting point for wider collaboration and negotiation, not a take-it-or-leave-it end point. Had that occurred, this bill would give greater weight to basic labor standards, would have stronger nonderogation provisions, and would more adequately protect our environmental laws from challenges by foreign investors. We also, Mr. Speaker, need more assertive involvement by the President, both in urging all parties on Capitol Hill toward accommodation and in making his own negotiating objectives clear. It would be easier to vote for this bill, despite its deficiencies, had we heard from the President a convincing declaration that he is determined not to put our country at a disadvantage by virtue of the labor and environmental standards we maintain, and that he will instruct his negotiators to give these matters high priority. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill and do the job right early next year. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a supporter of free and fair trade and of an expansive American trade policy. Entrepreneurs, corporate leaders, workers, and farmers in my North Carolina district have proven their ability to compete in the new world marketplace, and although our state has also seen more than its share of job losses and industrial decline, a great deal of our growth and expanding prosperity have been generated by international trade. Therefore, during my time in this body, I have generally supported trade agreements, the granting of normal trading relationship status to China and other countries, and the granting of so-called ``fast track'' negotiating authority to the President. My view is and has been that we cannot continue to grow and to bring better jobs and expanding opportunity to our country by isolating ourselves or protecting ourselves from competition. We must confidently and aggressively enter the world marketplace, and the vigorous pursuit of bilateral, regional and world trade agreements is an essential adaption to the economic reality that we face. Not just an agreements will suffice, however. As we anticipate the challenges we face in the next five years, we must understand that trade has greatly increased in volume and in value, that it will increasingly involve nations with very different economic and social structures from ours, and that the labor, environmental, safety, and other policies and standards that we and other countries uphold are highly relevant to the advantages or disadvantages we may experience as we trade. Moreover, our ability to protect and improve such standards in the context of trade agreements will greatly affect the impact of trade on our own quality of life and on conditions in the countries with which we do business. So as we consider critically important legislation to give negotiating authority to the President and to specify our negotiating objectives, it is important to get it right--to understand these changes in the scope and impact of trade and to make certain our negotiating framework has kept pace. In my judgment, the bill before us today fails that test. It is not a totally deficient bill; in fact, it takes important steps toward addressing labor and environmental standards and giving them a status commensurate with other negotiating objectives. The bill that Mr. Thomas and his collaborators produced should have been seen as the starting point for wider collaboration and negotiation, not a take-it- or-leave-it end-point. Had that broader, bipartisan collaboration taken place, the bill would have given greater weight to the ILO's core labor standards in bilateral and regional negotiations and would have mandated the pursuit of a WTO working group on labor. It would have more strongly stipulated that agreements should have non-derogation clauses--that is, understanding that parties should not relax their labor or environmental laws in order to gain a trading advantage. It would have reduced barriers to investment while ensuring the integrity of our environmental law, by providing that foreign investors would have no greater rights in the U.S. than U.S. investors. And it would have given Congress a stronger role in overseeing negotiations and holding negotiators accountable. In all of these areas, the Rangel- Levin substitute offers reasonable alternatives that deserve more consideration than they got. Mr. Speaker, the flawed process and flawed product are intertwined. If this bill passes today, it will be by the narrowest of margins on a largely partisan basis. That does not bode well for future trade agreements or for our country's trading posture. And it did not have to be this way. A more inclusive bipartisan process would produce a far superior bill that would pass by a large bipartisan majority, and that in turn would greatly strengthen the hand of the President and his representatives as they enter critical negotiations. That is the kind of outcome we can have if we defeat this bill and do it right early next year. In this endeavor, we need more assertive involvement by the President, both in urging all parties on Capitol Hill toward accommodation and in making his own negotiating objectives clear. Proponents of TPA rightly point out that we are not writing actual trade agreements here and that the enabling legislation should not be overly prescriptive. Considerable presidential discretion is necessary and desirable. But that also places a burden of responsibility and accountability on the President to inform Congress and the public as to how he intends to use his discretion and what negotiating objectives he will vigorously pursue. It would be easier to vote for the bill before us today, despite its deficiencies, had we heard from the President a convincing declaration that he is determined not to put our country at a disadvantage by virtue of the labor and environmental standards we maintain, and that he will instruct his negotiators to give these matters high priority. But we have not heard such a declaration, and so the deficiencies of this enabling legislation become all the more troubling. The Rangel- Levin substitute, while not perfect, is a better alternative. And if the motion to recommit fails, I ask my colleagues to vote against this version of TPA, so that early next year we can produce legislation that more adequately expressed this body's and this country's bipartisan support for expanded trade and that puts our future trade negotiations on the firmest possible footing.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, we have passed legislation to rebuild the communities ravaged by terrorism, to bring down the Taliban and root out the al-Qaeda network, and to make our skies safer for the flying public. But there is one glaring omission, left out of the airline bailout bill, left out of the aviation security bill, and that is the workers laid off in the aftermath of these attacks. What we have known for weeks is now official: Our economy is spiraling downward in a recession worsened by the events of September 11. North Carolina's unemployment rate for last month was 5.4 percent, the highest it has been in almost 9 years. In this time of financial crisis, we need a recovery plan that includes all our citizens, not just the big corporations looking to benefit from a preexisting Republican tax cut agenda. Our Republican friends have found time to pass a 16-year refund of the alternative minimum tax for large corporations, but precious little for the working people who need extended unemployment benefits and reimbursement of their COBRA health care coverage. These priorities are way out of whack and we must reverse them now.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to rise in support of House Resolution 294 and to stand in tonight as co-manager of this bill for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is a cosponsor of this bill, as indeed are the other Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). Mr. Speaker, it is not common for the Members of the House and their staffs to need to vacate the House office buildings due to the presence of a potentially lethal health hazard, and let us hope it never happens again. Steps are certainly being taken to protect the people's House from future anthrax threats, to defend our country and freedom-loving peoples around the world from the scourge of terrorism. Pending achievement of that goal, this House indeed owes its thanks to the General Accounting Office for enabling it to continue its work for two critical weeks at the end of October and beginning of November. The gentleman from Ohio's resolution simply expresses the House's gratitude, and I hope it will pass without dissent. I want to thank David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, for so graciously offering GAO's assistance to the House in our time of need. I also want to thank Dick Brown, the GAO's Comptroller and Chief Administrative Officer, for his tireless efforts to ensure that the enterprise went smoothly. I certainly want to thank the dedicated employees of the General Accounting Office who were uprooted and relocated and otherwise inconvenienced to accommodate Members and their staffs. Mr. Speaker, despite hundreds of us descending upon the GAO headquarters, thereby allowing our legislative work to continue, GAO's important work got continued as well. This is a great tribute to the professionalism of the GAO staff and their ability to adjust to rapidly changing circumstances. The GAO, in fact, has been an essential support agency for Congress since its creation in 1921. Mr. Speaker, for 2 weeks at the end of October, 2001, and beginning of November, it was more than that. It was serving as the House's home away from home. The leadership and the staff of the GAO can now say that they have supported the work of the Congress as never before. This episode belongs in the annals of congressional history, and this resolution ensures that it will be so recorded. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the House express its gratitude to the GAO and its wonderful employees in the way that this resolution determines. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for bringing this important resolution to the floor. I urge an aye vote on the motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for calling this special order tonight and for his stressing so effectively the issue that confronts us. We have an airline and airport security measure that is languishing, that our Republican friends will not bring to the floor. Today, we saw on the House floor the rebirth of a kind of hard-edged partisanship that we hoped we had gone beyond as this so-called economic stimulus package was rammed through and the airline and airport security bill still languishes. I am proud to join the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and other colleagues tonight in pointing out the importance of that airline and airport security issue. What I would like to do for a few minutes here is to look at that economic security matter and to ask, what principles should guide us as we assemble an economic recovery, an economic security program. I want to suggest three principles, and I think the Republican bill which was rammed through by one vote here today failed badly on all three tests. First of all, an economic recovery, economic stimulus bill ought to address the needs of those who are directly affected by the loss of their jobs. Surely we should not have to argue that point. Our Republican friends left workers out of the airline bailout package that was passed a few weeks ago; and in the bill they passed today, they are giving only token assistance to these workers. The Republican Ways and Means bill provides only about $2 billion in benefits for unemployed workers in the year 2002 while providing $70 billion in tax breaks for corporations in that same year, a ratio of $2 billion to $70 billion. The Democratic substitute provided and paid for a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits and a 1-year program to help laid-off workers continue their health benefits through the COBRA program. It directly addresses the most immediate needs of those who have lost their jobs. Secondly, any bill worth its salt ought to actually stimulate the economy. Eighty-six percent of the Republicans' so-called stimulus bill goes to tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthiest Americans. Republicans have wanted this for a long, long time. We know that. But we also know that it has little to do with the economic situation that we face post-September 11. Here is what the Republican bill does, just a brief overview. There is a permanent repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. This includes a provision that requires the Treasury to send immediately over $20 billion in retroactive refund checks to companies who paid minimum tax all the way back to 1986. This 15-year refund of corporate minimum tax would provide $3.33 billion to just seven of America's largest corporations. The Republican bill also provided $20 billion in tax benefits for the overseas operations of financial services companies, essentially rewarding corporations for not investing in the United States economy. Tell me what that has to do with an economic stimulus. And then the Republican bill makes a permanent reduction in capital gains taxes. Seventy-two percent of the benefit of that reduction would be enjoyed by the wealthiest 2 percent of individuals. By contrast, the Democratic plan would provide tax rebates to people who pay Federal payroll taxes but limited income taxes. This would remedy an inequity in the tax bill passed earlier this year, and it would have maximum stimulative effect since these people need the money and will spend it on the necessities of life. The Democratic plan offers business tax relief, but it is tax relief that is temporary and is targeted to firms that, with encouragement, will overcome losses and make investments to stay in business and provide jobs. That is the point of the Democratic provisions on the carry-back of net operating losses, the waiver of alternative minimum tax limitations on loss carry-overs, and the doubling of permitted section 179 expensing. The Democratic plan also contains economic development and infrastructure funding, targeted toward meeting our immediate security needs, including security at airports and other transportation facilities and in the process boosting the economy. The third principle. An economic stimulus bill worthy of passage should stay focused and should stay fiscally responsible. The Republican bill enacts a wish list of permanent tax cuts, many of which will not kick in until 2003 and most of which will have a limited stimulative effect. And the Republican bill is not paid for. The Democratic plan, by contrast, again, is focused on stimulus, security and relief, it is temporary, and it is paid for. The Democratic plan provides an immediate stimulus of about $125 billion, and its net cost over a 10-year period is something like $80 billion. This is paid for, not by a tax increase but by freezing the projected further reduction of the top income tax rate paid by fewer than 1 percent of Americans. These taxpayers, with taxable family incomes of at least $300,000, would not lose the 1 percentage point in tax reduction they have already enjoyed, but they would be asked to forgo further reductions in taxes on whatever income is subject to that top rate. Keeping our budget balanced in the long run, avoiding spending the Social Security and Medicare surpluses and maintaining a disciplined schedule of debt reduction are essential to our country's long-run economic health, and we must not stimulate the economy in the short run by abandoning fiscal discipline in the long run. The Democratic package keeps these goals in balance. The Republican plan fails the test. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by quoting a USA Today editorial about this Republican plan. Here is what was said on the editorial page yesterday: ``This is easy to dismiss as politics as usual, but that is the problem. These are times that require everyone, especially political leaders, to put aside petty self-interests and everyday horse trading for the country's good. The House leaders showed an unwillingness to do that with their adamant refusal to consider federalizing the Nation's airport security system, and now they are at it again with their brazen attempt to use the current crisis to please well-heeled special interests.'' The plan that passed today by a one-vote margin is the disheartening return, Mr. Speaker, to slash and burn partisanship, and it does fail these three basic tests: it does not address the needs of those most directly affected with the loss of their jobs; it does not effectively stimulate the economy; and it is not focused or fiscally responsible. I am proud of the Democratic alternative, and I hope that we in this body can keep pushing for the principles that it contains. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution. Tuesday's terrorist attacks are unparalleled in our history, costing thousands of lives in one terrible day, more than the carnage at Antietam, more than Pearl Harbor. This was a carefully planned and skillfully executed act of war; and we must answer it with unity and resolve, apprehending and punishing those responsible, and any who harbored them or gave them aid. In responding as swiftly and surely as our military might permits, we must do our utmost to protect innocent civilians, a principle that stands in stark contrast to the practice of our brutal adversaries. We must carry out military action within the parameters of the Constitution and the War Powers Act, as this resolution provides. We must punish those heinous acts of Tuesday, acts as close to absolute evil as any of us will ever witness, and we must prevent anything like this from ever happening again--rooting out terrorism even as we renew our Nation's commitment to alleviating the world's suffering and injustice and serving as a beacon of hope to all humankind.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the horrific images of yesterday will forever be etched in our memories: people leaping from the World Trade Center as the flames advanced; the terror of passengers aboard those hijacked planes as they attempted to warn us of what was to come; a gaping hole in the Pentagon, with workers killed at their desks. It is difficult to shake these images and these thoughts, and our first, human response must be to express our profound sympathy to the victims and their families; to pursue a vigorous rescue operation; to reach out, to give blood, to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of those directly targeted in yesterday's attack. I am confident that we will reach out and work together as a united community. We have proven before that we can and will pull together at times of danger and disaster, as we in North Carolina know from our experiences after Hurricanes Fran and Floyd. There were moving stories of heroism and sacrifice yesterday from police and firefighters and ordinary citizens. We have a tremendous capacity to sustain and support one another, and we must demonstrate that resolve and mutual commitment as never before in the days ahead. We must also move vigorously and swiftly to gain full and accurate information about how this disaster occurred and who was responsible. We must track down and punish the perpetrators and anyone who harbored them or gave them aid. Our retaliation must be severe and sure, leaving no doubt of our unwillingness to tolerate this kind of assault, and of our determination to make certain that nothing like this ever happens again. Part of our mission must be to rethink national security policy. Everything from airport security to intelligence activities must be examined to ensure that we are able to anticipate and control terrorism. And, as the House has demonstrated by reconvening today, we cannot and will not allow ourselves to be deterred from carrying on this Nation's vital work here and abroad. Yesterday, terrorists attempted to snuff out the beacon of hope our country has represented to this conflict-ridden world. On this occasion, we must resolve to brighten that beam and renew our commitment to alleviating the world's suffering and injustice, and to do so in defiance of the forces of evil that have made September 11 another day that will ``live in infamy.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his comments here today and for carrying on this great work. We must use this occasion to resolve to press forward.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and want to commend him for calling this Special Order today and giving Members an opportunity to join in honoring the late Morris Udall and in observing the fourth anniversary of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act. Mr. Speaker, Parkinson's disease and related disorders afflict approximately 1 million Americans. Sixty thousand more are diagnosed each year with Parkinson's disease. Approximately 40 percent of those afflicted are under the age of 60. This is a devastating disease, and its incidence probably actually is underreported. Because it is not contagious and it does not have to be reported, we probably underestimate the extent of this devastating disorder. It is estimated that Parkinson's disease costs society $25 billion or more annually. I appreciate very much our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), coming to the floor today and sharing the story with his colleagues of his father's illness; and of course, we all remember his father's great accomplishments. Mo Udall was one of this body's greatest Members in the 20th century, a man of great humor, great concern for those in this society who are less fortunate, and a man of great achievement in this body. Mo Udall's last years were marred by Parkinson's disease, but he dealt with it courageously. We are all fortunate that his son, our colleague from Colorado, and his nephew, the gentleman from Arizona, are carrying on his good work in this body. We appreciate what the gentleman from Colorado is doing today and appreciate especially his sharing the story of his father with us and reminding us of the importance of carrying on this work, which we do in his name.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That is absolutely true. The number of families affected by this disease directly and indirectly is, of course, in the millions, and that includes my own family. My late father had a brother who was afflicted with Parkinson's. He had an uncle who was afflicted with Parkinson's. My dad, incidentally, was a great fan of the gentleman's father. I remember when I was the Democratic Party chairman in North Carolina, we were fortunate enough to line up Mo Udall as the speaker at our annual party banquet. It was over in the western part of the State, so my dad, who resided in east Tennessee, was able to come over for this function. He could not stop laughing. He said Mo Udall was the funniest man he had ever heard or seen anywhere, almost enough to make a Democrat out of him! Mo Udall was a wonderful man who brought great good humor to politics, great warmth, and a wonderful spirit. He later autographed his book ``Too Funny to Be President,'' and we gave it to my dad to his great delight. So Mo Udall was a huge personal favorite in our family. One cannot imagine a more fitting monument, a more fitting tribute to Mo Udall, than to pass this research act aimed at the scourge of Parkinson's disease and to carry out this path-breaking research in Mo Udall's name. The gentleman, of course, is quite accurate also in depicting the promise of this research. We have now across the country 11 Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Centers. One of those is at Duke University in my part of North Carolina. Dr. Jeffery Vance leads the Udall Center at Duke University, where a research team is using several state-of- the-art methods to find genes that may contribute to the etiology of Parkinson's disease and to distinguish the genes that contribute to familial Parkinson's from those involved in sporadic cases. That is path-breaking research, typical of what is going on in these research centers. The Udall program also has expanded basic and clinical research at institutions across this country. It has established the Morris K. Udall awards to encourage innovative research, and supported the creation of Parkinson's data banks and information clearinghouses in support of research and education. So this is a landmark statute and the programs that it has spawned are ongoing and are full of promise. It is very, very important not only to observe this fourth anniversary of the Udall Act's passage, but also to pledge here and now that we are going to continue this work and build on this work. We must double the NIH's budget over these 5 years, and I hope and believe we are on the way to doing that in this year's appropriations cycle. NIH has developed, under the directions laid down by the Udall Act, a 5-year Parkinson's disease research agenda. Last year, Congress funded the first year of that plan, so within NIH it is vitally important to continue that specific research program. The Udall Act has gotten us started, and it has provided the framework for the comprehensive research that we simply must undertake as a Nation on Parkinson's disease. And I would say to the gentleman that I hope, in having this Special Order today and observing this fourth anniversary, that this can be an occasion for all of us, all of our colleagues, to resolve to continue to build upon the vital and necessary work that the Udall Act has gotten under way.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act is a bill we should not be debating with such brevity and haste. Cloning is manifestly not the same issue as stem cell research, much less abortion, and 2-minute snippets fail to do justice to the complex issues involved. I am tempted to vote against both the bill and the substitute on the grounds that neither has been sufficiently refined or adequately debated. But that could be interpreted as a failure to take seriously the ethical issues that cloning raises and the need to block the path to reproductive cloning. That is the last thing we should want to do, for as Leon Kass and Daniel Callahan have argued in a recent article, reproductive cloning would threaten individuality and confuse identity, confounding our very definition of personhood, and it would represent a giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture. I will vote for the Greenwood substitute as the best of the available alternatives. We are not certain of the promise of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning, research for the treatment or cure of diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's or stroke. But we simply must take the enormous potential for human benefit seriously. In moving to head off morally unacceptable reproductive cloning, we must take great care not to block research for treatments which have great potential for good and could run afoul of the ban included in H.R. 2505. Critics such as Kass and Callahan argue persuasively that the ban on reproductive cloning contained in the Greenwood substitute would be difficult to enforce. But would the ban of nuclear transfer contained in H.R. 2505 be more easily enforced? As the dissenting views of the Committee on the Judiciary report argue, If a ban on the surgical procedure of implanting embryos into the uterus is unenforceable, a ban on a procedure that takes place in a petri dish in the privacy of a scientific laboratory is even more so. Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult matters. We should not suppose that our votes here today, whatever the result, will resolve them. We must do the best we can, drawing the moral lines that must be drawn, while weighing conscientiously the possible benefits of new lines of research for the entire human family. I believe the Greenwood substitute is the best among imperfect alternatives, and I urge its adoption.