David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment. This amendment would involve an unprecedented Federal intrusion into the admissions practices of colleges and universities. It would require an extensive apparatus to monitor admissions policies nationally. This seems monumentally unwise. Twenty years ago, the Bakke decision developed a careful and delicate balance for college admissions. Quotas were declared unconstitutional, as they should be. Gender and race can never be the sole or decisive factor in the admissions process. This made sense then and it makes sense now. But colleges and universities should be able to reach out to widen their pool of applicants, to bring previously deprived or disenfranchised people into higher education without fear of legal retribution. I know how this works from my years of experience as an admissions officer in a graduate department of a large university. Affirmative action offers a way of taking into account the backgrounds from which students come, assessing their true potential, and opening the doors of opportunity. For the Federal Government to interject itself into these decisions, to reduce flexibility, to force the use of overly narrow or rigid criteria, would be most unwise. Affirmative action, Mr. Chairman, is about fairness and equal opportunity for individuals. But it is also about community: about the academic community itself, diversifying that community to make education a broadening and enriching experience. And it is about serving the wider community, recruiting a student body that reflects the society being served, and training doctors and lawyers and teachers and business people and others to serve all elements of that community. The Riggs amendment ignores this experience and threatens these values. For those reasons, it ought to be rejected.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is important that the House move quickly next week to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. As an educator for nearly 20 years, I know the importance of ensuring that a college education is within reach for all of our people. I represent a district that has a tremendous stake in the Higher Education Act. That was made clear in an all-day forum that I convened in Raleigh on September 22 of last year. We received recommendations from the presidents of our institutions of higher education, from a number of students and financial aid administrators and business leaders. I am pleased that the bill reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce reflects many of these concerns. For example, the committee saw fit to include the highly successful State Student Incentive Grant program in this year's reauthorization. This is the only student aid program that maintains the Federal partnership with the States and encourages them to do their part to help needy students attend college. The cornerstone of the higher education is the Pell Grant program. But more funds are desperately needed to be authorized, and I am extremely pleased that the Higher Education Act included a dramatic increase to a maximum grant level of $4,500. As an original cosponsor of the Campus-Based Child Care bill of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), I was pleased to see its inclusion in the Higher Education Act. More and more young mothers are pursuing college degrees. For some, it is a matter of making the transition from welfare to work. The Campus-Based Child Care provision is one of the most forward-thinking aspects of this bill. I am also pleased that adjustments were made that would allow historically black colleges and universities more flexibility in funding and expanding graduate programs. Title 3 funding must remain a high priority as we implement the Higher Education Act. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, and I particularly regret that this year's reauthorization does not more effectively target money to train teachers in the use of new technology. That is a need that I have heard repeatedly about in my district. I am hopeful that education leaders in the States will give this need high priority as they allocate the bill's block grant funds. Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Act is landmark legislation critical to the needs of students and their families and to our Nation's commitment to educational opportunity and excellence. We face new challenges ranging from accommodating growing numbers of nontraditional and mid-career students, to training students for an increasingly sophisticated workplace, to orienting education to the international marketplace. The Higher Education Act will be of great importance as we meet these challenges, and I urge my colleagues to pass it enthusiastically with a large bipartisan majority next week.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, colleagues know that ``outrage'' is not a word I use with great frequency, but I can think of few words that better describe the insult to this House and to our constituents represented by the procedure the leadership has chosen for debating reform of our election laws. I have been involved in this debate for the many months of the 105th Congress. I have cosponsored the Shays-Meehan proposal for campaign finance reform. I have authored my own stand-by-your-ad bill, which would require candidates and groups to assume responsibility for the ads they air. Last week I asked the Rules Committee to make this bipartisan proposal, sponsored by Representative Horn, myself, and 12 other colleagues, in order on the floor. To have this and all other amendments barred, to have a motion to recommit barred, to have any substantive discussion of this issue barred by this procedure is an outrage that should be rejected by this House. We have a responsibility to our democracy to end the abuses of our present campaign system. The Republican leadership has promised Members a vote on campaign reform in this session of the 105th Congress, and the charade we witness on the floor tonight represents a mockery of that promise. I, for one, am willing to postpone our recess schedule. Let us do that. Let us stay here and devote the time necessary to complete our job. I have signed the discharge petition to bring a real reform debate to the floor. I urge any colleagues who have not signed to do so. Mr. Speaker, the House and our country deserve better than this scheme devised to foreclose debate and to deny a simple majority vote for serious reform proposals. It is an outrage, and this House must not stand for it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have to say red is not normally my color. I usually prefer a light shade of blue. But the outcome of Saturday's game between the University of Utah and the Tarheels of North Carolina has forced me to alter my wardrobe this evening. I do want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), for the T-shirt. Make sure we see it. This may be the last time, though, it is seen on me. I am not the only Tarheel politician seeing red today. I believe the Governor, a United States Senator, many others were run over by the Rick Marjerus-led Utes last Saturday. In North Carolina, of course, we are very proud of our school and players. I mostly feel bad for my colleague from Utah because he missed out wearing that fine light blue T-shirt I had for him. But I hope Saturday's victory is a source of some consolation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Well, my colleague certainly beat a highly regarded Carolina team. We are real proud of that team, led by Coach of the Year Bill Guthridge. The Tarheels ended their season with 34 wins and just four losses, a great year by any measure. So I will save this T-shirt for next year. I will suggest that it would be a fine fit, that blue T-shirt for my colleague or anyone else after next season. I say to the gentleman from North Carolina, I hope he enjoyed today. I know he is doing real well right now, not doing too badly at the moment as that Kentucky game moves on. But Carolina blue is not the only blue that can cause you trouble. Good luck.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on September 13, the Center for the Study of the Congress at Duke University held a roundtable discussion to analyze the low and often hostile opinions of the Congress held by the American people. I participated in the roundtable, which was entitled ``Is Congress Failing, or Is It Just Misunderstood?'' Reflected one of its major objectives--to distinguish between misconceptions people have about how Congress does and might function, on the one hand, and areas in which the institution is failing to satisfy reasonable expectations on the other. Joining me in the roundtable discussion were U.S. Rep. David Dreier, Elaine Povich of Newsday, Candy Crowley of CNN, survey research expert Peter Hart, and scholars of congressional studies, media and public affairs, Joseph Cappella, John Hibbing, Tom Mann, and David Rohde. Two bedrock points brought the participants together. First, understanding and responding to Congress' low regard is important for the country. The United States, lacking the relatively homogeneous culture that serves to unite many counties, has grown together around its common Constitution and its political institutions and convictions. Before loss of confidence in our Government threatens our sense of shared identity, we ought to do what we can to restore that confidence. Public opinion polling shows that the public views the Congress as the most powerful of the three branches of Government, so that the general distrust of Government expressed in many surveys gets concentrated on that body. Second, no one advocated anything beyond trying to restore a healthy skepticism toward the institution, the kind of vigilant attitude that has served the country well. Still, as Tom Mann has pointed out, today this skepticism frequently borders on corrosive cynicism, and sometimes slips over into it. This already-in-place conviction that whatever Congress is going to do will disadvantage ordinary citizens saps Congress' ability to take tough stands on hard issues. We understand that Presidents need the political capital to make the tough decision; the same holds for the Congress. Continuing research on the public's attitude add considerable detail to the blunt image of angry voters that so dominated the 1994 elections. Recent surveys done by Peter Hart for the Council for Excellence in Government show that five of the top seven reasons for the low public confidence focus on our elected officials failing to assert leadership in addressing the public's concerns, and John Hibbing's studies of public attitudes toward the Congress confirm this. As Hibbing put it, the voice of the average American is getting drowned out of lobbyists trumpeting special interest and by the self interest of Members, whether this can be expressed through pay raises or through an obsession with re-election. Rounding out citizen impressions is the taint of hypocrisy: believing what they do about the real motives of Members, citizens react to Members' defense of their actions in public minded terms as hypocritical attempts to manipulate voters. None of these characterizations fit the institution and its Members as well as Congress' worst critics assert. Close observers of the Congress continually testify to the dedication, hard work, and public spirit of Members and staff. Most Americans are not close observers, however, and, as Elaine Povich commented, one's sympathy for the institution varies inversely with proximity to the Capitol dome. Sensibly sizing up Congress' strengths and weaknesses from afar runs into several sources of interference. First, many citizens harbor unrealistic expectations about how smoothly disputes can get resolved in a representative democracy, especially one designed to make blocking action much easier than taking action--OK, so there's some truth in the coffee-and-saucer story. Second, media coverage of the Congress generates an image of the institution in which its warts, foibles, and inefficiencies loom larger than life and its laudable activity shrinks from view. Numerous analyses have documented the media's emphasis on conflict between Members, strategy over substance, and scandal at the cost of policy. Recent research has begun to link these types of coverage to citizen reactions to them, and the results are not auspicious for the institution. For example, Joseph Cappella's work at the Annenberg School finds a decided connection between stories written using a strategy framework and cynical reactions toward public officials involved. Candy Crowley noted that institutional changes such as more dependence on capsule TV reporting, the decrease in newspaper readership, the advent of tabloid TV journalism, the increase in TV magazine shows, and the explosion in talk radio and TV drive some of these media emphasis. Third, Members aid and abet both the unrealistic expectations for institutional performance and the media's unhelpful tendencies. Members frequently lead the verbal assault on the institution for its inability to act, and all Members know that hot rhetoric that implicitly treats solutions to problems as obvious and simple is more likely to get coverage than modulated comments that credit the good faith of opponents and acknowledge the difficulties of the issues being debated. When Members refer to the institution as a cesspool, as in a remark recently made to David Dreier by one of his colleagues, it becomes that much harder to criticize journalists for reporting on it that way. Clear away these sources of interference, and you would still have an institution that needs to reform itself. No one at the Duke conference sought to absolve Congress itself from the obligation to do a better job at governance. I talked about the felt necessities of campaigning exert ever more pressure on governing, reducing Members' willingness to take positions that may be correct, but are difficult to explain. David Rohde pointed out that we need campaign finance reform, if Americans were ever going to feel that interest groups and money are not the real powers in the Congress. More than one person noted that the negative tenor of modern campaigning only exacerbates poor images of Congress. The responsibility for Congress' low regard can be found in many places--the design of the institution and its process, the behavior of its Members, the operation of the media, the constant and rancorous campaigns, the influence of special interests, and the expectations and knowledge of the citizenry. What is more the way in which each of these contribute to cynicism and low regard seem to mutually reinforcing. For this reason, any attempts at reform must proceed on several fronts at once. Finally, I and other participants at the conference agreed on one point. We all know most, if not all of Congress' failings. However, almost to a person believe that it is much better than perceived. I am proud of the work of the Center for the Study of Congress in attempting to separate the Congress' real problems from the perceived ones and come up with a course of action to deal with both institutions. [From the Sunday News & Observer, Sept. 14, 1997] Panel Weighs Image of Congress--Citizens' Complaints About Congress Are Discussed by 2 Congressmen, Professors, a Pollster, and Journalists (By Kyle Marshall) Durham.--Those who think Congress feeds off conflict and controversy wouldn't get an argument from Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican. But to describe today's Congress as a ``cesspool,'' as one Democratic congressman put it to Dreier over lunch this week? That's going too far. ``I happen to love this institution,'' Dreier said of his place of employment. ``And I take umbrage when I have many of my colleagues, who have chosen to be here and have stepped up wanting to be a part of it, maligning it.'' Dreier, vice chairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, has spent a lot of time thinking about the role Congress plays in governing--and what needs to change to make it work better. On Saturday, he joined North Carolina Rep. David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill, on a panel with academics, pollsters and journalists to hash out the many complaints about Congress from the citizenry. The forum, at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, was sponsored by the Center for the Study of Congress, a newly formed arm of the Duke University School of Law. Polls consistently show a lack of trust in Congress. To many on the panel, that comes as no surprise, because it has always been that way. Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, noted that in the election of 1874, no fewer than 183 incumbents were thrown out of office in the wake of a bribery scandal. And Drier quoted the House speaker in 1925, Nicholas Longworth, who said being a member of Congress had always been an unpopular task and always would be. What has changed in just the past few years, however, is the amount of outright venom spewed at Congress--much of it inspired by special-interest groups and talk radio, some panelists said. Dreier added some members of the institution itself to the list of groups responsible for creating hostility toward Congress. ``Many of the problems that are out there, I think have been caused by members in Congress . . , who have made a career of attacking the United States Congress,'' he said. CNN correspondent Candy Crowley said public apathy represents a more serious threat to the institution's ability to engage in discourse and pass laws. ``I don't think the anger is a problem,'' she said. ``The idea that it's not relevant is a problem.'' The speakers had little time to come up with specific solutions for what ails Congress or for how to restore the Public's confidence. That daunting task will be left to future forums, said Ted Kaufman, a Duke law professor and former Senate staffer who is the center's co-chairman. Pollster Peter Hart actually had some good news for the two members of Congress taking part in the discussion. His latest poll showed a 48 percent approval rating for the job Congress is doing, one of the highest in recent memory. A booming economy and the lack of a national crisis are two of the big reasons. However, as if to illustrate that opinion surveys can show just about anything, Hart said the public's confidence in Congress as an institution is still rock-bottom: Only 21 percent say they have a ``great deal'' of confidence. ``That's the difference between performance, which will fluctuate up and down, and the other element, which is, `How do I feel about the institution as a whole?' '' he said. ``Only the national news media fall below the Congress in confidence.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on September 22, I convened a forum on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. This legislation, which would renew authority for most Federal higher education programs, will be considered during the next session of the 105th Congress. I invited students, college presidents, financial aid administrators, and business leaders from the Research Triangle area of North Carolina to come together at the Museum of History in Raleigh to discuss the future of student and institutional aid, support services for disadvantaged students, international programs, university-based research, and training for the work force. The participants were divided into four panels: ``The Higher Education Act: Student Perspectives,'' ``Priorities for the Higher Education Act.'' ``The Financial Aid Challenge,'' and ``Higher Education, the Economy and the Global Marketplace.'' Together, they outlined a compelling agenda for education policy and demonstrated the contribution our State is prepared to make to this debate. I was joined on the moderating panel by David Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for Post-Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, Senator Howard Lee, chairman of both the authorizing and appropriating committees for higher education in the North Carolina Senate, and Senator Wib Gulley, a member of the Higher Education Committee in the North Carolina Senate. Today, I want to summarize who the participants were and what they had to say. The Higher Education Act: Student Perspectives Five students from Triangle schools gave us the benefit of their perspectives on student aid. Mohan Nathan, student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, emphasized four significant areas of concern for students: First, the grant-loan imbalance; second, the importance of the State Student Incentive Grant Program in leveraging non-Federal funds; third, the rising cost of graduate school and subsequent student debt; and fourth, how loan indebtedness may affect the career choices students make. Linda Hawkins, a student at Meredith College, spoke to the special needs of nontraditional students and supported more evening and weekend programs that would allow flexibility in family and employment schedules. Kendrick Coble of Shaw University recounted the difficulty of piecing together a financial aid package and called for a modification in the methodology used to determine financial aid eligibility so that those who are working to support themselves are not penalized. Heather Thompson, a student at Durham Technical Community College and single mother of two children, testified in very personal and moving terms to the importance of the Single Parent Program--a program offered at Durham Tech which pays for her children's day care--in attracting more single parents back to school. And Terry Steckowich, a transfer student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discussed the difficulty in transferring credits from a quarter-based institution--in his case, Durham Technical Community College--to a semester based system. Priorities for the Higher Education Act Leaders from five higher education institutions in the Triangle comprised the second panel. They offered their views on challenges at their institutions and how those challenges should frame the priorities in the renewal of the Higher Education Act. President Molly Broad of the University of North Carolina system called for modification of the College Work Study Program to cover travel and training expenses for students who are participating in cooperative education. She also described the need to develop telecommunications infrastructure and support through expanded partnerships among colleges, primary and secondary schools. President Broad also testified to the importance of policy initiatives that were included as a portion of the Taxpayer Relief Act. She specifically referenced the importance of two items that I and other Members have been working on for 10 years which were included in the education tax relief section of the bill--penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts and the deductibility of interest on student loans. President Bernard Franklin of St. Augustine's college emphasized the accessibility and cost of a college education, citing the grant-loan imbalance and advocating an increase in Pell Grant levels. Second, he called for greater support of the technological infrastructure for colleges serving a large number of minority students. Third, Dr. Franklin addressed the need for increased funding and flexibility so that money in the Institutional Aid portion of the bill can be used to build endowments at historically black institutions. Chancellor Julius Chambers of North Carolina Central University urged more funding to help develop graduate programs at historically black colleges and universities. He raised questions about the restrictive matching fund component of the law and stressed the difficulty graduate programs have in becoming eligible for Federal funds. He also discussed the need for better outreach to low-income families concerning the Federal funds available for education. Chancellor Chambers went on to argue that the present method for determining the amount of money married students and students with children may obtain for loans and other aid is not sufficient. He argued in favor of increased Federal student loan funding to help single parents cover the expenses necessary to obtain a degree. President Bruce Howell of Wake Technical Community College, with whom I worked a few years ago as we crafted the Advanced Technological Education Program at the National Science Foundation, testified to the value of the grants his and other community colleges across the country have received to upgrade curricula and teaching methods. He called for more resources, including computers, and increased access to the classroom for the economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, single parent students, and full-time workers. Because 78 percent of students at Wake Tech work, Dr. Howell advocated the need for classes round the clock and on weekends. He also spoke on the necessity to reach out to workers and older people to make education accessible at all stages of life. The last panelist to present testimony was President Nan Keohane of Duke University. Dr. Keohane echoed the statement of Chancellor Chambers in addressing the lack of knowledge about the availability of student aid. She detailed a number of areas where changes to the Higher Education Act would ``play what you might call a perfecting role.'' These refinements include a sharper focus on needy and moderate income students, strengthening campus-based programs that reduce borrowing, lowering the cost of borrowing to students, allowing institutions with low-loan default rates greater flexibility in the loan packages they may offer, and developing incentives for families to save for college. I believe this last point is particularly important and hope the reauthorization will adjust the formulas to ensure those that have saved are not penalized while ensuring that those with fewer resources are still eligible for aid. Finally, Dr. Keohane called for adequate support of the International Education and Foreign Language Programs and for rethinking of Federal student aid for participants in those programs. The Financial Aid Challenge Financial aid administrators, in both State government and at Triangle educational institutions, discussed the current status of the Federal Financial Aid Program and the challenges they face in administering the program. Steven Brooks, executive director of the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, discussed the difficulty aid administrators have in fulfilling their role as student advocates. Mr. Brooks indicated that Federal regulations and decreased flexibility have made his role as an advocate more difficult. Like Drs. Chambers and Keohane, he argued that a better partnership among administrators at the Federal, State, and institutional level would help make financial aid information more available to students. He also addressed the grant-loan imbalance and, like other participants, called for an increase in Pell grant funding. Finally, Mr. Brooks asked that the Congress continue to find ways to support the savings efforts of middle-class families. ``Those who can afford to save for higher education, must be encouraged to do so, and this encouragement must come without cost to those who cannot afford to save.'' Carolyn Braxton, financial aid director at Wake Technical Community College, discussed the need for options other than loans, so students do not have large debt loans upon graduation. She also expressed the need for more child care, especially for the nontraditional student. And like Mr. Brooks, Ms. Braxton would like more focus on low-income families, not just aid for the middle class. She concluded by questioning the role of financial aid administrators in relation to Federal requirements: ``Financial aid professionals are required to be gatekeepers for Federal, State, and local dollars at our colleges, meet the needs of our students and meet regulatory requirements in administering these dollars. Requirements for verifying selective service registration and citizenship are not in sync with our mission to provide funding resources to enable all students to obtain a higher education.'' Julia Rice Mallette, financial aid director at North Carolina State University, brought several issues to the table. She underscored the need to understand the costs of college beyond tuition: books, room and board, food and transportation. She, too, expressed concern about the grant-loan imbalance and called for increased funding for the Pell Grant Program. At the same time, Ms. Mallette called for an increase in loan limits, especially for graduate and professional students, as well as a reduction of elimination of the loan originating fee and insurance premium paid up front. And, finally, Mr. Mallette reiterated the need to clarify and promote financial aid opportunities for students enrolled in distance education programs. Wanda White, financial aid director at St. Augustine's College, discussed the importace of programs such as the recently enacted Hope Scholarship, deductibility of student loan interest, and increases in the Pell Grant and the Work Study Program, since as many as 90 percent of students at historically black colleges and universities receive some sort of financial aid. She also advocated the increased funding to expand the use of technology at institutions that serve minorities and spoke for increased funding for the State Student Incentive Grant Program. Higher Education, the Economy and the Global Marketplace Business and education leaders came together in our final panel to discuss the implications of higher education policy decisions for local and global economies. Chancellor Larry Montieith of North Carolina State University highlighted the growing partnership between industry and university research and stressed the importance of these partnerships for future industrial development. This is a subject he is well acquainted with because of his leadership in creating the new Centennial Campus at NCSU, a research and advanced technology community where university, industry, and government partners interact in multidisciplinary programs directed toward the solution of contemporary problems. It serves as a model for how productive partnerships between industry and universities should be formed for the 21st century. Chancellor Monteith expressed his concern that the Higher Education Act not forget research and research institutions: ``If the infrastructure will not support leading-edge research, then we will not generate the technologies that are needed.'' President Phail Wynn of Durham Technical Community College testified that 80 percent of the goods produced in this country are actively competing with foreign-made goods, and he argued that ``the real measure of success between these competing knowledge-intensive economies will be found in the quality of their human resources.'' Postsecondary schooling must address the needs of the workplace, Dr. Wynn stated, especially in terms of being able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Steven Hitchner, director of ECPI Technical Institute, a proprietary school which focuses on teaching computer skills, made two important points. The first was the need for an increased numbers of technologically literate workers. He testified that ``increasingly, employers are requiring specialized training and continuing education as system advances are made and new technology is introduced.'' The second was the necessity to give proprietary school students access to Federal student assistance programs. To ensure that schools such as ECPI are able to produce the skilled work force we need quickly, Mr. Hitchner believes proprietary schools must be included in the discussions about reforming the Higher Education Act. He also expressed his appreciation that the recently enacted Taxpayer Relief Act included proprietary schools in the HOPE Scholarship Program and in the Education Affordability Act provisions concerning deductible interest for student loans and penalty-free withdrawals from IRA's. Robert Ingram, President and CEO of Glaxo- Wellcome Incorp., testified from two perspectives: global employer and corporate citizen. As an employer, he stressed the need for ``graduates to help us fulfill our mission of discovering, developing and delivering better medicines to meet the unmet answers in health.'' As a corporate citizen who believes in higher education, Mr. Ingram highlighted Glaxo's commitment to research universities and his company's emphasis on research partnerships. He testified that these partnerships, which are extensive at Triangle institutions, are essential to producing the most qualified and competitive students. He further discussed the need for advanced technical training for the work force to meet the evolving needs of an increasingly complex global business economy. Sandra Babb, advisor on work force preparedness to the Governor of North Carolina, argued persuasively for meeting the requirements of the digital information economy. Ms. Babb testified that educators and students must look to see where business is moving in terms of technology and creativity and must focus on the skills necessary to accomplish those goals. She emphasized that education is not static and that the Higher Education Act needs to realize this fundamental change in how we educate our citizens. She stated ``learning is a lifelong challenge because in the new economy, you've got to reinvent your knowledge base throughout your life.'' The last witness was William Friday, president-emeritus of the University of North Carolina system. Mr. Friday also chaired the National Humanities Center Steering Committee on the Future of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program. That committee recently produced an excellent report entitled ``Fulbright at Fifty,'' which makes the case for the continuation and enhancement of the Fulbright scholars program. Mr. Friday testified ``if we do not devise the means to utilize the strength of these higher education institutions in helping one culture to understand another, one culture to get along with another, one culture to be unafraid of another, then all that you've heard here will not avail.'' He also paraphrased Senator Fulbright when he said ``knowledge will not produce peace unless there is understanding.'' And to reach that understanding, Mr. Friday passionately advocated the restoration of Fulbright funding to $125 million. Unfortunately, the recently enacted Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill funded the Fulbright program at a much lower level, $94.236 million. After this full day of presentations and responses to questions posed by Secretary Longanecker, Senators Lee and Gulley, and myself, I believe we all have a better understanding of the enormity of the challenge of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act and of the major issues that must be addressed. The hearing record will be made available to our colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I will be eager to work with them to ensure that these excellent ideas from the Research Triangle area of North Carolina are included in the Higher Education Act as reauthorization moves forward next session.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in March I stood before the House to honor Dean Smith for winning more games than any other coach in the history of college basketball. I stand again today to honor him in his retirement. In his 36 years of coaching at the University of North Carolina, he has stressed academics and winning the right way. He has demanded that the game be played well. He is a teacher. And he has always given back to our community. I first knew him in my student days in the 1960's as an active churchman and champion of racial justice. Throughout his career, he has remained humble in the face of overwhelming achievement--always sharing the credit with others and vigorously staying clear of the spotlight. It is with great pride that I rise today to shine that spotlight on the accomplishments of a remarkable man. Dean Smith is a monument to coaching excellence: 879 victories, 2 national championships, 11 trips to the Final Four, 27 straight 20- victory seasons. At North Carolina, he has coached 30 All-Americans. However, his excellence goes beyond this impressive record. He enjoys the loyalty of fans and the devotion of his players. Michael Jordan thinks of his former coach as ``a second father.'' Indeed, Smith is the patriarch of an extended basketball family. In the weeks since his retirement, members of that family--the former players Smith touched and the fans to whom Smith brought so much joy--have been struck by mixed emotions. We support his decision and wish him happiness in his retirement. Yet part of us wants him to stay forever. Hand-made signs hang in the storefronts and dorms of Chapel Hill begging Smith not to go. He is a legend that has brought pride and distinction to the University of North Carolina. His presence in college basketball is best described by a comment made by Coach Jim Valvano moments after his North Carolina State Wolfpack won the national championship in 1983. Valvano remarked: ``This'll be really big news back home. Unless Dean Smith retires tomorrow. * * *'' Mr. Speaker, I come from a state where college basketball loyalties assume fanatical proportions. But competing allegiances aside, we can all recognize Dean Smith's unparalleled success on the court, his devotion to his players, and his fundamental decency as a human being. We wish him well.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, like other Members, I have helped many, many constituents resolve disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. In one case earlier this year, a Raleigh man trying to make good on his back taxes was not told that he had the option of setting up a payment plan. Instead, the IRS placed a lien on his bank account. In another case, a woman who had set up a payment plan and made every payment on time received notice that her plan had been canceled and her entire balance was due within 2 weeks. Fortunately, I was able to help these constituents. But not every taxpayer is able to come to their Member of Congress. We need to fix the system for everybody. We need to restructure the IRS. We need to do away with tax collection quotas. We need to revise rigid rules. And we need to set customer service oriented collection policies that are geared toward assisting taxpayers in complying with the law rather than punishing them. H.R. 2676 is based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. It will strengthen taxpayer rights and modernize the administration of the IRS. The new IRS Oversight Board, made up of a majority of private sector professionals, will have the authority to eliminate collection quotas and measure performance by the quality of service that agents provide. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 2676 will restructure the IRS and pave the way for further reform and simplification of the Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to vote for this long overdue legislation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for organizing this special order tonight. Mr. Speaker, Walter Capps brought rare qualities of insight and grace to political life and to his service among us. In his short time here, he touched us individually and as an institution in ways reflected in the remarkable outpouring of grief and tribute we have witnessed since Tuesday. Walter was, as the President said, a rare soul, and we are much the poorer for his passing. I first met Walter Capps some 35 years ago at Yale University, where he was a graduate student in religious studies and I was a fellow student of his wife, Lois, and brother, Don, in the Divinity School. Walter went on to a career distinguished for the quality of his teaching and writing and research, and far-reaching in its impact on students and colleagues and in the Santa Barbara community. His would have been a rich and full life had he never been drawn into politics, but the fact that he took on the challenge of this new career speaks volumes, not only about his remarkable and diverse talents, but also about his openness to the leading of the Spirit and his powerful sense of moral obligation. It was not as though membership in the Congress fell into Walter's lap. Walter fought two hard campaigns and was preparing for another. He came back from a difficult loss in 1994 and a horrible automobile accident in 1996. His manner was genial and gentle, but those qualities were combined with a bedrock of conviction and courage and persistence. He was in politics for the right reasons, but he knew that the values and purposes he brought to political life would not prevail without a struggle. With Lois at his side, he was willing to make that struggle, and our country and this institution are the better for it. When I returned to the House after the 1996 election, Walter Capps was one of the new Members I was most eager to meet. This was partly because of our shared background, of course, but also because of the unique career path and remarkable talents that brought him to this place. I was privileged to become his friend here, as were so many colleagues to whom Walter reached out with an insatiable curiosity about the people and issues with which he was working, a cooperative and generous spirit, and great good humor. Walter Capps cared deeply about uplifting minds and spirits. He succeeded because his own spirit was centered and at peace. He had much to give, and he gave without measure. We are deeply saddened that Walter's time among us was so abruptly cut short, but we rejoice in a life fully and usefully lived, and we are heartened that a man like Walter Capps could be elected and could grace this House and our service with his presence. In the words of the Apostle Paul, we thank God upon every remembrance of him.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends would have us believe that school vouchers would level the playing field by providing low-income parents the same choice as wealthy parents to send their children to private and religious schools. Unfortunately, that is an illusory promise. For one thing, the Republican proposals would provide vouchers to only a small proportion of low and moderate income families. Second, the Republican plans would cover only a fraction of the fees that most private schools charge. Most working families would be unable to make up the difference, making the vouchers useless to them, providing the greatest benefit for the wealthy families who can already afford the cost of tuition. Mr. Speaker, when we consider what these funds could do if applied to the improvement of public education for all of our children, raising standards, developing magnet schools, putting computers in every classroom, our choice is clear. The Republican voucher plan promises what it cannot deliver, and it would divert us from the challenge of making public education all that it can and must be.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this conference report. As a new member of this subcommittee, I am grateful to both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for their evenhanded bipartisan work in putting together this difficult piece of legislation. The bill has broad support from both parties and in both Chambers. In numerous ways this conference report addresses our Nation's critical priorities. For example, the report increases the appropriation for veterans' medical care to $17.7 billion, higher than either House initially approved, with $600 million coming from medical care cost recovery sources. The report increases funding for the HOME program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to $1.5 billion, $109 million above last year's level. The HOME program allows those providing affordable housing to use Federal block grants to leverage private sector money with a minimum of unnecessary regulation. It is an efficient and a practical way to open up homeownership to thousands of Americans. I am pleased that in a tight budget year we were able to find additional resources for HOME. Funding for the EPA at a level of $7.4 billion is more than $500 million above the fiscal 1997 level. The budget for EPA includes $3 million for research and monitoring of Pfiesteria, an environmental threat that even now, the full dimensions of that threat are not known to us. In addition, nearly $50 million of the funding at the EPA is for research on fine particulate matter. Many of us may have differences over the new clean air regulations. No one can argue with the necessity of doing research to determine exactly what standard is justified. Within the FEMA section, I was pleased that language that would have restricted States and municipalities from using disaster relief to clean up streams and parks and beaches was removed, giving full flexibility for the use of these funds which have been critical in allowing my State to recover from last year's devastation caused by Hurricane Fran. The National Science Foundation receives a healthy 4.7 percent increase to a level of $3.4 billion. I am particularly pleased that in that NSF budget we have given good support to the Advanced Technology Education program, which for the first time has the NSF working effectively with our Nation's community colleges. I am very appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Leach] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I want to add my appreciation for the excellent staff work that has been done on this bill, as fine as any I have ever seen. The help I received, particularly from Frank Cushing and Valerie Baldwin on the majority side, Del Davis and David Reich on the minority site, has been absolutely invaluable. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. I assure them they can do so with confidence.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues from North Carolina and Maryland in strong support of the amendment to provide $3 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to respond to the Pfiesteria threat on the east coast of the United States. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because we in North Carolina have felt the effects of Pfiesteria piscicida for a number of years, through massive fish kills in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System and through reports of strange health effects from people who have been in and near affected waters, including skin lesions, respiratory impairment, and memory loss. Although there has been some Federal role in supporting research on Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates in the past, the recent fish kills and reported human health effects in Virginia and Maryland related to Pfiesteria, and further reports of the presence of the toxic form of Pfiesteria from Delaware all the way to Florida, call for a broader role by the Federal Government in what is showing itself to be a regional environmental and human health problem. Through its new, interagency Ecohab Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has the capacity to play an essential coordinating role in research efforts designed to uncover the ecological dynamics which favor the transformation of Pfiesteria into its toxic form. This amendment will also provide funding to affected States to initiate and extend essential efforts to monitor for Pfiesteria and similar organisms. Monitoring will allow researchers to quickly respond to outbreaks of Pfiesteria in its toxic form and gather the data which is necessary to accelerate our progress in learning more about the causes and effects of this organism. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for taking the lead on this important issue and for his part in initiating this important amendment. I appreciate my colleagues' support for this amendment for a greater Federal role in research related to Pfiesteria.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. The gentleman from Colorado has pointed out in a letter to our colleagues that funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has decreased over the last 4 years and was moving toward zero, and then he notes this year's appropriation would increase funding slightly, he should have said, to a level of $300 million and then he asks what happened. I think we know what happened. What happened is that Congress has realized the value of this funding. What happened is a poll this year done by Roper Starch Worldwide indicates the public rated public radio as the second best use of Federal dollars out of a whole range of public programs. What happened is the American people have spoken up and defended public radio and television. Mr. Chairman, even at $300 million, CPB will be funded below the fiscal 1997 level before rescissions. If every Government program could do as well as this one has, leveraging $5 for every Federal dollar appropriated, we would have balanced this budget long ago. In North Carolina, we realize the value of this funding. We have a weekly viewing public of 2.5 million for our public television stations, and our people have spoken resoundingly for continuing this investment, even as we balance the Federal budget. They have given generously, about $3 in viewer contributions for every Federal dollar received. Public Broadcasting is a sound and productive investment, and we must reject this misguided attempt to cut this appropriation. Mr. Chairman, the argument that viewers and corporate sponsors will fill the gap misses the point. This is a partnership. Federal seed money does not replace or restrict private giving, but stimulates it. In North Carolina, CPB funding provides only 9 percent of the our public television budget, but it is a crucial base of funding and it helps bring forth participation from State government, the university system, corporate sponsors, and thousands of loyal viewers. Public broadcasting is a unique resource. Only PBS does programming like ``Sesame Street.'' The networks run often violent cartoons as their children's programming. Federal funding is necessary to ensure the continuation of educational programming which allows students in rural areas, where attending a university to participate in lifelong learning is physically impossible, to improve their skills. In North Carolina more than 10,000 students have enrolled intelecourses for college credit and more than 8,000 North Carolinians have obtained their GED's because of our public television station, WUNC. In the mountains of western North Carolina often the only over-air station for households is North Carolina Public Television. These are the people that we have to ensure have access to national news. Not everyone can afford satellite dishes. I hope my colleagues understand what has happened. Congress attempted to cut this funding and the people said no. The people said we do not mind spending $1 a year for public radio and television programming. Even as we balance the budget, we must make investments in our future and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one of the best investments that our Federal dollars can buy.

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 to oppose the Burton amendment which would single out India for cuts in foreign assistance. As this body has done repeatedly in the past, I urge colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Contrary to what the gentleman from Indiana has said, opponents of his amendment are not claiming that no problems exist. We take these problems seriously. But we are also recognizing India's attempt to deal with them, and our country's responsibility to encourage such efforts. India is the world's largest democracy, a fact we celebrated on July 31 with the passage of House Resolution 157, commemorating 50 years of democracy in India. Last year India conducted the largest free election in history with nearly 300 million people voting. The state of Punjab elected a Sikh government, and the nation's new president is a member of the untouchable caste, tremendous achievements in a developing nation struggling to maintain democracy, to build its economy, and to improve the lot of millions of the world's poorest people. India's government recognizes that human rights abuses have occurred and has taken strong steps to redress these grievances. The government has established an independent national human rights commission to investigate human rights allegations in the states of Jammu and Kashmir and to pursue suspected abusers. More than 200 security forces personnel were punished last year for involvement in human rights violations. The U.S. State Department notes that the commission is independent and praises India's ongoing efforts to end abuses. India has abolished the Terrorist and Disruptive Prevention Act and has allowed the international community free access to observe and report on actions in the Punjab and in Jammu and Kashmir. At the same time as he has moved forcefully to improve the domestic situation, India's new Prime Minister Gujral has taken unprecedented steps to improve relations with India's neighbors. The prime minister has made landmark agreements with Nepal and Bangladesh, initiated a hot line with the prime minister of Pakistan, and worked with Pakistan to develop a framework for future talks aimed at creating lasting peace between those two countries. The Burton amendment offered this year, as in many past years, takes no account of this progress. The amendment also would damage improved and improving relationships between the United States and India. U.S. businesses are India's number one overseas investor, and U.S. exports to India increased by 40 percent last year alone, making our country India's biggest trading partner. Fortune 500 companies regularly invest in India and many U.S. high-tech firms see India as the most important developing market worldwide for them, eclipsing even China as an investment location. Mr. Chairman, as our relationship with India grows, the United States must support India's continuing efforts to respect human rights, punish violators, and develop its economy. The issue is not only a matter of development assistance, which amounted to about $50 million last year. Of far greater significance would be the effort that this amendment represents to stigmatize India just as relations between our countries are blooming. The Burton amendment would punish a country taking the right steps just as it celebrates 50 years of democracy. I urge my colleagues to support democracy in India by voting ``no'' on the Burton amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has many positive features for working and middle-class families. But I am personally proudest of the inclusion of the main provisions of the Education Affordability Act, introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] and myself and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 56 colleagues. These provisions will restore income tax deductibility of interest on student loans and permit penalty-free withdrawals of IRA savings for educational expenses--common sense ideas to make higher education more accessible for American families. Today is the culmination of an effort former Representative Martin Lancaster and I began some 10 years ago, soon after we first came to the Congress. We said then that if you can deduct the interest on your home mortgage or even on a second home at the beach, you surely ought to be able to deduct interest on something as basic as a student loan. That is still true today, and I am proud to see it recognized in this tax bill. There is more good news in this bill for Americans seeking to get the training the modern workplace requires, especially the Hope Scholarship which will provide a $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years past high school and a 20-percent credit for succeeding years. I am also pleased that this conference agreement removes the notorious tax on the tuition waivers earned by graduate students that was included in the House-passed bill. Students in my district and across the country raised their voices in justified protest, and this bill shows that their voices have been heard. Mr. Speaker, this bill will expand opportunity for America's young people and workers upgrading their skills. It will help give our country the trained workforce the global economy demands. Through supporting this conference report, we are putting our fiscal house in order, we are investing in our people, and we are affording tax relief for hard-pressed working families. That is a winning formula for our country, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today is a truly bipartisan achievement, a vast improvement on the budget bill approved in this Chamber a month ago, one that we can vote for with great confidence. I want to applaud colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have brought us to this day. This agreement includes $24 billion for our Nation's children. Five million American children who are not now covered will have health insurance protection because of this agreement. The agreement also protects our veterans, ensuring that any shortfalls in medical care collections do not translate into less health care for those who have fought for our country. Finally, this agreement protects the elderly of this country. It expands Medicare coverage for diagnostic and preventive health care services. It extends the life of the Medicare trust fund for another 10 years. And it establishes a commission to ensure the long-term solvency of the trust fund so our Nation's senior citizens are not continually put at the mercy of budget negotiators. I want to thank my colleagues, whose tenacity enabled us to reach a solid bipartisan budget agreement, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lowey-DeGette amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am not a reflexive defender of the tobacco industry. I favor effective public health and education measures, and I wish Joe Camel good riddance. But I find this amendment deeply offensive, punitive, and unfair, and I hope fair-minded colleagues will hear me out before they reflexively support it. Crop insurance is a protection that we offer to farmers of all major crops, as determined by yield, demand, and value. This amendment would stigmatize and deny this protection to one group of farmers. It targets the people who farm, punishing them for the crop which they are able to grow by virtue of climate and geography and the size of their farms. If that is not discrimination, if that is not unfairness, I would like to know what name you would put on it? Mr. Chairman, in North Carolina, the climate and soil are ideal for growing tobacco. Many of our farms are successfully diversifying, and we are attracting light industry to the countryside. But with an average size farm of just 160 acres, our farmers don't have the luxury of enough acreage to make a living planting only corn or cotton or soybeans; they have to make their living with what is theirs to work. Denying crop insurance or disaster relief to these individuals will not change their geography or climate or the economic facts of life. It will not miraculously enable them to turn to some other crop or other line of work. It will simply ruin many of them economically, especially those on the margins of profitability, those on the small farms. The burden of proof is on those who would withdraw crop insurance for one and only one group of farmers. The Lowey amendment has nothing to do with smoking and health, everything to do with driving the small farmer off the land and hastening the day of corporate and contract farming. To stigmatize a group and exclude them from a common benefit simply because of the size of their farm, their climate, their geography, and what they grow, is the sort of discrimination we would reject out of hand in other realms. I urge my colleagues to reject it here.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Nancy Bruton-Maree of Raleigh, NC. Mr. Speaker, Nancy will soon complete her year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists [AANA]. I am very pleased that one of North Carolina's own was tapped as the 1996-97 president of this prestigious national organization. The AANA is the professional association that represent over 26,000 practicing CRNA. Founded in 1931, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists is the professional association representing CRNA's nationwide. As you may know, certified registered nurse anesthetists administer more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. CRNA's provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases. CRNA's are the sole anesthesia providers in 70 percent of rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical, and trauma stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms; ambulatory surgical centers and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. Nancy received her bachelor of science degree from Guilford College in Greensboro, and her masters in science in anesthesia from Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem. She currently serves as the director of the Raleigh School of Nurse Anesthesia and has done so since 1990. She also serves as visiting assistant professor at the School of Nursing, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. In addition she is a relief CRNA with Sanders and Associates in Wrightsville Beach. Nancy has enjoyed an outstanding career and has been an anesthetist since 1974. She has been a program instructor, president of the North Carolina Association of Nurse Anesthetists, served on various AANA committees and its board of directors, and has earned the respect and admiration of her friends and colleagues both inside and outside of her profession. She has published various articles and spoken numerous times before various professional groups and societies. I know that her husband Ben and son Scott take special pride in what Nancy has accomplished throughout her career. I congratulate Nancy on her year as president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists and I am proud of her many accomplishments. Congratulations Nancy.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Charles Kuralt was an ambassador for North Carolina. With a crinkled road map and a two-man camera crew, he set out to see America. He was a wonderfully gifted storyteller and the story he told was ours. He wanted to showcase the very best of America, not the headlines or the lead stories in the news but the America of ordinary people living extraordinary lives. Charles Kuralt knew that many people report on the mayhem of the world, but he had a more important story to tell. When Walter Cronkite stepped down from anchoring, Charles Kuralt had the opportunity to take the helm but he turned it down so he could continue to see America his way, traveling the forgotten State highways in his rambling RV, stopping in the small country stores to ``sit a spell.'' He gave a voice to every American. Interviewing the North Carolina woman who at 104 years old visited nursing homes each week to sing and to bring a smile to tired faces. Or the story of the poor southern family that worked to send all nine kids to college. Charles Kuralt believed these families and their stories were not only ``small town'' America, they were the very essence of America. We understand ourselves and each other better because of the work he did among us. An ambassador for North Carolina who made us proud, Charles Kuralt is being honored at this moment at a memorial service at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was a North Carolinian who set out to understand America and today, after an incredible journey, he will come back home to rest beneath the magnolia trees in Chapel Hill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican tax bill and in favor of the Democratic tax relief plan. The Republican plan distorts our priorities as a nation and, in particular, does not do enough for one of the most important resources our country has, our students. First of all, the Republican bill cuts the value of the President's HOPE scholarship in half, severely limiting tuition relief for the neediest students and students attending community colleges. In addition, while the Democratic alternative would permanently extend the tax credit for employer-provided education assistance, the Republican bill offers only a short and temporary 6-month extension. Perhaps the worst offenses in this bill concern graduate students. Graduate students are barely scraping by on small stipends to finance huge tuition costs. But the Republican bill creates a tax on these graduate students who work part time as teaching assistants and research assistants and receive, in return, a reduction in their tuition. Under the Republican bill, graduate students would be taxed on this tuition reduction, increasing their tax burden in many cases by as much as $3,000 or $4,000 a year. The Durham Herald Sun recently reported that the Committee on Ways and Means spokesman commented that graduate students may not make much money while they are in school, but many--and he seems to think they are all going to be doctors or lawyers--will be earning very high salaries shortly after graduation. He went on to call graduate students ``privileged,'' the sort of group that quote, ``ought to be the first to pay.'' Well, if you are a graduate student, you certainly are going to pay. And if you want to use the HOPE scholarship to finance your tuition cost, forget it. Under the Republican bill you cannot because graduate students are totally ineligible. Many Members today are expressing their support for tax cuts for hard-working Americans. But the competing bills before us differ greatly in the benefits they offer to working and middle-class Americans. And as Mr. Spratt has just stressed, they also differ in their fiscal responsibility, in the extent to which they keep the lid on the deficit in future years. The Republican bill cuts taxes for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans. But it increases taxes on graduate students and does little to help students struggling to attend college. We can and should do better, and the Democratic alternative shows us the way. Vote for the Democratic alternative that does justice to this country's priorities and values.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to help a growing segment of our work force-- telecommuters. This legislation supports new flexibility in the workplace by providing tax incentives for telecommuters. Specifically, this bill allows employees to deduct employer-provided telephone lines for telecommuting purposes. The Fourth District of North Carolina includes Research Triangle Park, a hotbed of economic, business, and intellectual development. In my visits to RTP companies, management and employees alike have expressed their support for telecommuting. As more families rely on two incomes to make ends meet and as technology continues to allow more creative work environments, telecommuting is quickly becoming a more popular and more viable work option for working families. In addition, studies have shown that telecommuting employees record fewer sick days and demonstrate increased work satisfaction, two factors that contribute to higher worker productivity. Under current law, employers can provide additional telephone lines to employees who telecommute, but these benefits are considered taxable income to the worker. My bill would create another category under the ``qualified transportation fringe'', a provision in the Tax Code that allows employers to provide incentives for carpooling and mass transit. This new transportation fringe would allow employers to provide up to $60 per month in tax-exempt telecommuting benefits, most notably an additional telephone line. Telecommuting is simply another form of environmentally friendly transportation to work, and our Tax Code should reflect these priorities. My bill would give families more control over their work, increase worker productivity for participating businesses and encourage environmentally friendly work patterns. Passage of this bill would give working families another tool to help with their balancing act between family and career. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Home Telecommuter Tax Policy Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are finally going to send to the President a bill that he can sign. The hurricane season, after all, opened 12 days ago. In my home State of North Carolina, debris-filled streams hold the possibility of further disaster. Officials estimate it will take the rest of the year to clean out the upper reaches of streams in the eastern part of North Carolina. This work is necessary to ensure that the flooding that occurred last year does not happen again. This is work that could have already begun had the Congress passed a clean bill last month. Right now, the Disaster Prevention Agency of North Carolina is praying that another hurricane like Fran does not hit our State. Even slightly above average rainfall in the State could be devastating to those areas hit in September by Fran. If a hurricane were to make landfall, the flooding that would occur, the devastation that would hit families that have been forced to move back into the flood plain could make Fran seem like a spring storm. Next week, the State of North Carolina will be putting in applications for hazardous mitigation grants to help nearly 1,000 families start over. To be most effective, these funds need to be combined with the community development block grant funds in this bill. Without community development funds, many of those families might not be able to participate. Mr. Speaker, let us finish this bill, send it to the President, and finally send aid to those across this country who desperately need it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thune amendment. This transfer of funds to the Community Development Block Grant Program from FEMA will help communities, including many in North Carolina, complete the difficult task of cleaning up, rebuilding, and ensuring that destruction like what we have just experienced does not happen again. FEMA funds are limited in their uses. When the Mississippi River flooded in 1994, CDBG funds were used to relocate homes out of the flood plain and to allow people to start their lives again without fear of losing everything again. There are still many unmet needs in North Carolina where CDBG funds can be used in conjunction with FEMA hazard mitigation funds to avoid future disaster and heartbreak. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlemen from North Dakota and South Dakota writing this amendment in such a way that those affected by Hurricane Fran can benefit from these funds, and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 877 victories and still counting. Dean Smith, the basketball coach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has now claimed the title of the all-time winningest coach in basketball history, with 877 victories. And the winning continues. Division I college basketball has changed a great deal since the early 1960's, when Dean Smith became head coach at Carolina. Three decades later Dean Smith is still winning, with class and consistency. It is an amazing feat to coach in 877 games, let alone to win that many. Dean Smith has proven that you can be socially conscious, academically serious, you can play by the rules, and still rise to the top. He choose not to bask in the glory of this achievement, but rather, gives full credit to the hard work of others. Let us all congratulate and honor Dean Smith. His victories on and off the court set an outstanding example for all Americans, and we are as proud as we can be that he hails from the Fourth Congressional District.