David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentlemen's assurances, both the chairman and the ranking member, that it is not the intent of this bill as drafted to compromise these essential consumer protections, many of them administered by State insurance commissioners, and that if there is any remaining ambiguity, that that will be attended to in conference.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the managers from both sides, if I might, in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman and Mr. ranking member, I first want to express my appreciation to you for the hard work that you and your colleagues have put into the drafting of this complex and necessary piece of legislation. I am a former member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I am well acquainted with the difficulties that have to be overcome just to bring a financial services modernization bill to this floor. I do have a concern, however, that I hope the gentlemen will spend some time addressing before bringing a conference report back to the House. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners and North Carolina's Insurance Commissioner, Jim Long, have expressed to me a concern with section 104 of this bill. This is a section that describes under what circumstances State insurance law should be preempted in order to ensure that financial institutions are not discriminated against. I know there are differing interpretations of this section as to what sorts of State laws might be preempted. For example, North Carolina just passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. This is legislation that is very important to our citizens. I hope the gentlemen can assure me that it is not the Committee's intention in this bill to allow financial institutions that provide insurance products to be exempted from this law or other important consumer protection statutes. If there are remaining problems or ambiguities that need to be cleared up, I hope the gentlemen will work during the conference to clarify in what situations State insurance law should and should not be preempted by this bill, and to make sure that functional regulation and vital consumer protections are not compromised.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this week the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill lost a bold leader when its eighth chancellor, Michael Hooker, died from complications of cancer. Memorial services will be held at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning on the UNC Chapel Hill campus. During a short 4-year tenure Chancellor Hooker brought a great vision to the university, constantly pushing Carolina with the declared goal of making it the greatest public university in the Nation. His legacy will live in the university community and beyond, wherever the impact of his enthusiasm and his leadership were felt. Mr. Speaker, Michael Hooker had an abiding love for Carolina. When he came to Chapel Hill to serve as Chancellor in 1995, he was returning to his school to which he had first come as a young man from the mountains of southwest Virginia and which he always felt had opened up the wider world to him. He graduated from Carolina in 1969, the first member of his family to graduate from college. He had a degree in philosophy. After earning graduate degrees in philosophy, he taught at Harvard, he held posts at Johns Hopkins University and then served as president of Bennington College in Vermont, the University of Maryland Baltimore County and the five campus University of Massachusetts system. But Michael Hooker always wanted to return to Carolina. He brought to the job of Chancellor a spirit of innovation, seeking to build on the traditions of America's oldest public university. He believed that education is our greatest engine of opportunity, and he reached out to the entire State to share his belief. His administration's theme was: ``For the people,'' and he crisscrossed North Carolina visiting every county to promote his vision and to renew the university's connection to the State. When students came to Chapel Hill, they knew they would be taught in a way that prepared them for the challenges of the 21st century. Hooker said, and I am quoting: In the 21st century the only thing that will secure competitive advantage for our regional, State and national economies is the extent to which we have developed, nutured, fostered, cultivated, and deployed brain power. Students will remember his active involvement in making their education reflect those values. He emphasized the need for increased access to computers and technology, made this a priority for UNC students, and he recruited and supported teachers who were willing to cross disciplinary boundaries and to innovate in their teaching methods. North Carolinians who knew Michael Hooker will remember his energy for innovation and for effective teaching, his belief in the promise of a great public university and his passion for leading Carolina into the next century. My wife and I are sad for the loss suffered by Michael's wife, Carmen, their family and our entire community. I deeply regret that Michael will not be with us to see his bold vision unfold. However, I am comforted in the knowledge that so many people are prepared to carry that vision forward, embracing the traditions that shaped Carolina and its late chancellor and shepherding the spirit of inventiveness and boldness that Michael Hooker embodied.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, two pictures of the American flag are etched in our minds, and they embody the kind of nation we are: one is of the U.S. Marines planting the flag at Iwo Jima and the other is Neil Armstrong standing next to the flag on the moon. Those visions move us because they show the commitment and courage of our people, representing what we can overcome and what we can achieve as a nation working together. I do not understand people who are unmoved by these visions, or the even smaller minority who, for whatever reasons, feel compelled to desecrate our flag. These people do not reflect my values or the values of our people. To me, the American flag is a symbol of our nation's greatness, of our aspiration toward ``liberty and justice for all,'' and of the Constitutional protections that we offer our citizens. I don't think any of us would disagree with the goals we are discussing today, protecting our flag and honoring the values it stands for. But we do have significant disagreement about the means by which this can best be accomplished. Along with a bipartisan group of members, I am cosponsoring the Flag Protection Act, which would protect the flag without compromising or changing the Constitutional protections which the flag symbolizes. I am reluctant to base a change in the Bill of Rights--something we have not done in over 200 years--on the misguided actions of a small group of people who choose to express themselves by desecrating the flag. The Flag Protection Act would let us honor and protect both the flag and the Constitution, which is what I believe most of our fellow citizens and most of us here today wish to accomplish. The alternative Constitutional amendment offered by my friend from North Carolina would leave the Bill of Rights intact and is consistent with the approach I am advocating. It would state simply that ``not inconsistent with the First Amendment, the Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' I believe this is the proper and appropriate way to prevent the desecration of the American flag. We don't need to change the Bill of Rights to protect our nation's most powerful symbol. I urge passage of the Watt substitute.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the competing gun safety bills that the House is considering do not appear to differ greatly, but in fact those differences are important to keeping firearms out of the wrong hands and closing the gun show loophole. The Department of Justice has worked to make the instant check more convenient. Some 73 percent of all background checks now are done instantly; another 22 percent within 2 hours. That means just 5 percent require additional information before the purchase can be completed, but that is an important 5 percent. The most important difference between these competing bills is the length of time allowed to clear or deny that remaining 5 percent. The Dingell bill gives law enforcement only 24 hours. The Hyde-McCollum proposal, 72 hours. The McCarthy proposal, like the Brady law, gives law enforcement 3 business days. Let me be clear about who in North Carolina would have been cleared for gun purchases if the present check were only 24 hours, as in the Dingell bill. A person under indictment for second degree murder would have obtained a gun in North Carolina on January 2, 1999. On April 10, a person under a restraining order for domestic violence would have been cleared, and on May 15, a person convicted of rape in Virginia would have gotten a gun. But because law enforcement had 3 business days to complete the background check of these individuals, the Brady law prevented them from completing a firearm purchase in North Carolina. If the background check is to do its job, if the gun show loophole is to be closed, law enforcement must have the time it needs. The differences between these proposals are important: Vote for the McCarthy substitute. Mr. Chairman, firearms legislation tends to focus intense heat in the House. What I want to try to do is shed a little light. The competing gun safety bills that the House is considering do not appear to differ greatly, but the differences are important to keeping firearms out of the possession of felons, fugitives, and those with a record of domestic violence, drug abuse or mental illness. The Brady law, despite all of the predictions made in 1994 that it would not work, has stopped over 400,000 gun sales to dangerous persons. It has helped reduce the homicide rate in the United States to the lowest in a generation. And now we have the chance to plug the Brady bill's greatest loophole: unregulated gun shows. No doubt, the background check required by the Brady law is an inconvenience, but it is a small inconvenience that has saved lives. The Department of Justice is working hard to make the instant check more convenient. Some 73 percent of all background checks are approved instantly. Another 22 percent are approved within two hours. That adds up to 95 percent of all background checks, approved within two hours. The remaining five percent require additional information before a purchase can be completed or denied. Perhaps the most important difference between the competing bills we vote on today is the length of time allowed to clear or deny that remaining five percent. The Dingell proposal gives law enforcement twenty-four hours or the gun gets transferred. The Hyde-McCollum proposal gives seventy-two hours. The McCarthy proposal, like the Brady law, gives law enforcement three business days to track down the details to make certain that a gun buyer is not a prohibited person before allowing the transfer. Let's be clear about who in North Carolina would have been cleared for guns if the present check was only twenty-four hours, as in the Dingell bill. A person under indictment for second degree murder would have obtained a gun on January 2, 1999. On April 10, a person under a restraining order for domestic violence would have been cleared to purchase a firearm. And on May 15, a person convicted of rape in Virginia would have gotten his gun. Because law enforcement had three business days to complete the background check of these individuals, the Brady law prevented them from completing a firearm purchase in North Carolina. It seems a small inconvenience to require that the five percent of questionable purchasers wait up to three business days before completing a gun purchase. Like the background check itself, it is a small inconvenience that will saves lives. I urge the adoption of the McCarthy amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairmen of both the full committee and the subcommittee. I agree with both of them that it is going to be a very difficult, very challenging process to fund those programs under our responsibilities. I am concerned that this rescission could make that more difficult for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and my colleagues to find the funds necessarily adequately to fund both Section 8 and all the important programs we oversee. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult to find the funds to fund Section 8 fully, and all of these important programs we are overseeing. It is vitally important to do this, though; and I pledge my cooperation to getting it done.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that one of the offsets being used in this bill is $350 million from the Section 8 housing program. I understand that these are monies that are not expected to be spent this year. But the future use of these funds was considered when HUD calculated how much to request for fiscal 2000. It is my understanding that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman, plans to appropriate sufficient funds to renew all Section 8 contracts in the fiscal 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill; and if I might, I would like to engage him in a colloquy at this point on that matter. My concern is that funding be sufficient to ensure that those currently using the Section 8 program will in fact have the necessary housing provided for them and their families. Is it the intention of the chairman to appropriate funds sufficient to renew all Section 8 contract renewals?

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there are only 147 days left in this fiscal year. This ought to be a time when we come together with bipartisan resolve to deal with three urgent crises that we could not have anticipated last September: the agricultural collapse in rural America, the devastation of Central America by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, and the need to support our troops and the allied cause in Kosovo. The Republican majority, unfortunately, has sought to politicize the NATO operation in the Balkans, withholding support for it last week, amid well-publicized arm-twisting, and now this week voting to double the funding for it! In so doing, the majority hopes to use the NATO campaign to leverage funding for unrelated military purposes. We should reject partisan gamesmanship that toys with the lives of our troops and the refugees, that trivializes the dignity of our rural citizens, and that belittles the suffering of the people in Central America. We should, instead, adopt the Obey substitute. The Obey amendment is well-crafted. It is responsible. It addresses the military and humanitarian needs in the Balkans, fully funding the Department of Defense's request. It includes the most justifiable of the defense add-ons, particularly those involving military pay and readiness. It addresses the disaster in Honduras and Guatemala, a situation we ignore at our Nation's peril; for if we ignore it, we will surely face a new flood of immigration northward and greater vulnerability to drug trafficking. And the Obey amendment provides desperately needed funding to meet the collapse in the price of agricultural commodities. Mr. Chairman, the House today has an opportunity to reverse its recent history of politicizing issues that should not be politicized and defaulting on the responsibility of a great power. Support the Obey substitute.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues a piece by Stephen Rosenfeld from the Washington Post of March 12, 1999. It highlights the eloquent words spoken by India's Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen at the ``World Movement for Democracy'' conference recently held in New Delhi, India. I attended the conference and served on an opening panel with my colleagues Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Jim McDermott, and Representative Lloyd Doggett. The international event was cosponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as two Indian partner organizations. I was impressed by the extraordinary commitment of the participants, representing over 80 countries from all parts of the world, to the shared values of freedom, rule of law, and human rights. The conference adopted a founding document establishing a ``Worldwide Movement for Democracy,'' the purpose of which is to develop new forms of cooperation to promote and strengthen democracy. NED deserves commendation for organizing this conference. NED grants have supported nongovernmental, pro-democratic programs in dozens of countries around the world. The ``World Movement for Democracy'' is yet another example of NED's outstanding work to advance the cause of democracy worldwide. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1999] The Economic Uses of Democracy (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld) The political blessings of democracy are manifest, but that leaves many poor countries still worrying whether democracy is a burden or a benefit to their economic development. This nagging question was tackled in New Delhi last month by a leading student of the affairs of the poor, India's Nobel economist Amartya Sen. There for the founding of a ``World Movement for Democracy'' by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, he took up the congenial theme of ``democracy as a universal value.'' Sen acknowledged the high growth delivered in Singapore by the authoritarian approach identified with former president Lee Kuan Yew. But a view of ``all the comparative studies together,'' he said, suggests there may be no relation between economic growth and democracy in either direction. Still, none of the policies proven helpful to development-- openness to competition, use of international markets and so on--is inconsistent with greater democracy. ``Overwhelming evidence'' indicates that what generates growth is a friendlier economic climate, not a harsher political system. Democracy has further economic uses. Sen noted ``the remarkable fact'' that in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. Immense famines have afflicted countries with dictatorial or alien regimes. Dictorial: the Soviet Union in the 1930s, China in 1958-61 (30 million dead) and the two current cases of North Korea and Sudan. Alien: British-ruled Ireland and India. Meanwhile, even the poorest democratic countries have avoided threatened famine. The difference is that the democratic places have a responsive government able to intervene to alleviate hunger. India had famines under British rule right up to independence. With the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press, they disappeared. What Sen calls the ``protective power of democracy'' has spared many countries a ``penalty of undemocratic governance.'' The pattern extends to Asia's current travails. Sen believes that financial crisis in South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia is closely linked to a lack of transparency, to the lack of public participation in reviewing financial arrangements. And once the crisis degenerated into recession, ``the protective power of democracy'' was simply not available to ensure spreading the burden of a cruel economic contraction. Such a protective power, Sen argues, is of particular importance for the poor, for potential famine victims, for the destitute thrown off the economic ladder in a financial earthquake: ``People in economic need also need a political voice.'' With evident pride he notes that in the mid-1970s, the Indian electorate--``one of the poorest of the world''-- affirmed its democratic disposition by voting out a government that had proclaimed emergency rule and abridged the people's rights. As for cultural differences, a common claim is that Asians traditionally value discipline over political freedom. Sen finds that hard to accept. He is in a position, as few of us are, to range over the texts of diverse Asian cultures and to contend with assorted practitioners and scholars in the field. His conclusion: ``The monolithic interpretation of Asian values as hostile to democracy and political rights does not bear critical scrutiny.'' Such an interpretation comes from politicians, not scholars: ``to dismiss the plausibility of democracy as a universal value on the ground of the presence of some Asian writings on discipline and order would be similar to rejecting the plausibility of democracy . . . on the basis of the writings of Aquinas or Plato.'' The many merits of democracy, Sen concludes, ``are not regional in character. Nor is the advocacy of discipline or order in contrast with freedom and democracy. Heterogeneity of values seems to characterize most, perhaps all, major cultures. The cultural argument does not foreclose, nor indeed deeply constrain, the choices we can make today.'' It was a felicitous stroke for the National Endowment for Democracy to recruit Amartya Sen as the herald of its attempt to put achieved and aspiring democrats in closer touch with one another. The Internet makes the mechanics of it easy. The wisdom of the man illuminates the core idea: Democracy is universal.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the first political figure with whom I seriously identified was Terry Sanford. Indeed, he was a mentor and an inspiration to many of my generation who came of age politically during his governorship in the early 1960s. He taught us what democratic politics at its best could be. He was a model of energetic and innovative leadership, full of ideas, refusing to be bound by the shackles of the past, possessing a vision of future possibility that inspired and empowered others. This Sunday marks the one-year anniversary of Terry Sanford's death. Looking around the Triangle region that I represent and all of North Carolina, we must remember that our success story was made possible, in large part, by the vision of Terry Sanford. Our quality of life and our economic success is the legacy of his commitment to public education, to the movement for racial justice, to the development of our community college system, and to the growth of Research Triangle Park. Like Terry Sanford, our area is dynamic, vibrant, and full of hope. When we look back on the broad sweep of Terry Sanford's life--as an FBI agent, a World War II paratrooper, a state legislator, lawyer, author, university president, governor, and senator--we see a life committed to the greatest movements and deeply involved in the greatest accomplishments in this American century. I am proud to join the entire North Carolina delegation in sponsoring this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to name the federal building in Raleigh for Terry Sanford, an extraordinary citizen, visionary leader, and son of North Carolina.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of this motion to instruct conferees to address the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds before enacting huge and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that would drain the budget surplus. Virtually all economists, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, have argued that addressing the fiscal challenges posed by the impending retirement of the baby boom generation should take precedence over tax cuts. Of course, the challenge is not just one facing Social Security but most especially Medicare as well. The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund in fact is projected to become insolvent long before the Social Security trust fund. So a broad consensus has developed that we should address the long-term future of both of these programs, that that really is of the utmost priority on our national agenda. Nonetheless, here we are about a fourth of the way through this first session of the 106th Congress and we have made no discernible progress on these two issues, which arguably are the most important domestic issues that face us. Both the Senate and the House versions of the budget resolution would take us down a road that provides no help on extending the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. They do contain across the board as opposed to targeted tax cuts that would certainly grow in the future, in a way that jeopardizes the progress we have made in eliminating the budget deficit. We did offer an alternative in committee and on the floor, we on the Democratic side of the aisle, an alternative that would buy down more debt and would transfer assets into these trust funds to extend their life. Unfortunately, that alternative was rejected. At the very least, we should instruct our conferees now to include in the budget resolution provisions to put on hold attempts to enact a large tax cut that will consume the budget surpluses and more into the future. We should at least put tax cuts off limits until the end of the fiscal year to give us time to seriously address the Social Security and Medicare challenges that face us. So I welcome the prospect of bipartisan cooperation on this and urge passage of the motion to instruct.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. We are talking about a stark contrast in these budget proposals. The one makes room for reduced class size and for school construction and also lets us make good on what we promised last year when we passed the higher education act, opening up opportunity through Pell grants and an improved student loan program. The other budget makes a short-term increase in education over the long haul but would drastically decrease this funding.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Those studies are very convincing, that the students perform better when they are in first-rate facilities. It is not just an abstract issue. We have thousands of kids going to school in these facilities. Often they are going to lunch at 10:30 because the cafeteria facilities haven't kept pace with the addition of trailers. They do not have adequate gym or restroom facilities. It simply is a misplaced priority to say that we cannot afford to do this. The Republican budget squeezes it out. The Democratic budget would make room for that kind of school modernization. Let me ask my colleagues, also, to address the other major initiative that we are looking at in this Democratic budget: getting class size down and getting 100,000 new teachers in the classrooms of America. We made a start on that last year. What is it going to take to keep that going?

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) in a further discussion of this. It is important to get these facts out. Is it not true that the Democratic alternative would make room for school construction? The kind of proposal that the President has made to give tax credits in lieu of interest on bonds in these low-income areas that need desperately to build or modernize facilities, or like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and I have introduced to target high-growth areas so that our kids are not going to school in trailers. I come from a district where we have hundreds of trailers, thousands of kids going to school in these kinds of facilities. We need to get ahead of the curve in school construction.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we want to talk about education. There is a lot that is wrong with this Republican budget resolution. We need to discuss these issues in depth. The budget resolution is arguably the most important single decision we make here. It is the blueprint for how Federal resources will be used for the coming fiscal year and on into the future. So the Democratic and the Republican proposals we are considering here today need to be debated in depth. They are a study, in fact, in contrasting priorities. The Republican budget would provide no help in extending the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. It falls short on veterans health care and crop insurance for our farmers and other critical needs. The Democratic alternative would extend the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, would provide more funding for critical priorities, would implement targeted tax relief, and would reduce the debt held by the public more than the Republican proposal. Mr. Chairman, we want to talk especially about education, because nowhere is the contrast more stark than with education. Our Republican colleagues boast about providing some increase for elementary and secondary education, but, overall, funding for education and training would be cut by $1.2 billion from the nominal 1999 level in the Republican budget for 2000. The result would be drastic cuts in funding for other priorities like higher education and teacher training and Pell grants and Head Start. Over 5 years, the Republican budget cuts to education and training would result in a 6.9 percent decrease in purchasing power, and over 10 years the decline in purchasing power for education would be over 18 percent.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Absolutely. Every item that I am addressing is touched on by all these budget promotions, again, parliamentary maneuvers, anything to avoid a direct comparison of the Democratic and Republican alternatives that are before us. The second point of comparison: Over 10 years the Democratic budget pays down $146 billion more in public debt than the Republican budget. Third point of comparison, education. Over 5 years, $10 billion more in the Democratic alternative for education, making it possible to reduce class size, to bring on 100,000 new teachers; making it possible to get our children out of trailers. And I speak as someone from a district where thousands of children are going to school in hundreds of trailers. In low-income areas, in high-growth areas, we simply must give our children the modernized facilities, the good equipment they deserve. The fourth area of difference, tax cuts. The Democratic budget provides for targeted tax cuts; long-term care tax credits, child care tax credits, research and experimentation tax credits, and tax credits to let local school authorities get ahead of the curve in issuing school bonds. Fifth, Veterans and veterans' health care. We discussed that earlier today. The Republican budget makes a show of boosting veterans' health care, does it in the first year only, and then actually cuts, cuts, veterans' health care $400 million below the freeze level over the next 5 years. We could go on and on. There is no question the Democratic budget is fiscally responsible. There is no question it is targeted at areas of urgent national needs. It is far superior to the majority proposal, and I urge its adoption. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there is a good bit of rhetoric being spoken here today. I think our Republican friends would understandably like to do anything other than compare straightforwardly the Democratic alternative and the Republican alternative that are before us today. The facts are that in at least five critical aspects the Democratic product is vastly superior, and I do not think really anyone has challenged that effectively today. First, the Democratic alternative extends Social Security solvency until 2050 and Medicare solvency to 2020. The Republican budget does not extend that one day. Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way my colleagues have chimed in here. There is no question that we are dealing with a stark contrast in many areas of this budget, but certainly in education. In dollar terms, the Democratic alternative next year provides $2.6 billion more for education and training, and then over the next 5 years we are talking about a $10.2 billion gap. It is a gap that we have got to close. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. And the impact is the greatest in grades 1 through 3, is that right?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the consideration of this budget has gotten so partisan. Because I tell my colleagues, this area of veterans' health care is an area where we ought to be able to reach bipartisan agreement, as the other body did in a 99-0 vote last night. We ought to be improving the President's budget in the area of veterans' health care, and instead the Republican budget makes it worse. Over the next 5 years it would cut discretionary spending for veterans, which primarily goes to health care, a total of $400 million below nominal 1999 levels. Long-term care issues are going to be increasingly important as our veterans population ages. Making the Adult Day Health Care program permanent could be unobtainable if this resolution is passed. I fought hard on the Committee on Appropriations for increases to the VA medical research budget, increases that could not be maintained if the Republican budget passes. Mental health services that are funded through our veterans' centers and which need to be expanded would have to be cut back if the Republican resolution is adopted. The majority leadership owes this House the opportunity to have a vote on this critical funding. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) deserves a vote on his amendment. Vote against this rule. Vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Dave Camp and I are introducing the Camp-Price Dry Cleaning Environmental Tax Credit Act, legislation which would provide an incentive for dry cleaners to transition to environmentally friendly dry cleaning technologies. Under this legislation, dry cleaners would be able to take a 20-percent tax credit on the purchase of technologies that substantially reduce risks to public health and the environment. The Federal Government can and should help accelerate the transition to technologies that meet our criteria for greater energy efficiency, or greater protection of public health and the environment. If we really want the private sector to move toward greener and healthier technologies, and if we don't want to simply rely on new regulation to do it, the simplest, most effective method is through targeted tax incentives. President Clinton has proposed this type of approach for equipment that helps reduce energy consumption, and I think it is also appropriate for equipment that helps protect human health and the environment. We are just beginning to see the possibilities of what technology can accomplish for environmental protection. Environmental technology promises to mend the rift that has too often arisen between environmental protection and economic development. It will make reducing pollution easier and cheaper, and it will itself become an engine for growth in our economy. I am pleased to join with my colleague on this initiative and look forward to working with him to achieve its passage.