Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment and to the underlying Republican budget resolution and in support of the Spratt substitute that will be up shortly. The Federal budget is a statement of our Nation's priorities. It is where we put our national resources to meet our Nation's most important needs. Unfortunately, this budget has fundamental flaws and has misplaced priorities that I think shortchange the American people. Instead of investing in a strong, more prosperous America for years to come, the Republican budget neglects our economy, explodes the national debt, undermines key investments in homeland security, education, health care, and continues to spend Social Security trust funds. All of these priorities are sacrificed for another large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I guess it means we take from the many to give to the few.

I am most disappointed in the Republicans cuts in education, however. Prior to my service in this body, I served as the superintendent of schools for my home State of North Carolina, and I sought this office because the Republican majority under Newt Gingrich targeted public education in America, and I said I was coming to this House to fight to stop it. We have made a great deal of progress on changing the dialogue on this critical issue, but unfortunately the rhetoric is a lot more pro-education than the record.

Last Congress the President of the United States signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which promised to start new investments to improve schools in this country; but before teachers, students and parents get a chance to figure out the tough requirements that we passed, and, yes, I voted for that legislation, under this new law the administration has failed to fund its own program; and the fact is that this budget underfunds it with the consent of the administration, totality so far by about $20 billion to No Child Left Behind. I cannot and I will not agree to these outrageous cuts in education.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget's $400 million cut eliminates after-school initiatives in my home county for children, about 11,000 of them. It cuts teacher quality programs for every State in this country. For the State of North Carolina, $1.7 million. For the great universities and colleges we have in this country that are training our future leaders, it will cut Pell grants in these programs to make a difference; Cutting the Perkins loans money that makes a difference, having children who transfer from community college to university. This budget cuts $765 million for COPS, et cetera, et cetera.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, probably the worst example of misplaced priorities in this budget is the shameful treatment of our children of our fighting men and women. As we all know, right now Americans, men and women, are now putting up a proud fight on the other side of the world, and yet in this budget we are cutting Impact Aid to schools in this very budget that they have proposed. That is wrong. The Observer in my home county said a 14.5 percent cut will eliminate $173 million that helps pay for books and classrooms for these children, and that is absolutely wrong. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican medical malpractice bill, and the process by which it is being debated in this House.

Today, the House will pass H.R. 5, a bill to impose caps on damages that may be awarded for medical malpractice, defective products, and other health related wrongdoings. Like many Members of this House, I am concerned about the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance and its impact on physicians and their patients, but H.R. 5 is not the right medicine for this national problem.

I oppose H.R. 5 because it will not reduce medical malpractice premiums. What's more, it protects manufacturers of defective pharmaceutical and medical equipment from product liability actions, and overturns North Carolina state law.

Years of experience prove that limiting patient rights to seek legal remedies for medical malpractice will not reduce insurance rates for doctors or hospitals. We've heard a lot of debate on this floor today about California's law that caps damage awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. Supporters of H.R. 5 misses the point in this debate, Mr. Speaker. Instead of dealing with the real issue here, which involves insurance rates, the Republican Majority is turning this serious issue into a political football at the expense of patients.

H.R. 5 also limits the ability of injured persons to bring suits against pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, nursing homes, and medical device manufacturers, thus setting a dangerous precedent allowing these entities to escape the law in even the most severe cases of neglect and abuse.

Finally, H.R. 5 undermines North Carolina's patients protection statutes, which are some of the strongest in the nation.

My colleagues Mr. Dingell and Mr. Conyers have drafted an alternative amendment to H.R. 5. This alternative will help courts weed out frivolous lawsuits without restricting the rights of legitimate claims, repeal the federal anti-trust exemption for medical malpractice insurance companies, thereby increasing competition and lowering premiums, and provide targeted assistance directly to physicians, hospitals, and communities in medical malpractice crisis areas. Finally, the alternative establishes an independent advisory commission to examine and recommend long-term solutions to this important issue. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has denied us an opportunity to offer this alternative.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of a insurance is an important one. Yet, it seems that the Republican Majority has forgotten one of the key tenets of the Hippocratic oath--do no harm or injustice. H.R. 5 will without a doubt harm America's patients. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5 and to support the motion to recommit the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from other tobacco producing states to introduce a bill to put an end to discrimination against tobacco farmers. For almost eight years, hard- working, God-fearing, taxpaying tobacco farmers have been denied access to the funds provided by the federal Market Access Program, commonly known as MAP.

Under MAP, agricultural industry trade associations, cooperatives, and state or regional trade groups each year are invited to submit proposals to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to conduct approved foreign market development projects for various U.S. agricultural, fishery and forestry products. Examples include consumer promotions, market research, technical assistance, and trade servicing. MAP funds have been used to promote a wide range of products from sunflower seeds to catfish and cotton to hops for use in making beer.

Since 1993 USDA has been prohibited from using MAP funds to promote tobacco leaf sales overseas. This is patently unfair, and it is time for this discrimination to end. The future of American agriculture is tied to international trade. Currently, 25% of farmers' gross income comes from exports. The futures of thousands of Tar Heel tobacco farm families depend on exports, and I am not going to stand by and watch other commodities benefit from federal funds to access these markets while tobacco farmers are left out in the cold.

It is high time that tobacco is treated like the legal product that it is, and this legislation is a step in the right direction. I call on President Bush, Secretary Veneman, and my colleagues to support this bill and give our struggling tobacco farm families an opportunity to not just survive, but thrive.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement officers and EMS workers are truly our hometown heroes. When we call them, they risk their lives for all of us.

The Federal Public Safety Officers Benefit provides the families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty with a one- time financial benefit. Yet too often the families of public safety officers who are killed by or die of a heart attack or stroke while performing their duties are denied these benefits.

Last week, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and over 70 of my colleagues, I reintroduced this Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act to correct this technicality in the law. H.R. 919 is a bipartisan bill to provide the benefits to the families of public safety officers who are killed by heart attack or stroke while on duty or within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation.

Madam Speaker, this is exactly the type of bipartisan legislation that should pass this House, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring our hometown heroes by supporting H.R. 919.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for bringing this resolution to honor the men and women who are serving. I happen to represent in my district Fort Bragg and Polk, the two bases that are called the 911 posts in this country. Thousands of those men and women are now stationed around the world.

But in addition to what has been said, let me talk about a group of young folks who have not been spoken about today and that is the children of these men and women that have been deployed. They watch TV every night. They hear the stories. Our school personnel deal with them every day. They deserve our help each and every day. They deserve that we do the right thing as we honor the men and women who are serving. As we start our appropriations processes later, we have the obligation to make sure that the children of these men and women are taken care of, because they face some difficult times and our school personnel deal with them on a daily basis with many of the traumas that they face.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for the resolution and encourage it to my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to commend the members of the United States armed forces.

As a veteran of the United States Army, I know firsthand the contributions our military service personnel make in defense of our nation and the tremendous burden their families are forced to bear. Here in the U.S. House, I serve on the Army Caucus, and I work on a bipartisan basis to support our men and women in uniform. Our service personnel are dedicated, professional and deboted to duty. Congress must stand up for these brave men and women who risk their lives to defend our country, our ideals and our interests around the world.

I have the honor of representing the men and women of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. Fort Bragg is truly our nation's ``911'' base because when America is in trouble, our leaders pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg. The mission at Fort Bragg is to maintain the XVIII Airborne Corps as a strategic crisis response force, manned and trained to deploy rapidly by air, sea and land anywhere in the world, prepared to fight upon arrival and win. Co-located with Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base provides a unique synergy and has played a leading role in the development of U.S. tactics and air-power throughout history. Missions at Pope range from providing airlift and close air support to American armed forces to humanitarian missions flown all over the world. The men and women from these installations, their families and the entire community on a daily basis contribute whatever is asked of them for our country's safety and security.

Mr. Speaker, as America stands on the brink of war, hundreds of thousands of our military personnel have been deployed abroad. They need to know that Congress stands behind them, and this resolution is an appropriate expression of our support. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our nation's public safety officers for their commitment to our communities and service to our nation. I am re-introducing my bipartisan legislation, the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important initiative.

Every day, public safety officers protect our families and possessions from fire, keep our streets safe, and are the first to respond to an emergency. Across this nation, our law enforcement officers and corrections officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service workers are dedicated and prepared, and when we call on them, they risk their lives for us.

Heart attacks and strokes are one of the greatest threats to public safety officers, especially firefighters. In fact, almost half of all firefighter deaths are due to heart attacks and strokes. Fighting fires is dangerous, exhausting, and extremely stressful work. Indeed, a firefighter's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke greatly increases when he or she puts on their turnout gear and rushes into a building to fight a fire. Likewise, law enforcement and corrections officers and EMS workers face daily situations that put stress and strain on the heart.

According to the U.S. Fire Administration, last year 102 firefighters died while on duty, affecting 86 communities in 35 states. In the wake of their tragic losses, many of the families of these brave first responders received financial assistance from the Public Safety Officer Death Benefit, which was created by Congress over 25 years ago to provide these families with help in their time of need. However, some of these families are denied these benefits because of a glitch in the law.

During the last Congress, I introduced the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act to correct this technicality in the Public Safety Officer Benefit. This bipartisan legislation will allow the families of public safety officers who have died from a heart attack or stroke while on duty, or within 24-hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation, to receive this benefit.

Last year, 113 of our colleagues cosponsored this bill, and the House unanimously passed it. Unfortunately, we were not able to move the bill through the U.S. Senate before adjournment, despite the strong support of several Senators from both parties.

Today I, along with Representatives Steny Hoyer, Curt Weldon, Mike Oxley, and 40 other members of this House, are re-introducing the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act. During this time of increased awareness and concern regarding the threat of terrorism, we are calling on our public safety officers to work longer and harder than ever before. This legislation shows our public safety officers and their families that we recognize their selfless contributions to protecting us and our communities, and that we stand with them.

We urge every Member in this House to join our bipartisan coalition by cosponsoring this critical legislation and working with us to pass it into law.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of introducing a resolution on behalf of the North Carolina's unanimous, bipartisan delegation honoring the City of Fayetteville and its Festival of Flight Celebration. We are introducing this resolution so that all in Congress and the entire nation can pay tribute to this city and its accomplishments.

Fayetteville's Festival of Flight will be the largest public event in the state marking the Wright Brothers' historic first flight, and it is one of only four events nationwide endorsed as a full partner by the United States Centennial of Flight Commission. The Festival of Flight will take place May 16-26, 2003, and it will feature a weekend arts festival, a military air show at Pope Air Force Base, a general aviation show at Grannis Field and an exposition with aviation displays and interactive exhibits depicting the past, present and future of flight.

Education is a focus of the Festival of Flight, and the State of North Carolina has developed a year-long curriculum to encourage students' interest in aviation and flight technology. This educational focus will culminate with 1,000 students and teachers being sponsored each day for exclusive access to the Festival's Aviation Exposition.

Mr. Speaker, the Fayetteville Festival of Flight is about dreaming big and reaching for the stars. It is a celebration of 12 historic seconds in 1903 that ushered in the era of modern aviation. Furthermore, it is a testament to the strength of this city, the power of innovation and the hope for the future.

I encourage my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of this important resolution, and I urge this House to pass it soon.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534, and in support of the Greenwood substitute.

Two years have passed since the House last considered this complex issue. And in that time, scientists and physicians around the world have made incredible strides in their efforts to understand and cure diseases like Alzheimers, diabetes, and cancer. The work our scientists are doing is truly remarkable and it holds the potential to alleviate human suffering around the globe. Today, we are considering a bill, which will leave our sickest patients hopeless at the expense of politics.

I oppose reproductive human cloning because it is morally wrong. But, H.R. 534 goes too far. The Weldon bill would stop all research initiatives that rely on somatic nuclear cell transfers, just as we are realizing to enormous benefits of this biomedical research. The Greenwood substitute, in contrast, bans reproductive cloning while allowing this critical research to continue.

As a representative of the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, I understand the importance of the research our scientists are conducting. It has the potential to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from a number of debilitating diseases.

The implications of passing H.R. 534 reach far beyond the highly emotional and contentious debate of whether or not the creation of an embryo to be used in medical research constitutes human life. This bill criminalizes medical research that might be the only chance for a cure for many terrible diseases. While the promise of this biomedical research remains years away from being perfected and utilized, the Greenwood substitute allows us to hold on to the hope that we may one day find

a cure for leukemia, heart disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other illnesses.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 534 and vote for the Greenwood substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank him and the gentleman from South Carolina for pulling this Special Order together.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working hard to get Federal support for our schools. Although this White House talks a good game about education, when it comes to the budget, the devil is always in the details; and the details of the Bush budget certainly provide tremendous cuts to vital education aid in my military communities.

I want to talk about just one area tonight: those communities. Mr. Speaker, President Truman established Federal support known as Impact Aid for school districts that are impacted by heavy Federal presence because they do not pay property taxes. In my district, Forts Bragg and Pope are two major bases; and other people can talk about theirs, where thousands of soldiers, airmen, and their families are based. Because these Federal entities do not pay taxes, we provide for something called Impact Aid to help with books, teachers' salaries, buildings and the like. Impact Aid was designed to compensate for the revenue losses.

Well, in these areas across the country, they have seen devastating cuts this year because of State budgets being put in trouble because of this administration's policies. In this budget they are proposing to cut $173 million from Impact Aid, a 14.5 percent cut, at the very time when we are asking our men and women to deploy and go overseas, and leave their children back home for an education. This is just terrible.

By not allowing federally connected school districts to count children where parents reside off base, this is what they said in Cumberland County, the President is ignoring 240,000 children who attend the schools in the areas around these bases. Abandoning these children is not only a mistake; it is absolutely immoral.

Last week the Fayetteville Observer reported that under the Bush budget, funding for 14,600 children living off the post there would be eliminated for funding. Mr. Speaker, my State's economy is hurting because of this administration's economic policies. Other States are seeing the same. State budgets are being slashed.

We cannot allow, in one of the largest deployments, at a time when impending war is here, allow these men and women to be concerned about their children being educated at home. Rather than being compassionate, these cuts in Impact Aid are absolutely cold cruelty, and I urge my colleagues to restore these devastating cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, and Mr. Price of North Carolina to talk about the serious consequences of President Bush's misguided budget proposals. I want to thank my friend for his unsurpassed leadership in this vital area.

As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I have made federal support for education my top legislative priority as a member of the U.S. House. Although this White House talks a good game about education, when it comes to budgets the devil's in the details. And the details of the Bush budget contain an inexcusable cut to vital education aid for our military communities.

Mr. Speaker, President Truman established federal support known as ``Impact Aid'' for school districts that are impacted by a heavy federal presence. For example, in my Congressional District, we have Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base where thousands of soldiers, airmen and their families are based. Because these federal entities do not pay local property taxes, the school districts are deprived on their normal source of revenue for books, teacher salaries, school buildings and the like.

Impact Aid was designed to compensate for some of that revenue loss. In areas like Cumberland County, NC, Impact Aid is a crucial component of the annual budget, and if it's not there, that community will face massive property tax increases, devastating cuts to schools, police and fire and other vital services.

Under its proposed budget for next year, the Bush Administration has proposed cutting $173 million for Impact Aid. That's a 14.5 percent cut.

In addition, the Administration proposes to end Impact Aid for children of military families who live off base. Earlier this month, the head of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools said, ``By not allowing federally connected school districts to count children whose parents reside off-base . . ., the President is totally ignoring over 240,000 children who must attend these schools.'' Abandoning these children is not only a mistake, it's immoral.

Last week, the Fayetteville Observer reported that under the Bush budget, funding for 14,600 children living off the post would be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, my state's economy is hurting because of this Administration's terrible economic policies. The state government has been forced to slash funding. At the same time, military families are dealing with large-scale deployments for the looming was against Saddam Hussein. And the communities that support these military facilities already face devastating losses of commerce and tax base.

Rather than being compassionate, these cuts in Impact Aid are cold cruelty. I urge my colleagues to restore these devastating cuts, and I thank my colleague Mr. Price for his leadership on budget issues and for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Republican welfare bill, and in support of the Democratic alternative offered by my colleagues Representatives Cardin, Kind, and Woolsey.

To paraphrase baseball great Yogi Berra, this legislation ``is like deja vu all over again.''

Indeed, the bill we are considering today is almost identical to the flawed welfare bill we debated last May. Since then, our national economy has continued to stagnate, unemployment has risen sharply, and our states have fallen further into fiscal crisis. In light of this, one would think that the Republican Leadership would take some time to re-think their welfare bill and write a better one. Instead, they offer today the same welfare bill that failed to pass Congress last year. What wasn't good enough for America's working families then, is worse for America now.

There are three main problems with H.R. 4. First, it burdens the states with a large unfunded mandate. Second, it fails to provide welfare participants with adequate access to education and job training. And finally, it significantly underfunds childcare.

I strongly support putting people to work to help them obtain self- sufficiency. While the Republican bill requires more work hours, H.R. 4 does not provide the states with the resources to implement these additional work requirements. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost $8-11 billion to comply with these new provisions. In North Carolina, which is in the midst of a severe budget crisis, H.R. 4 would cost $222 million.

Additionally, welfare reform should not limit one's opportunity to succeed and care for one's family. Under the Republican welfare bill, education initiatives that allow welfare recipients to take community college classes or obtain their GED are eliminated. That's unacceptable. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I understand how important education is to finding and keeping a good job. Education is the key to a successful future. Many of the folks who remain on the welfare rolls today are the least prepared to enter the workforce, and we must provide them with the tools they need to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

Finally, the republican bill also requires parents to work ten more hours per week, yet it does not provide enough resources for childcare. Finding quality childcare is one of the most daunting challenges with which welfare recipients must contend. Good childcare helps young children develop and keeps older children in positive, productive environments. It keeps children off the streets while their parents are at work. This is common sense. If you require folks to spend more time working, you must give them an avenue for caring for their children.

I support the Democratic alternative to this bill. As a member of the New Democratic Coalition, I especially want to commend the good work done by my colleague Congressman Kind on this alternative. Mr. Kind's leadership has produced a far superior bill. Like H.R. 4, our plan requires more work hours, but it goes much further in providing the resources necessary to make welfare reform work. It also allows states to count education and job training as work related activities, which help welfare recipients prepare to get good jobs and permanently leave the welfare rolls. Further, this alternative makes reducing poverty a core purpose of the welfare program. And most importantly, this plan invests significant resources for childcare.

Mr. Chairman, I've lived all of my life in the rural communities located in the heart of North Carolina. There we share common values that stress the importance of family and hard work. Welfare reform should provide families with the tools to lift themselves out of poverty to self-sufficiency. Disappointingly, the Republican welfare bill will not work; it will fail our families. Conversely, the Democratic alternative honors hard work and provides our families with opportunities to find hope and achieve success.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me follow up something that my good friend from Texas covered; whether one agrees with this or not, this is actual fact. Before I was the State Superintendent of Schools in North Carolina, I chaired the appropriations committee for the general assembly, and prior to that I was a county commissioner.

What we are really doing in saying to local governments about pulling back impact aid, and in many of the cases, in many of the communities, in Fort Bragg in my district, many of these communities find themselves dependent on the impact aid. But what happens is they are getting impact aid because you have a large Federal installation not paying local property taxes. If you pull that out, in effect you are saying to the rest of the citizens in that jurisdiction, we are going to raise your taxes. We are going to say to the county commissioners to raise them or to the local governments at a time when roughly, what, 70-plus percent of the States are running huge deficits.

Mr. Speaker, it is incomprehensible that this administration would place these kinds of burdens on local governments across this country. And I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who said not only Fort Hood, but at Fort Bragg, which is the 9/11 post in this country, we are going to send you off, but the people that you are going to leave behind are going to pick up the tab, because those of us in Washington are not going to do what we need to do, and those of us left are going to raise your taxes another way.

Let me touch on a couple of other issues when it comes to education. It bothers me greatly, because if we truly want to turn this around, we have got to have prudence now in budgeting.

Mr. Speaker, it boggles my mind that we have come through the deficits of the last 10 years to get to some high ground and a balanced budget, and we did not learn a thing. We jumped right back in that briar patch with no end in sight, and we now say deficits are okay.

They are not okay. Because we are going to double the amount of interest over the next few years, and my children and grandchildren will pick up the tab; and that is wrong.

Let us just look at some of the numbers that are proposed in this budget. These are the consequences of running deficits: cuts in No Child Left Behind. I supported that legislation because I thought it was fair and it would make a difference for children, because the President committed to fund it. And what does he do? He has cut the funding, and I will have a proposal on that before too long. This budget proposes cuts of $22.6 billion for programs that are under No Child Left Behind, which is $9 billion below the amount authorized in 2004, and $199 million below the amount needed to maintain at just the 2002 level.

Now, we have to understand that there are more children coming to school, there are more children with needs, there is more tutoring that needs to be done because we are ratcheting up accountability. It is a program for disaster for the public schools of America; and this administration, I do believe, knows that, and they ought to know better.

And this body bipartisanly passed it.

That is exactly right. And the schools are depending on that money, and at a time, as the gentleman knows, when States are cutting because they do not have the resources, trying to hold up their end on education; and we are not living up to our bargain. This administration has not been honest with, I think, our schools and the American people.

It eliminates 47 education programs in this budget, proposed budget. Those programs amount to $1.6 billion just in the CR we are now operating under, on the flat line, $1.6 billion. That is a lot of money when you get out to a local school building in rural America or wherever you may be.

Let me just talk about some of the major cuts. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, an outstanding program that gives schools money to do some creative things that make a difference.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. We absolutely have to have these if we are going to tutor youngsters who are behind and need to catch up. Mr. Speaker, $1.2 billion below the level authorized. Teacher quality programs, the very thing we have to do if we are going to improve education in America. We have to improve opportunity for the staff that are teaching our children. What did we do? What does the President propose? Mr. Speaker, $3.1 billion, down 5.2 percent from the previous level. I will just go through the percentages. It is just shameful.

Educational technology. At a time when we are really trying to put more technology in the schools because we are in a technological world, and so many schools need the resources, 9.6 percent cut from the previous level. More children out there, more needs, and we are cutting.

Impact Aid, we just talked about, 14.2 percent. Vocational education, 26 percent proposed cut; 26 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of a story I heard once when I was little. The guy said he was not going to kill his pig, he would just do a little bit at a time, and somebody saw a pig running around the yard with three legs, and he said, I am just eating a little bit at a time. That is what we are doing to education. We are not going to kill it all at once; we are just going to kill it a little bit at a time, until it is so crippled it cannot work. It is absurd.

We need people to work on equipment and machinery. I was at a school last week; a superintendent came up to me just last night talking about Impact Aid. He said, if we cut it, our schools are going to be in deep trouble. This was in Cumberland County. One of the teachers talked about vocational education. This is where they turn money into technology for computer labs. I was in a computer lab working with children.

Funding for the improvement of education, down 91.2 percent. I do not know why they did not go ahead and get it all.

I mean it just makes no sense. It was a good program, but what they want to do is just enough out there to make people mad.

Perkins loans, 61 percent proposed cut.

I could go on. I think folks who are watching get the message. It is one thing to say I am for education; it is one thing to say I want to help. It is another thing to not follow through and give the resources. I have talked to more teachers and school folks in the last few weeks. They really and truly believe, whether it is true or not, that they are set on a course to fail, because we are giving them all the ingredients to make the cake and nothing to go in it, but we are expecting them to come out with a fine baked product.

I would remind all of my colleagues, education is a lifelong process, and we cannot start and stop it. We have to keep it going. Teachers understand it; students realize it. It takes resources to get the job done. I recognize that at the Federal level we only put in about 7 to 9 percent, depending on where we are. Some counties it is more, because a lot of it is specific to need. Not all of

this is specific to need, because No Child Left Behind is need-based and categorical. But without it, we are really saying, we really did not mean it. We really did not mean it.

That was a great plan, we got a lot of good press on it, we have had our press clippings, we have been around the country, and now we are going to move on to something else. That is not education. That is not about building the future of America, and this administration knows better. I am going to be on the floor in the well of this House every day, every week; and we are going to keep reminding them. We have to do the funding because if we do not, we will not have a future. We cannot keep running deficits because huge deficits have consequences; and the consequences are, we run up the debt, we have huge interest payments, and it squeezes out domestic programs, and children pay a heavy price, and we rob our future so a few people can look good now.

Sure, and the gentleman's point is it will get worse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing condolences to the families of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia.

The loss of space shuttle Columbia is felt deeply across the nation and the globe, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the astronauts. These shuttle missions have become so routine that many take them for granted, but these astronauts are truly pioneering American heroes, pushing the envelope in the pursuit of science. America and my constituents in North Carolina continue to support NASA and its mission to explore the universe to expand human knowledge about God's creation.

As a member of the House Science committee overseeing NASA I am confident that we will get to the bottom of this tragedy and that Americans will continue to reach for the stars.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the sad state of agriculture in my home State of North Carolina. And, indeed, farmers across the Nation took a big hit in their wallets thanks to Mother Nature last year.

As Congress prepares to receive the President's State of the Union address, we must pay special attention to those folks who are hurting down on the farm. At one time last summer, according to the National Drought Mitigation Center, nearly one-third of the United States experienced moderate to extreme drought conditions. The prolonged period of dry weather severely aggravated North Carolina's long-term drought problems.

Consequently, my State experienced the worst drought we have seen in 100 years. This drought impacted every region of North Carolina and nearly every community where commodities are grown. Many farmers had to watch crops wither on the vine and die despite their best efforts. And when rain finally came, it came too late to save what was already lost and impaired their ability to harvest what little they had.

In North Carolina, farmers have experienced $400 million in crop losses. While crop insurance has paid out $90 million in indemnities, which helped, it comes at a cost of $63 million in premiums. So crop insurance has not been a viable solution to losses of this magnitude.

The Secretary of Agriculture designated nearly the entire State of

North Carolina as a disaster area, making low-interest loans available to our farmers. USDA also provided for emergency haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program lands, something our livestock producers appreciated. While this assistance is welcome, it does not come even close to meeting the losses that our farmers have suffered.

In addition, many farmers cannot afford to increase their debt burden with new loans. Farmers need more help than just new credit and comforting words; they need direct disaster payments, and they need them now so they can start a new crop year.

For several months we have been pushing for more agriculture disaster relief, along with a bipartisan group of lawmakers representing States that were affected by the drought last summer. We were extremely hopeful last year when the United States Senate voted in favor of a disaster package as part of the 2003 interior appropriations bill. Their plan would provide almost $6 billion in assistance for our farmers.

In fact, I cosponsored a bill here in the House introduced by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) which matched the Senate's disaster bill. Unfortunately, the administration opposed these agriculture disaster plans. Instead, the President demanded that any disaster assistance be paid for by cutting the farm bill that we passed last year.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a proud bipartisan tradition of coming to the aid of States when they have been struck by natural calamities. When tragedy strikes, we do not let States fend for themselves; we instead respond as one Nation. Whether it is an earthquake in California, wildfires in the Rockies, floods in the Midwest, or hurricanes in Florida, Congress worries more about how best to help these people who have suffered and less about how we pay for it at the moment. The drought which affected my State and much of the West and East Coast deserves the same level of treatment by Congress as these other disasters.

In fact, historically, drought is one of the most costly natural disasters that have struck any region of this country. I call upon this House to show this administration that we understand what is really going on in the farm country and that we are prepared to come to their assistance in their time of need.

As my colleagues know, the Senate included in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill $3.1 billion for disaster assistance. Consequently, at the administration's insistence, the Senate was forced to cut education, veterans benefits, and a number of FBI agents. Now, I do not understand this. The President is proposing deficit funding for his massive $674 billion tax plan, which will do nothing to help the economy and middle-class Americans. However, when we ask for his support for emergency spending for just 1 percent, $6 billion, to help farmers who suffered from an act of God and who could lose their entire livelihood, the President says no.

I urge the conference committee to reject these cuts, continue our bipartisan tradition and fully fund agriculture disaster relief as we have done in the past. The Nation's farmers are waiting and watching. Let us not disappoint them.