David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this resolution is going to pass overwhelmingly today. No one has argued, after all, that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a helpful idea, especially in light of the precarious state of the peace process and the impending Israeli elections. The resolution, moreover, has been redrawn since the last Congress, to clarify that it opposes the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, not Palestinian statehood as such. The most promising path to peace, most of us agree, and the most promising path to the satisfaction of both Palestinian and Israeli aspirations, is to have no provocative unilateral actions taken by either side but, rather, to continue the process of negotiation and cooperation mapped out in Oslo. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must add that both the timing and the content of this resolution give cause for great concern. The resolution is one-sided in focusing its attention on what the Palestinians need to do to promote the peace process with no attention to Israeli obligations stemming from the Oslo and the Wye Accords. The Oslo agreement signified that the Israelis and Palestinians have become partners on the road to peace and both sides must live up to their obligations and avoid provocations that undermine the peace process. The ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), proposed language in committee that would have made this a more balanced resolution, asserting United States opposition to ``a unilateral declaration of statehood or unilateral actions by either party outside the negotiating process that prejudge or predetermine those negotiations.'' Israel has been and remains our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. Declaring as part of this resolution that they too must be responsible for carrying out their obligations would not undermine our relationship or threaten its future. In fact, it might make it stronger. Mr. Speaker, I hope and believe that Chairman Arafat has no intention of declaring statehood unilaterally, despite the arrival of the deadline date anticipated at Oslo. Our administration has already made it abundantly clear that it is opposed to a unilateral declaration of statehood. No one doubts that. So why are we considering this resolution now? And will this resolution make it harder or easier, politically, for Chairman Arafat to do the right thing? I think I know the answers to these questions, and I wish the sponsors of this resolution had conscientiously thought them through before bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, at least 2,000 people have been killed and 400,000 have been displaced over this past year by Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal campaign of violence and human rights abuses against the 2 million ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The peace process now underway represents our best hope for ending this bloodshed. We do not know if this peace process will succeed, but we do know that NATO is the best and most credible peacekeeping force, and we know that U.S. participation may be critical to the viability of NATO operations. A vote at this point against authorizing the deployment of troops will embolden Milosevic, disrupt the peace process, and call into question our commitment to NATO. It used to be said, Mr. Chairman, that politics stopped at the water's edge. It used to be that if a President said, as this President has, that a divisive vote of this sort would undermine delicate negotiations and would harm national security, that that vote would be deferred. This raw display of partisanship, this calculated attempt to undermine the President, and this reckless disregard for the consequences of our action are unworthy of this body and should be rejected. This resolution should not be on the floor in the first place, and bringing it up is an irresponsible act. But since it is before us and since the delicate peace negotiations are at risk, the only responsible vote is yes.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the 1998 campaign season marked a new low in political advertising or not. it is difficult to measure degrees of the bottom of the barrel or the volume of mud spread across the air. I know for a fact that the 1998 campaign season was more of the mess that results when intelligent discourse gives way to attack and counterattack. Last year, the House of Representatives took an arduous and promising step toward cleaning up our Nation's political campaigns. We passed the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill, which had been amended to include a version of the Stand-by-Your-Ad proposal that Representative Stephen Horn and I introduced in 1997. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Senate lacked the political will to see campaign reform through to a conclusion. I hope that 1999 will prove a more fruitful year for campaign reform. In that light, Representative Horn and I are once again introducing the Stand-by-Your-Ad proposal. Our legislation would require candidates to appear full-screen in television ads and thus take responsibility for them. Candidates would be required to provide comparable disclosure, boldly and clearly, in both radio and print ads. These enhanced disclosure requirements would also apply to party an independent committees. It is too easy for candidates to attack one another on television without the voter knowing who is behind the dirt. Candidates can obscure their identities with postage stamp size disclaimers. We need to make effective the requirement that candidates say who they are and take responsibility for their ads' content. This is an important step toward strengthening the accountability of candidates and campaigns. Campaign reform is not just about money; it is also about improving the quality and responsibility of debate. The bipartisan bill Mr. Horn and I recommend to the House would start us down that path, not by regulating the content of ads but by requiring candidates to assume responsibility for them. Our Stand-by-Your-Ad legislation has its origins in the North Carolina General Assembly where it has been championed by Lt. Governor Dennis Wicker and was approved last session by the Senate but not the House. Stand by Your Ad is compatible with and complementary to the full range of campaign reform proposals that will be considered by the 106th Congress, from Shays-Meehan to the disclosure-only bills. By approving this proposal, the Congress can strengthen disclosure so as to make sponsorship more clear and to require an assumption of personal responsibility in a way likely to discourage the most irresponsible and distorted attacks. We invite our colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this institution is failing to live up to its responsibilities, just as surely as the President has failed to live up to his, and the House's failure may well do the more lasting damage to our Constitution. Where there should be an extraordinary effort to work across party lines and find a consensual basis for action, I see a hard charging majority bringing articles of impeachment to the floor on a strictly partisan basis. Where there should be scrupulous attention to the constitutional and historical basis for impeachment, I see a cavalier willingness to define impeachment down to get a favorable vote, in disregard of what the framers intended. And where there should be assurances that this is a vote of conscience, I see a cynical and unfair manipulation of the rules to deny Members the right to vote on a motion of censure and to tilt the outcome in favor of impeachment. This shuts off consideration of the most appropriate sanction under the Constitution for the behavior we are considering. It denies many of us the right to vote our consciences on the most serious question we are ever likely to face as Members of this body. It is manipulative, it is cynical, it is unfair. It is as though the Republican leaders of this House have set out to confirm all of the worst suspicions Americans have about politics and politicians. Mr. Speaker, this House is on the brink of a historic and tragic failure. I beg my colleagues to take heed. Mr. Speaker, who among us would have thought when we ran for office or when the 105th Congress began, that this is where it would end? For the second time in the 209-year history of this republic, we are debating articles of impeachment of a president on the House floor. This is likely to be the most important vote any of us will ever cast. The judgment of history should weight heavily on our minds. What has brought us to this point? The reckless, irresponsible behavior of the president and his efforts to cover up that behavior, even when he was sworn to tell the truth. Many legitimate and troubling questions have been raised about the way the independent counsel and those working with him pursued this case, but this case is inescapably about the president and his behavior, which violated basic moral standards and is deserving of condemnation and reproach. That is not the end of the matter, however, for this case is also about us, as members of the House of Representatives. We have had this matter thrust upon us, and we must determine how to hold the president accountable in a way that is faithful to the Constitution, to the best interest of our nation, and to the people we represent. I say to my colleagues in all earnestness that we risk failing in this solemn task in a way that posterity will judge most harshly. Many have rightfully described this as a sad time. But despite the circumstances that have brought us to this point, I believe we could discharge our duty in a way that would uplift our nation and instill confidence in our people. Unfortunately, that is not what I see here today. I fear that this institution may fail to live up to its responsibilities as surely as the president has failed to live up to his. And our failure, if we go down the path the Republican leadership is attempting to drive us, may well do the more lasting damage to our Constitution and our system of government. Where there should be, in a matter of such gravity, an extraordinary effort to work across party lines and to find a consensual basis for action, I see a hard-charging majority whipping its members into line, and bringing articles of impeachment to the floor after committee approval on a strictly partisan basis. Where there should be scrupulous attention to the constitutional and historical basis for impeachment, I see a cavalier willingness to ``define impeachment down'' to secure a favorable vote, in disregard of both what the Framers intended in placing this power in the hands of the Congress and the constitutional mischief this action might encourage in the future. Where there should be assurances that this is a vote of conscience and that members will be given a full and fair opportunity to debate and vote on legitimate and differing proposals for holding the president accountable, I see a cynical and unfair manipulation of the rules to deny members the right to vote on a motion of censure and to tilt the outcome in favor of impeachment. This rigging of the rules shuts off consideration of the most appropriate sanction, under the Constitution, for the behavior we are considering. It blocks off the most promising possibility for bipartisan accommodation and agreement. It denies me and many like me the right to vote our consciences on the most serious question we are ever likely to consider as members of this body. It is manipulative, it is cynical, it is unfair. It is as though the Republican leadership of this House has set out to confirm all the worst suspicions and fears Americans have about politics and politicians. And all this is happening at a time when the House ought to be rising to this extraordinary historical and constitutional challenge. It is indeed a sad and anxious time, and we should not doubt that history's judgment not only of the president but also of ourselves hangs in the balance. In consulting the views of our country's founders, particularly the debate in the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent precedents, I have come to the conclusion that seems to be shared among the vast majority of constitutional scholars: the Framers viewed impeachment of the president as a remedy reserved for protecting our Constitution and system of government from grave abuses that would destroy them. The records of the Federal Convention make abundantly clear that the assumed grounds for impeachment were treason, corruption, and similar crimes against the state. Some delegates desired to provide flexibility in the grounds for impeachment, while others opposed any impeachment power for the legislative branch whatsoever as a threat to the independence of the executive. As a result, to the specified grounds for impeachment, treason and bribery, were added ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the State.'' (see Madison's ``Notes'' for July 20 and September 8, 1787). The last three words were dropped by the Committee of Style, but with no intent to broaden the application of the terms. As Alexander Hamilton subsequently wrote in the Federalist (no. 65): The subjects of . . . jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . [relating] chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. Presciently, Hamilton added that ``in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' The one time the House impeached a president demonstrated Hamilton's foresight. I've always heard a great deal about Andrew Johnson: I grew up thirty miles from his home and tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, and I now represent the North Carolina district where he was born. Members would do well to reflect on the circumstances of Andrew Johnson's impeachment and the consequences that flowed from it. Although Johnson was not convicted by the Senate, his impeachment ushered in a period of congressional ascendance and hobbled the presidency into the next century. The republic survived: we were an insular, agrarian nation, less in need of a strong executive than we are now. But while the grounds for impeaching Johnson were closer to the constitutional standard than those we are considering today, history has not judged the perpetrators of Johnson's impeachment kindly. The profiles in courage in 1868 were not those radical Republicans who pressed for impeachment; it was an easy vote for them, pleasing their political base and promoting their political ambitions. The profile in courage we most remember, in large part because of John F. Kennedy's book by that name, is Republican Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, whose vote prevented conviction by the Senate an who saw his political career ended by virtue of that vote. We would do well on this solemn occasion to recall the example of Edmund Ross and the warning he gave: If . . . the President must step down . . . a disgraced man and a political outcast . . . upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will. It would practically have revolutionized our splendid political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy. We have an appropriate alternative in a resolution of censure. I have hear the objection that censure is not constitutional merely because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars disagree. The precedents for congressional censure of presidents number at least four. The most frequently cited case is the Senate's censure of President Andrew Jackson in 1834. The House has taken similar action, such as the 1842 report--adopted by a vote of the House--finding that President John Tyler abused his constitutional powers, or the 1848 resolution charging President James K. Polk with starting a war with Mexico in violation of the Constitution. In 1864, the Senate condemned President Abraham Lincoln for unconstitutional acts. Congress has censured civil officers of the United States beginning in 1822 and continuing throughout our history. For Republicans to call censure unconstitutional is simply a smoke screen to cover their cynical and unfair manipulation of the rules to deny members a vote on the alternative which is favored by most of the American people and which is the most appropriate way of holding the president accountable. Censure opponents also argue that such a resolution would upset the equilibrium of power between the legislative and executive branches. This argument is a breathtaking display of crocodile tears, because these same people are pushing the House toward adoption of articles of impeachment which will weaken the executive far more than any resolution of censure. The Andrew Johnson impeachment shackled the presidency, requiring his successors to seek the permission of Congress to dismiss civil officers and cabinet officials. It was not until the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that the office regained the powers enjoyed by President Lincoln and many of his predecessors. In 1885, Wilson described a ``congressional government'' that entered ``more and more into the details of administration until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government.'' In portraying the approach the majority is taking today, Professor Bruce Ackerman of the Yale University School of Law observed that this ``cavalier approach to the impeachment process would radically change [the separation of powers]. Congress could regularly respond to unpopular decisions by seeking to force the president from office. The result would be a massive shift toward a British-style system of parliamentary government.'' In the long run, history will judge not only this president, but this House of Representatives as well. The articles of impeachment we are about to adopt, and from which I will strongly dissent, are incompatible with the intent of our Constitution's Framers and fly in the face of the convictions of most of our citizens and of our historical experience. The process by which we are considering them is a travesty. It denies to members the ability to vote our conscience and to the minority the right to propose alternative measures. It promotes division where there should be unity, distrust where there should be confidence. Mr. Speaker, this House is on the brink of an historic and tragic failure. I beg my colleagues to take heed.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina for becoming the first company in the state, and one of the first in the nation, to pledge its voluntary compliance with the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities developed by the President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. The Consumer Bill of Rights sets forth eight recommendations to promote quality and protect consumers in the health care system. The recommendations call for health plans to guarantee consumers' access to clear information about their health plan, allow sufficient choice of physicians and hospitals, provide access to emergency services and to grievance and appeals processes, ensure confidentiality of health information, and encourage participation by the consumer in treatment decisions. The Consumer Bill of Rights also calls for an environment of mutual respect between consumers and the health care industry and recognizes that consumers should take reasonable responsibility for their health care. Congress tried to pass legislation this year which contained many of these same patient protections. Our citizens deserve these assurances in the changing health care marketplace, and I was disappointed that we could not resolve our differences on this issue. However, it is very heartening to see that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is taking the initiative to adopt fundamental rights and guarantees for its health care consumers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is the largest health insurer in the state, with 1.6 million members, and the company's decision to provide these basic patient protections to its members follows its long-standing commitment to quality care. I hope other health plans in North Carolina and across the country will follow Blue Cross and Blue Shield's notable example and endorse the Consumer Bill of Rights. During the 105th Congress, much has been said about changes that are occurring in health care and about how patients and the doctor-patient relationship can be protected in this sometimes unsettling environment. Government has an important role in this, I believe, but it is even more important for insurers themselves to assume responsibility for the quality of their product and for the access of their customers to the quality care they need. That is what Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has done in endorsing the Consumer Bill of Rights. We should recognize and honor this kind of corporate responsibility when we witness it, and I am pleased to do so today.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference agreement to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. For the last thirty years, the Higher Education Act has enabled countless Americans to pursue their dreams. One year ago, I held a forum in my district involving students, educators, and administrators to share their concerns and priorities about higher education. I am pleased that many of the issues addressed at that forum have been included in this reauthorization bill. Some of these provisions include: simplifying and streamlining students loans and providing the lowest interest rate on student loans in 17 years; increasing maximum Pell grant awards to $4500 next year and up to $5800 by 2003; continuing to provide long-term low-interest loans to almost 800,000 students with financial need through the Perkins Loan program; readjusting the formula used to analyze financial needs in order to encourage students to work and save for their college education; and providing loan forgiveness for students who teach in low-income areas; and allowing historically black colleges and universities more flexibility in funding and expanding graduate programs through changes made in title III. I am especially pleased that the Campus-Based Child Care Act, on which I worked with Congresswoman Morella and other members, is included in this conference report. This will provide seed money so that colleges and universities may provide quality child care on campus. This is one of the most forward-thinking parts of this Higher Education Act and will allow many low-income single and working parents to attend college when they couldn't before--including many who will be making the transition from welfare to work. I congratulate the chairman, the committee, and the conferees on coming together to craft this reauthorization. I am happy to support the bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I awoke this beautiful Saturday full of hope. By noon today we will be 107 hours away from the finish line I have been running toward, ever since I first came to the Congress. With the end of September, we will have achieved the first balanced budget since Lyndon Johnson was President. Our achievement is imperfect, however. The unified budget is balanced only because of the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. And as we finish the race to this balanced budget, we begin another race with two finishes to cross: providing for the long-term solvency of Social Security and balancing the budget without including the Social Security trust fund. The bill we are debating today, the ``Raid Social Security for an Election Eve Tax Cut Act,'' threatens these goals. The problem is not with the specific tax cuts but with using the Social Security trust fund surplus to pay for them. These tax cuts are also contained in the Democratic substitute. I have cosponsored many of them. But they are paid for in that substitute, and they maintain the trust in the trust fund. The Republican bill effectively repeals the cornerstone of budget balancing, the pay-as-you-go rule. It does so without even a fig leaf of a budget resolution. It is irresponsible. The Democratic substitute gives us tax cuts, maintains budget accountability. Pass the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I awoke this beautiful Saturday full of hope. By noon today, we will be 107 hours away from a finish line I have been running toward every day I have served in Congress. With the end of September, we will have achieved the first balanced budget since Lyndon Johnson was President. Our achievement is imperfect. The unified budget is balanced only because of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. As we finish the race to this balanced budget, we begin another race with two finishes to cross: providing the long-term solvency of the Social Security System and balancing the budget without including the Social Security surplus. Our fiscal success is built on partisan and bipartisan achievement. The 1990 budget agreement put into place the cornerstone of our budgetary structure: the pay-as-you-go rules. If Congress or the President wants to add spending, it has to be paid for. If Congress or the President wants to cut taxes, it has to be paid for. Payment is either in spending cuts or tax increases. It was a bipartisan achievement, albeit one that our present House Republican leadership opposed. The 1993 budget was a partisan fight, passed by one vote in both chambers. it produced declining deficits five years in a row, laid the groundwork for phenomenal economic growth, and brought us to the point last year that we could hardly imagine not finishing the job. The 1997 budget agreement returned us to a bipartisan approach and accelerated the achievement of the goal now a little over 100 hours away. The bill we are debating today, the Raid Social Security for an Election Eve Tax Cut Act, threatens these goals. The problem is not with the specific tax cuts but with using the Social Security Trust Fund surplus to pay for them. More than half of the tax cuts in this bill come from proposals I have cosponsored. I support relief for small savers, small businesses, family farmers, health insurance, senior citizens, the marriage penalty and extending the research and development tax credit. These tax cuts are also contained in the Democratic substitute, but there they are paid for, and they maintain the ``trust'' in the Trust Fund. This Republican bill effectively repeals the cornerstone of budget balancing, the pay-as-you-go rule. It does so without even a fig leaf of a budget resolution, now more than five months past due. It hands our tax goodies as if they were Halloween candy, but the goody box it dips into is the Social Security Trust Fund. As the race to the balanced budget comes out of the turn and heads to the finish, this Republican tax bill is a dangerous detour. It can take us off the track, and it could prevent us from staying the course. We need a responsible approach that pays for tax cuts, that keeps us on the track to finish the race to a balanced budget. We need an approach that keeps the budget rules in place and effective so that we can begin the race to solving the challenge of Social Security and balancing the budget without including the Social Security surplus. The only way to achieve our goal is to support the Democratic alternative. Let's not fall off the track when the finish line is so close.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to a respected citizen of my district and a national leader of the Indian-American community, Swadesh Chatterjee, on his election to the presidency of one of the oldest and best-known Indian- American organizations in the nation, the Indian American Forum for Political Education. A recent gathering of more than 500 members of IAFPE unanimously elected Mr. Chatterjee. There could be no stronger advocate for the American-Indian community nor a more adept leader than Swadesh Chatterjee to guide the IAFPE into the next century, and we are proud that he calls North Carolina home. Since his immigration to America from Calcutta, India in 1980, Swadesh Chatterjee has been a leader in North Carolina's business community. Swadesh began as the plant manager of Brandt Instruments, a manufacturer of process control instrumentation located in the Raleigh- Durham area. He was quickly promoted to Executive Vice President, then to the position of President, where he has served for the past five years. Under his guidance, Brandt Instruments's operating profits have grown 170% in the last three years. Swadesh Chatterjee has been an important leader of the growing Indian-American community in North Carolina. This community is noteworthy for the many accomplished professionals and business people it contains, for its strong emphasis on education, family life, and the preservation of cultural traditions, and for its contributions to the wider community. Swadesh Chatterjee is proud of this community, as they are of him, and we are all delighted that his leadership will now be extended nationwide. I am honored to represent Swadesh Chatterjee and his family and to know him as a friend, and I am pleased to commend his leadership and his achievements before my colleagues in the House today.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Micell Technologies, Inc., a high-tech company from my home state of North Carolina that deserves much praise, not only for landing a spot on R&D Magazine's list of 100 most significant innovations of 1998, but also for discovering a new technology that will benefit people's lives and have a positive impact on the environment. Located in Raleigh and founded only three years ago by Joseph DeSimone and fellow scientists Timothy Romack and James McClain, Micell is being honored in conjunction with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for advancements in the use of carbon dioxide for professional garment care, metal degreasing, and textile processing. R&D Magazine has highlighted Micell's newest inventions, the Micell and Miclean solvent cleaning systems, which provide an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional dry cleaning and metal cleaning methods. These systems use a liquid form of carbon dioxde to clean clothing and remove unwanted oils while allowing the carbon dioxide to be recycled time and time again. This discovery is significant because it will offer an alternative to the use of perchloroethylene, the most commonly used dry-cleaning solvent, which has been known to contaminate groundwater and is also suspected to be carcinogenic. It will protect both consumers and employees in the dry cleaning industry and also help protect our environment. To help Micell Technologies and others like them, we should be strengthening federal support for basic science and environmental technology development and creating incentives to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally sound, energy efficient, and water conserving processes. The R&D 100 has been called ``The Oscars of Invention.'' It has honored innovations like anti-lock brakes and the fax and automated teller machines, inventions that have changed the way we live. Therefore, it is with great pride that I publicly congratulate Micell Technologies for their innovative, environmentally friendly technological discoveries.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join in these tributes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), a Member I regard as the model of what a Member of this body ought to be and a wonderful human being. Vic Fazio is a man of many facets. He is a fine legislator. He is skilled in the workings of this body. He does not have a match among us in his ability to work through difficult issues, to find a basis for accommodation. He looks out very, very effectively for California's interests, but he also helps all of us do our job for our constituents. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is a guardian of this institution. He is eloquent, as any of us can testify, in rebuking those who would take cheap shots at this institution, attempting to polish their own reputations at the expense of the Congress. But he is not uncritical; he has his own agenda for change. He is a loving critic of this place and has been a leader in finance reform and ethics reform and making the Congress a more responsive, more effective institution. He has been a builder at a time when many were ready to destroy, and history will judge his role as a constructive and important one. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is a man of great personal strength and depth. He has endured a devastating loss in his own family and has, in turn, reached out to many others in this body in times of stress and grief, proving himself a true friend and a source of spiritual strength. And I know staff feel that way, too. How many times have members of our staffs expressed their admiration for the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) as one who respects them, who treats them as peers, who knows how to work with all kinds of people to make good and important things happen? And, finally, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is a treasured colleague. He has been a mentor for many of us; I have felt that way since the first day I arrived here. He is a source of good advice, a source of encouragement, a friend in good times and bad. I feel personally indebted to him for what he has meant to me and for many of my friends and colleagues. We bid Vic Fazio a very reluctant farewell today. We hope we will see a lot more of him, but we will miss the good work and good humor and good colleagueship that have contributed so much to our life in this House. We bid farewell to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) with great admiration and affection, great personal indebtedness and all good wishes.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Finally, I would like to ask, as the report instructs the EPA to ensure the use of reliable data in calculating exposure to pesticide residues and to clearly explain the legal and scientific basis for its policies, would the intent of your amendment affect this directive?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who also has expressed concerns about these matters.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for taking the time to clarify the intent of his amendment on these points. The Food Quality Protection Act is an important tool for improving the safety of our food. We should work to implement it in a timely manner. At the same time, we must make sure that farmers continue to have the tools which allow them to make a living, producing safe, high- quality food.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The report instructs the EPA to review and issue emergency exemption tolerances in a manner which minimizes resource demands. Would the intent of your amendment affect this language?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the report also directs the EPA to issue regulations governing emergency exemption tolerances which were statutorily required by August 3, 1997. I assume that your amendment would not affect this language.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for the careful work he has done on this amendment and for his effort to ensure that activities authorized by law to protect the environment and the public health are not compromised. In that spirit, I would like to ask the gentleman to enter into a colloquy to clarify the effect of his amendment on report language regarding the Food Quality Protection Act. As the more dangerous pesticide uses are eliminated under the Food Quality Protection Act, as they should be, it will become very important for farmers to have new, safer substitutes to continue growing high-quality crops. Short-term emergency exemptions, such are allowed under current law, will in some cases be necessary where no viable new alternatives are available. The report language directs the EPA to devote sufficient resources to increase the pace of registration decisions and emergency exemptions. Would your amendment affect the committee's direction in this area?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my enthusiastic support for the legislation before us today. The National Science Foundation is our main agency for strengthening our country in science and mathematics and technology, from investing in the training of teachers in math and science, to promoting outreach programs at our museums and supporting path-breaking research at our colleges and universities. The impact of the National Science Foundation is particularly evident in my district in North Carolina. In the last fiscal year more than 350 NSF-sponsored grants were awarded to residents of the Research Triangle counties of North Carolina. Duke, North Carolina and North Carolina State Universities each received more than $11 million for their researchers, and together they were awarded $44 million for projects selected on their merits, for their scientific excellence and for their contribution to the national interest. The National Science Foundation, for example, has helped fund Duke University research at Cape Hatteras on North Carolina's Outer Banks, has helped fund new laser-scanning technology at the University of North Carolina, and has supported a program widening educational opportunities for rural middle school students in conjunction with North Carolina State University. I am also particularly proud that the Advanced Technological Education Program, a program launched through legislation that I initiated 6 years ago, is included in this legislation. The Advanced Technological Education Program has allowed NSF to become more involved with the community colleges in our country, helping our 2-year schools improve their science and math and technology education programs. ATE creates a partnership between NSF and the community colleges similar to the one that has long been available to 4-year institutions, to develop improved curricula and teaching methods and to upgrade this country's advanced technology training programs, training at the level most of our new good jobs require. As our country's educational needs continue to evolve, the role of 2- year institutions will increase. Quick training and retooling of our work force will be vital as we move toward a competitive global economy, and the ATE program will help ensure that our educational institutions and our students can meet this challenge. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the artistic merit and creative talents of North Carolinians Doug Marlette, Jack Herrick, and Bland Simpson, creators of ``Kudzu: A Southern Musical.'' This musical production has been playing at the Ford's Theatre in Washington, DC for almost sixteen weeks, has received glowing reviews from the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and other publications, and has lifted the spirits of thousands who have been privileged, as I was last week, to see the show. The musical is based on the syndicated comic strip ``Kudzu,'' illustrated by Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Doug Marlette. The Red Clay Ramblers, a talented and versatile musical group from Chapel Hill, are featured along with an excellent cast. The production explores life in a small Southern town called Bypass and focuses on the life, loves, and mishaps of a character named Kudzu (which is also the name of the incredible vine that has engulfed half the town but hides wondrous treasurers beneath). Having grown up in a small Southern town myself, I could easily identify with their portrayal of the South and instantly recognize many of the characters! However, you do not have to be Southern, or even follow the antics of Kudzu, Rev. Will B. Dunn, and the other Bypass regulars in the comics, to enjoy this family show. Doug Marlette, Jack Herrick and Bland Simpson wrote a clever and entertaining script and incorporated great bluegrass and Dixieland music to make this production enjoyable for all audiences. It's as funny as can be, but it also tugs at the heartstrings and reminds us of the things that matter most in life. I commend this North Carolina trio, the cast of ``Kudzu,'' and director Lisa Portes for their tremendous work in making this production such a success. They tell a great story and I am proud that they call North Carolina home.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gillmor-Tanner amendment. I come from a State where the number of employees of U.S. subsidiaries of corporations headquartered in other countries has grown by 233 percent since 1980. Two of the largest employers in the high-tech Research Triangle Park, for example, Nortel and Glaxo-Wellcome, collectively employ 15,000 people in North Carolina. They make tremendous contributions to the U.S. economy, to the North Carolina economy, and to our local communities. It is unfair to discriminate against American citizens who are employees of these companies. It is already illegal, Mr. Chairman, for foreign nationals to participate in political action committees. PACs are operated by U.S. employees, and funds for PACs are provided only by U.S. employees. There is no reason to deny U.S. citizens the right to participate fully in the political process, and that includes financial participation. The Gillmor-Tanner amendment is a straightforward amendment ensuring that all U.S. citizens are treated equally under our campaign finance laws regardless of where they work. I encourage all colleagues to support this sensible and fair provision.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in our country the State is not to sponsor or sanction religious exercises. Neither is it to interfere with the free exercise of religion. That is a delicate balance that the Bill of Rights has protected for over 200 years. It is a delicate balance that the Istook amendment threatens to destroy. I want to make one point this morning, a quite simple and straightforward point: the prohibition against State-sponsored religious exercises in our country protects not only civic life but also, and more importantly, religious life. Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that a long list of religious communities and religious organizations are lined up in opposition to the Istook amendment. Amending the First Amendment to permit the State establishment of religion is a threat to our constitutional democracy, to be sure, of which freedom from religious coercion is a cornerstone. But even more, it is a threat to religious faith and practice. Mr. Speaker, religious liberty is not just freedom from coercion. Religious liberty is also freedom for the leading of the spirit, freedom to follow and obey God's will. Roger Williams, colonial America's foremost proponent of religious liberty, understood that the prohibition against the establishment of religion was more about protecting the church than it was about protecting the State. Religious freedom protects communities of believers, it protects the lonely conscience of the prophet, it protects the faithful individual. Mr. Speaker, central to our Christian and Jewish and Muslim traditions is the notion that we stand under God's judgment, that we are not to identify our power and our program with God's will, that we are all sinners and in need of forgiveness. That is central to all of our religious traditions. Religious faithfulness is a struggle. It is not something that we lay hold of easily or that someone in authority can achieve for us. The life of faith is a struggle for an individual and a community that cannot and must not be dictated or directed by the State. It is a struggle in which we must engage with freedom, as God gives us the light to find the right way. That is what religious freedom is about, and it is mainly for religious reasons that we must defend the First Amendment and rebuke those who would put the State's power behind particular religious beliefs or practices. The Istook amendment threatens not only civil liberty but also religious faithfulness, and for that reason we should defeat it today.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, much of our debate tonight has focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican majority's budget, on its failure to reserve the surplus, its failure to ensure the future of Social Security and to reduce the national debt, its failure to take account of the huge transportation bill we just passed, its failure in double counting the savings from veterans health care and Social Service accounts. But the Republican budget is not only fiscally unrealistic and irresponsible, it also gets the priorities wrong, and that is what I want to address in the few minutes that I have tonight. It gets the priorities wrong. I want to stress one priority, education, which is number one in my district and number one to me personally and which represents an investment in the future of our children and our country. The Republican budget would cut the education and training portion of our budget by some $4.4 billion below, below, the balanced budget agreement. Details are few and far between, but the Republicans claim to find savings by consolidating higher education programs. While the budget promises to increase Pell grants, there is no way of telling what might be cut in order to achieve that. Will work study be cut? Will State student incentive grants be eliminated? Will the Republican budget limit the access to higher education that is the key to a higher standard of living, that is the key to equipping people to meet their goals and better serve their families and serve their communities? The House has just passed a Higher Education Act which promises to open up opportunities, and yet this budget takes little or no account of that. In the area of elementary and secondary education, the Republicans propose to repeal the current Title I program and create a voucher program in its place. Title I provides opportunities for disadvantaged young children who are the most vulnerable in our society. The Republican budget will put Federal efforts to meet the needs of these at-risk children in jeopardy. Education is the key to equal opportunity. The House Republican budget would do more damage to the goal of expanding opportunity than any budget in recent memory. The Democratic budget, by contrast, is fiscally responsible, and it recognizes the priority we place on education. It includes the provision to reduce the classroom size in this country in grades one through three with the hiring of 75,000 new teachers. It provides tax credits to enable working parents to afford good child care. It provides a tax break so that school districts can more easily finance the bonds necessary to modernize and build schools. These modest initiatives are all paid for, and not a penny, not a penny comes from the surplus. The Democratic budget is consistent with the balanced budget agreement and observes the budgetary rules that have produced surpluses and a booming economy. It gets our country's priorities straight, including the education of our children. I urge support for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] for including a variant of my ``stand by your ad'' proposal in their campaign finance reform substitute. A little over a year ago, I introduced stand by your ad, based on a good North Carolina idea from Lt. Governor Dennis Wicker, to make a real change in campaign advertising. Stand by your ad is a bipartisan proposal sponsored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] and myself and 13 others. Our bill would require simply that candidates appear in their television ads and say that they sponsored the ads. It would require the same for radio advertisements. The disclaimer for print advertising would also be enhanced. Our proposal will not dictate the content of ads. But it will make candidates think twice before running a distorted or a mud-slinging advertisement, for they will have to take responsibility for what they put on the air and the voters will be more likely to hold them accountable. We must change our electoral system in a real and positive way. I believe the Shays-Meehan bill offers us the best opportunity we are likely to have to do that. I am grateful that the sponsors have included ``stand by your ad'' in their substitute, to strengthen the required disclaimer and thereby to improve the tone and content of campaign advertising. This year we have a real opportunity to change the rules. We need to work across party lines to reform how we conduct campaigns. I urge my colleagues to join us and the other cosponsors of the Shays-Meehan bill in supporting real campaign reform by voting for the Shays-Meehan substitute, including ``stand by your ad.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for organizing this special order and for giving us the opportunity tonight to pay tribute to an extraordinary citizen and a visionary leader, Terry Sanford, a son of North Carolina of whom we are exceedingly proud. Terry Sanford died on April 18. When we look back on the broad sweep of his life, in addition to being governor and senator, he was an FBI agent at one time; a World War II paratrooper; a state legislator; a lawyer; an author; a university president. We see a life committed to the greatest movements and deeply involved in the greatest accomplishments in this American century. Terry Sanford was a mentor and an inspiration to many of my generation who came of age politically during his governorship in the early 1960s. He was the first political figure with whom I seriously identified. He became governor at a time of extraordinary challenge as the movement for racial justice swept across the South. The South, in fact, was a racial powder keg, with the sit-in movement, the Freedom Riders, a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, mob violence, and federal troops occupying college campuses. Governor Sanford rejected the politics of demagoguery and defiance and thus set a standard for the New South on the most important and explosive issue of the day. While massive resistance was embraced by some, during his 1961 inaugural address, Terry Sanford called for a ``new day'' in which ``no group of our citizens can be denied the right to participate in the opportunities of first-class citizenship.'' It made a world of difference to me and my generation to have Terry Sanford as a counter-example to the Wallaces and Faubuses and Barnetts, as an example of decency and dignity and a willingness to change. Governor Sanford also in the space of a short, single term made major contributions to the improvement of public education in North Carolina, to the development of North Carolina's community college system, and to the growth of Research Triangle Park. A Harvard study designated him as one of the Nation's top 10 governors in this century. Most importantly, Terry Sanford taught my generation 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. When I returned to North Carolina in 1973 to teach at Duke University, it was again under Terry Sanford's inspiration as we launched what is now called the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy. President Sanford's idea was to bring disparate disciplines together, from economics to political science to history, to the arts, to ethics, to bring these disciplines together to enrich one another and to address the major challenges facing our society. As a young faculty member, I could not have asked for a more worthwhile mission or a more congenial atmosphere than what he fostered at Duke University. Under President Sanford's leadership, the world-renowned Duke Medical Center doubled its capacity, the Fuqua School of Business was constructed, the University's endowment tripled. In short, under President Sanford, Duke reached its current status as a national leader in education, while also strengthening its ties to North Carolina and its contribution to our region of the country. Along the way, Terry Sanford chaired a major national Democratic Party commission, he wrote a book, and organized a national forum on our flawed system of presidential nomination, and he ran for President himself, standing up to George Wallace in the 1972 primaries. Finally, Terry Sanford served North Carolina and the Nation as a United States Senator. He was a reluctant candidate in 1986, but he saw the need, and he responded to the call. I will forever treasure the memory of running on the ticket with him in my first campaign and serving with him here. He was the best at delivering a political stump speech that I have ever seen, speaking without notes in perfect one- sentence paragraphs, each one of them a perfectly crafted applause line. He was very, very good. Senator Sanford's diverse policy interests were expressed in his service on the Committee on the Budget, Committee on Banking, and the Committee on Foreign Relations, and in initiatives that ranged from promotion of a stable peace in Central America to the cause of truth- in-budgeting. As always, he combined a gift for national policy innovation with faithful stewardship of North Carolina's needs and interests. Terry Sanford had multiple careers, any one of which would be a credit to most people. I do not expect we will see another Terry Sanford in our lifetimes. But we can pick up parts of his legacy, and we can move that legacy forward. We can all draw strength and wisdom from our memories of the example that he set, the courage that he displayed, the diligence and patience he showed in mentoring the younger generation, the good humor that infused everything that he did, the confidence he had in the capacities of ordinary men and women and in the ultimate judgment of history, even when he was undergoing temporary disappointments or setbacks. We will remember the confidence he had in us, willing to believe the best about each of us and thus enabling us to be our best. Terry Sanford empowered and enabled many, many people. The ultimate impact of his influence and his inspiration will be limited only by the energy and creativity and the passion for realizing social justice that each of us can muster. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the tributes to former Governor and Senator Sanford from the magnificent memorial service at the Duke Chapel: the remembrances by Governor James B. Hunt, President Nan Keohone of Duke University, former North Carolina House Speaker Dan Blue, Duke Endowment Chairwoman Mary Semans, Judge Dickson Phillips, and former Sanford Institute Director Joel Fleishman. In addition, I include in the Record the eulogy from that service by Provost Emeritus Tom Langford of Duke University. I would also like to include a tribute by Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation Director Tom Lambeth, delivered on another occasion, and then two columns by national journalists who knew Terry Sanford well and admired him greatly, Albert Hunt of the Wall Street Journal and David Gergen of U.S. News and World Report. Remembrance at the Terry Sanford Funeral (By North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt) In the words of a great Methodist hymn: ``Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing our Great Redeemer's praise.'' Indeed, 1,000 tongues are here today to praise our Redeemer and one of His most magnificent gifts to the people of our state and our nation. I know that I speak for many of you when I say very simply: Terry Sanford was my hero. He was my hero because of what he did, but also because of the way he did it. His approach, his style, his ideas. He was constantly looking for ways to improve things. Calling people together to study issues, to prepare proposals for action. In fact, I suspect by now he has almost certainly had his orientation session with the Lord. And it was NOT a one-way conversation. I expect he has given the Lord a few good ideas for improving Heaven. Some of which should be done in the next 30 days. And almost certainly, if he has found any poverty, any discrimination, any poor schools, any worthy arts ideas there are projects underway, even now. At a time when we struggle about whether government should act, let us remember the words of this uncommon man, Terry Sanford, who could think great thoughts and make them a reality. In one of his books, Terry wrote: ``Indeed, if government is not for the express purpose of lifting the level of civilization by broadening the opportunities in life for its people, what IS its purpose?'' And he added: ``Government is not something passive, not our kind of government. It has built into it the spirit of outreach, the concern for every individual. Look at the verbs in the Preamble to the Constitution--establish, insure, provide, promote, secure. All these connote action, and all suggest that we must constantly be striving to improve the opportunities of our people.'' And ACT Terry Sanford did. Strive to improve opportunities for our people he did. Imagine what North Carolina would be like if we had not had Terry Sanford striving for us all these many years. Imagine what North Carolina would have been like in the 1960s if we had not had a governor who believed in bringing people of all races together. If we'd had a governor, like other states, who appealed to the worst rather than the best in us. Imagine no Terry Sanford. Imagine what North Carolina would be like without the Research Triangle Park. Imagine no Terry Sanford. Imagine what North Carolina would be like without the community college system or the School of the Arts. Imagine no Terry Sanford. Imagine what North Carolina would be like had he not set national excellence as the goal for this great university-- and all of our other universities. Imagine no Terry Sanford. Imagine what North Carolina public schools would be like if a great governor had not had the courage to pass a tax for school improvements--an act of courage that cost his own political ambitions deeply. Imagine no Terry Sanford. It is truly unimaginable. You cannot imagine North Carolina without Terry Sanford. Forty years ago, no one could have imagined what North Carolina would become. No one, that is, but Terry Sanford. He once wrote: ``The governor, by his very office, embodies his state. He stands alone at his inauguration as the spokesman for all the people. His presence at the peak of the system is unique, for he must represent the slum and the suburb, his concerns must span rural poverty and urban blight. The responsibility for initiative in statewide programs falls upon the governor. He must energize his administration, search out the experts, formulate the programs, mobilize the support and carry new ideas into action.'' Terry, you set the goals and our sights very high. So high that we often wonder if we can meet your standard. But your good works, your words and your spirit tell us every day, in every way, that the goal can be ours. That the struggle is worth it. When we leave today, we will leave the body of our hero in this chapel. We will leave it here because no other structure is sufficiently magnificent to serve as the final resting place for a life as magnificent as his. But while we leave his body here to rest, the evidence of his good works is and will be around us everywhere--in the institutions he led, in the innovations he championed, in the individuals he touched and, most of all, in the spirit of everyone here today and everyone in this state. And so it will be for every generation to come. For all that North Carolina has become and will be, Terry, we thank you. God bless this place. God bless this family. And thank God for the magnificent blessing of giving North Carolina Terry Sanford.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as a Member whose career has been in higher education, I would like to offer some observations in support of the Roemer amendment, which would strike the bill's provision requiring institutions to report annually and justify their reasons for any reduction in funding or in participation rates of any sports teams that might occur over the next 4 years. I understand the intent of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). We do need to use common sense in the implementation of Title IX, and the interests of all students in all sports need to be given consideration. But I think the Hastert provision is unwise policy for a couple of reasons. The provision does represent a micromanagement of the budgeting practices of colleges and universities. Colleges and universities must be able to manage their budgets, set their priorities, and make their plans with the maximum amount of flexibility and freedom. These are hard times at many colleges and universities. Managing these institutions is a difficult task. An unreasonable Federal burden such as this one strikes me as simply unwise. Simply put, universities do not and should not be required to initiate 4-year budgeting plans. They need far more flexibility than that would permit, which leads me to my second point. This provision might actually lead colleges to make hard and fast long-term decisions that would have the opposite effect of the intent of the bill. A requirement to announce decisions 4 years in advance could actually lead a college to signal the termination of a sports program, undermining its ability to recruit athletes, when in fact the program might be salvageable if circumstances change. It is hard to see any benefit in that for student athletes or for anybody else. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Roemer amendment in order to preserve the maximum amount of independence and flexibility in the operation of our Nation's colleges and universities.