Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Price-Miller resolution.

Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans feel increasing frustration with the contrived reasons given for invading Iraq, with the lack of any realistic plan for the aftermath of our invasion, and with the administration's failure to state clearly what has to happen for our military to come home.

And I feel the same frustration. This administration has said simply that we should stay the course, but has failed to declare our port of destination. It is hard to believe that there is a course, that we are not simply drifting rudderless.

Mr. Speaker, it has become painfully clear that most Iraqis now see our military, who has served admirably, as an occupying army. Iraqis believe the United States intends to occupy Iraq on a long-term basis, and they believe that our government intends to dominate the elected Iraqi Government, rather than respect that government as the legitimate government of a fully sovereign nation with control of its own natural resources, security and public safety.

Iraqi suspicions about our intentions undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government and fuel the insurgency that continues unabated. Mr. Speaker, if our presence in Iraq is truly not for Iraq's oil or for a permanent staging area for our military operations in that part of the world, we need to say so. We need to state clearly that we do not intend a long-term occupation of Iraq, and the Iraqis will determine their own future. We need to say out loud that we will transfer to Iraq security forces the bases now used by our military, and that we will maintain no permanent bases or long-term military presence in Iraq.

The Price-Miller resolution calls for more than the platitudes that we stay the course or finish the job. We demand that the President state clearly the remaining mission of our military in Iraq, and to state the time period that the President believes will be required to accomplish that mission, what needs to happen for our men and women to come home, and when does the Bush administration think that it will happen.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better way to persuade the Iraqi people that we really intend to withdrew than to begin withdrawing. The Price- Miller resolution calls for a partial withdrawal as soon as possible. There is still work to be done to help the new Iraqi Government achieve stability and an enduring democracy, and we need to give new urgency to those efforts. We need to train Iraq security forces and engage other nations in that effort. We need to help reconstruction efforts and provide diplomatic support to the new government. But the referendum approving the new Constitution gives us an opportunity, an opportunity we must seize, to change fundamentally what we are fighting for, and what the Iraqi insurgents are fighting against.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that unless we say credibly out loud that our military is not there to stay.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose this rule because it does not allow this Congress to consider the amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to authorize or reauthorize the advanced technology program.

Mr. Speaker, in the almost 3 years that I have served in the House of Representatives, I am not sure that I have heard any words spoken on this floor with which I have disagreed more strongly than with the statement of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) just a few minutes ago that we were doing enough already to address the problem of manufacturing job loss. I think his exact words were it is simply not true that we are not doing enough, that Congress and the President are not doing enough to address manufacturing job loss.

If the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) thinks this, if any Member of Congress thinks that, I invite them to come and visit my district. I want to introduce them to some of the people who have lost their jobs. My State has lost almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years. They are in industries that have been the backbone of my State's economy: tobacco, textiles, furniture. And those were jobs that people depended upon to build their lives around, to support themselves and to support their families, and they are gone.

It is not that they have laid off a shift until the economy turns around. The plants are closed. The equipment is sold. The jobs are gone forever.

What to do about that was part of the debate about CAFTA, about any kind of trade agreement that we have. And I voted against CAFTA, but I also agree that that is not the entire answer because it cannot possibly be our Nation's economic future to build our economy around low-skilled jobs and labor-intensive industries.

We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. When I meet with the workers who have lost their jobs, they do not say, What are you going to do to make the plant reopen? They do ask, Where are the new jobs going to come from and what is Congress doing about it?

I certainly do not tell them what the gentleman from Georgia said. I do not

say we are already doing everything that can be done. I say we are doing not nearly enough, but I am working hard to do more.

We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. We have got to be where every new research, where all the new research happens first, and where we turn that research into a commercial application to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the advanced technology program, ATP, works with industry in this very, very competitive world market, to work with industry to create new technologies, to get them up, to get them running, to get patents, to do a proof of concept. It is about the only source of patient capital for many high-tech small companies in areas like nanotechnology where we really need to be at the forefront.

Most of the debate about jobs, Mr. Speaker, is what are we going to do about jobs between now and the next election. The ATP should be a debate about what are we going to do about jobs for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule without the Honda amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I know that today's session was a formality, that there would be no votes other than a voice vote; but I thought it was important to be here, to show my support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in whatever way I could, however modest.

Martin Luther King said that we cannot walk alone. We are responsible for one another. We help others in need on the faith that when we are in need, we will be helped. North Carolinians have twice faced desperate needs following devastating hurricanes in just the last decade. Other Americans have responded generously, both acting together through their government and in their contributions to private relief efforts. Americans are again responding generously to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

But, Mr. Speaker, I share the anger of many Americans at how shamefully inadequate our government's response has been. Tens of thousands of Americans are living outside the walls of civilization. They are without food, they are without water to drink, they are without medicine or medical care, they are without effective shelter. Mr. Speaker, they are without the protection against violence that law provides.

The failures that have led to that are not the failures of the last 4 days, but of the last 4 years. There have been repeated warnings that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast were vulnerable to precisely what has occurred, and yet our government was stunningly unprepared.

The President's press secretary was asked earlier this week about our Nation's response, our government's response to the hurricane, and he said now is not the time for finger-pointing. Earlier today on this floor the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) said now is not the time for finger-pointing. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has said now is not the time for finger-pointing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) said now is not the time for recrimination. The gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said now is not the time for recrimination or for finger-pointing.

They say that this is a time to grieve for the victims of the hurricane; and, Mr. Speaker, I do grieve for the victims of the hurricane. They say now is the time to help the victims of the hurricane; and, Mr. Speaker, I want to help the victims of the hurricane in every way I can. I am here today, and like millions of Americans, my wife and I are contributing to private relief efforts.

But, Mr. Speaker, there has to come a time for accountability. If there is not accountability for the stunning failures that we have seen in our government's response to this hurricane, we will fail again and again.

I know that this administration thinks that accountability is an ephemeral thing. If there is an attempt at accountability too soon, it is finger-pointing. If there is an attempt at accountability too late, then it is something you should get over. There is just a moment for accountability.

Mr. Speaker, tell me when that moment will be? Tell me precisely when the moment will come for accountability for the failures of our response, for the failures of our planning that have led to the devastation and the hardships that we are seeing now.

Mr. Speaker, tell me where the line forms to ask hard questions.

Mr. Speaker, the presidential election in 2000 was effectively decided by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, Justice Stephens said: ``It is the confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law . . . Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear: It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.''

Mr. Speaker, Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike did accept the Supreme Court's decision and the legitimacy of President Bush's election. But, Mr. Speaker, what confidence will Americans have in judges nominated without consultation, without the advice and consent that the Constitution provides for, and confirmed by a bare majority despite strong objections to the impartiality of those judges, confirmed only by shamelessly ignoring the rules that have governed the Senate for more than two centuries? Mr. Speaker, why should Americans accept the decisions of those judges as legitimate? And, Mr. Speaker, just what will be left of the rule of law?

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things in life about which I am certain.

I am certain that the word ``barbecue'' means chopped pork with a vinegar-based sauce.

I am certain that ordering grits north of Richmond is a terrible gamble.

And I am certain that the order of the universe, the plan of salvation, provides that the University of North Carolina will be a national power in college basketball.

Mr. Speaker, it was tough for a couple of years, but order has been restored.

With the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) I attended this year's Final Four in St. Louis. I honored the tradition begun by Roy Williams, who was then an assistant to Dean Smith, at the Final Four in New Orleans in 1982: I spat in the Mississippi River for luck.

I went to the top of the Gateway Arch, and I spat in Mississippi. I visited the Museum of Westward Expansion, and I spat in the Mississippi. I visited the old courthouse where the Dred Scott case was tried, and I spat in the Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I went through the weekend with a cotton mouth. At times I was dizzy from dehydration, all from the constant spitting, but my efforts were amply rewarded in the semifinal against Michigan State and in the final against Illinois.

North Carolina played tough defense. They hustled they played team ball and they won it all.

I am proud of my alma mater, and I am proud of our basketball program. I am proud that our program has always taken academics seriously, and even those players who left early for NBA careers have usually returned to summer school to complete their degrees. I am proud that our program has taken NCAA rules seriously, and of course, I am proud of our victories.

I want to congratulate the coaches and the players from the 2005 National Championship team, as well as the students, the faculty and staff, the alumni and the fans. I thank our players for the joy they brought all Carolina fans by their victory.

Next year may be tough, with our seven leading scorers all either graduating or leaving for the NBA, but Jawad Williams, Jackie Manuel, Melvin Scott, Sean May, Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Marvin Williams, but Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will again be back to the Final Four and soon.

We have talented young players from this year's team, this last year's team, who are returning, who welcome to our program a strong class of incoming freshman. They are very talented high school juniors who are now contemplating scholarship offers and the opportunity to be part of the Carolina basketball tradition.

All these incoming players will come to understand what the Carolina basketball tradition means. It is about

winning championships, but it is also about making us proud, proud of them as athletes, as students and as human beings, and Mr. Speaker, it is about maintaining the order of the universe.

Mr. Speaker, the financial condition of American working and middle-class families is a mess. Wages are stagnant, health care costs are exploding, the individual savings rate for 2004 was 1 percent, and credit card debt is more than $800 billion.

The bright spot is that 69 percent of American families own their own home. The equity that American families build in their homes by years of faithfully paying a mortgage is the bulk of the net worth, the life savings, of most homeowners.

Homeownership is more than an investment. The deed to a home is a membership card to the middle class. Families living on the fringes of poverty can begin to get their footing when they own their own home and become part of a neighborhood where parents know their children's playmates. Financially vulnerable families are even more likely to have to borrow against the equity in their homes to provide for life's rainy days, however.

Every American homeowner faces a mountain of documents when they borrow money to buy a home or when they use their home to secure a loan. Many vulnerable homeowners borrow knowing only how much their monthly payment will be, only to learn later that they signed away a big part of their home equity, of their life savings.

There are lending practices that should offend anyone with a conscience. Let me give my colleagues one of the stories from North Carolina that prompted the North Carolina legislature, not generally seen as a hotbed of liberalism, to enact legislation to prohibit predatory lending 6 years ago.

A lender approached an elderly school employee in Durham about refinancing her home to consolidate her debts. The lender charged her $17,542 in up-front costs on a $99,000 loan, including a $5,002 origination fee, a $2,142 loan discount fee, and a $9,089 single- payment, nonrefundable credit premium insurance. She would never have written a $17,542 check at closing, but when she signed the closing documents, the charges came straight out of the equity she had built in her home, straight out of her life's savings.

The North Carolina law enacted in 1999 has put an end to practices like that, and without hindering honest lenders from making loans to vulnerable families that need to borrow against their home. Sub-prime credit remains readily available in North Carolina.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I have introduced Federal legislation based on North Carolina's proven law.

Critics of our legislation argue that we would restrict consumer choice. Most consumers would like the choice of knowing they are not being taken advantage of; that when they borrow money against their home for a rainy day, they are not entering into a spiral that results in losing their life's savings, their home, and their membership in the middle class. That choice is not now available to many American homeowners.

We look forward to working with others in Congress and in the financial services industry. We welcome proposals from others to prohibit abuses. But we also want to make sure that Congress does not pass legislation that permits new abuses. We must make sure that the protections of any new law are not easily avoided, and we cannot handcuff the States' ability to protect consumers. Sub-prime lending is now a $530 billion industry, and growing. Vulnerable consumers cannot afford to have to come back to Congress again and again for real protections against abusive sub-prime lending practices.

David's victory over Goliath was considered an upset, and Goliath would have been heavily favored in a best-of-seven series. If Congress passes predatory lending legislation, we need to get it right the first time. Consumers cannot count on having a second chance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring an act of conscience and courage that forever changed North Carolina, the South, and the Nation.

The Greensboro Four, David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain and Jibreel Khazan, then Ezell Blair, Jr., changed our Nation's history while freshmen at North Carolina A&T, an Historically Black University in Greensboro.

Like college freshmen everywhere, they spent endless hours in discussions in their dormitory rooms. ``We challenged each other, really,'' Richmond said of their discussions. ``We constantly heard about all the evils that are occurring and how blacks are mistreated and nobody was doing anything about it. We used to question why is it that you have to sit in the balcony? Why do you have to ride in the back of the bus?''

McNeil told friends at the time, ``It is time to take some action now. We have been people who talk a lot, but with very little action.''

McCain said later, ``We had been talking about it for a long time. Each of us had been bugged by it and we felt very strongly. The night before we did it, we had a bull session at McNeil's room that lasted all night long.''

Khazan said, ``It was time to wake up and change the situation. We decided to start here.''

McNeil said, ``From my perspective, it was a down payment on manhood.''

On that dare to each other, the next day, February 1, 1960, at about 3:30 in the afternoon, the four entered the Woolworth's on South Elm Street in downtown Greensboro and sat at the ``whites only'' lunch counter. When they were refused service, they remained seated until the counter closed at 5. They vowed to return the next day and to keep coming back until they were treated the same way that whites were treated.

That night, word spread quickly at A&T and Bennett College, an Historically Black Women's College in Greensboro, about what the four students called their ``sit down'' protest.

The next day they returned with 19 of the other A&T students, some wearing ROTC uniforms, others wearing coats and ties. They were again denied service, and they again remained seated at the lunch counter.

That night the membership of the Greensboro branch of the NAACP voted unanimously to support the student protest.

The next day, the four students returned again, this time with 85 other students from A&T, from Bennett College and from Dudley High School, the black high school from which three of the Greensboro Four had graduated just the year before. That Saturday, 1,000 protesters filled the Woolworth's. McNeil said, ``I guess everybody was pretty much fed up at the same time.''

In the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the civil rights movement, ``Parting the Waters,'' Taylor Branch wrote, ``No one had time to wonder whether the Greensboro sit-in was so different. In the previous three years, similar demonstrations had occurred in at least 16 other cities. Few of them made the news, all faded quickly from public notice, and none had the slightest catalytic effect anywhere else. By contrast, Greensboro helped defined the decade.''

In the next few days, there were sit-in demonstrations in Winston- Salem, Durham, Raleigh, Fayetteville, Charlotte, and High Point. Two weeks after the first sit-in, Dr. Martin Luther King toured the Woolworth's in Durham that was the target of protests there. That night he spoke at a rally supporting the protests.

``What is fresh, what is new in your fight,'' King said, ``is the fact that it was initiated, led and sustained by students. What is new is that American students have come of age. You now take your honored place in the worldwide struggle for freedom.''

On April 3, Thurgood Marshall spoke at Bennett College and urged the students to continue the protests. On Easter weekend, Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference organized a meeting at Shaw University in rally of student sit-in protesters. The students formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, SNCC, to organize more protests.

In July, the Woolworth's in Greensboro integrated the lunch counter, and the Kress store across the street integrated its lunch counter the same day.

By August of 1961, more than 70,000 people had participated in sit- ins, resulting in more than 3,000 arrests. The sit-ins became an important tributary of the river of the civil rights movement, which resulted eventually in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. Speaker, there are many Members of this body who were part of that movement. Many more remember the sit-ins as if they were yesterday. I was a 6-year-old child living in Fayetteville, North Carolina. My memories of Jim Crow and of the civil rights movement are dim and distant.

I remember going to the county courthouse on some errand with my father and seeing two water fountains. I assumed that the ``white'' water was like the water that came out of my tap at home. I could not understand why my father would not let me try the ``colored'' water.

I vaguely, vaguely, remember the protests in Fayetteville. I would like to think that if the civil rights movement had been delayed by a decade or by a generation, I would have recognized as I grew up the injustice of segregation and I would have acted against it. I can never know that.

But I am proud to join with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and many others in introducing this resolution and to speak for it today.

I realize, as Dr. King said, that we cannot walk alone. The destiny of all Americans is tied up with the destiny of others and the freedom of all Americans is inextricably bound to the freedom of other Americans.

The Greensboro Four remain an inspiration to all Americans not simply to accept the world as we find it, but to recognize injustice, and when it is time to change the situation, start where you are.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) in rising tonight to remember an act of courage and conscience 45 years ago today that forever changed North Carolina, the South, and our Nation.

On February 1, 1960, four African American students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina A&T, walked into the F. W. Woolworth store in downtown Greensboro and sat down at the ``whites' only'' lunch counter. They were refused service, but they continued to sit at the lunch counter in nonviolent protest.

The courageous nonviolent protests of the four A&T freshmen, Jibrel Khazan, then Ezell Blair, Jr.; David Richmond; Joseph McNeil; and Franklin McCain, the Greensboro Four, inspired sit-ins across North Carolina and the South to protest racial segregation in public accommodations and in every other area of life.

The sit-in movement became a critical part of the civil rights movements and led eventually to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the integration of public accommodations in America.

Today, I attended a celebration in Greensboro marking the 45th anniversary of the beginning of the sit-in movement. In July, the Woolworth's store in downtown Greensboro, hallowed ground to the civil rights movement, will open as an international civil rights museum.

Mr. Speaker, we no longer have whites-only lunch counters. Ending segregation has made our Nation a more decent and just society, but there remains much work to be done to achieve racial justice. There remain disparities in almost every aspect of life. And the courage and conscience of the Greensboro Four remains an inspiration for all Americans to recognize injustice, to refuse to accept injustice, to act against injustice.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the country there has been a rebirth of the arts, and the importance of the arts to economic development and revitalization in our communities deserves to be recognized. Cultural facilities and events enhance property values, tax resources and overall profitability for our cities and towns. In doing so, the arts have become a direct contributor to reviving many of our urban and rural areas. From major metropolitan areas to small towns, the arts have proven to be sound economic investments. I value the contributions made by the arts and believe that Congress has a responsibility to support the arts and all cultural activities.

Nationally, the arts have had a profound effect on community development but more specifically, have assisted in the economic growth in my home state of North Carolina. I am pleased to present an article by Mr. Lawrence J. Wheeler, Director of the North Carolina Museum of Art, that brings attention to the development and economic effect that the arts have had in North Carolina. In his editorial entitled ``For Development, Draw on N.C.'s Arts,'' which appeared in the News & Observer earlier this year, Mr. Wheeler provides insight into the positive influence that the arts have had upon communities in North Carolina. Mr. Wheeler rightfully calls on the arts to be used as full partners in future economic planning, and I believe that Congress and state governments should heed this advice.

[Editorial-Opinion--the News & Observer, April 27, 2004]

For Development, Draw on N.C.'s Arts

Twenty years ago, the idea of using art as a tool for

community development would have been dismissed as a

meddlesome intrusion by self-interested arts advocates. But

as more and more jobs are being outsourced and downtown areas

are becoming ghost towns,

economic developers are viewing vibrant urban centers as

critical to attracting workers, placing the arts at the

center of the debate on community development.

Art has become a focal point for community leaders,

economic development specialists and the citizens themselves.

They look to the arts for inspiration, aesthetics and design,

leadership and creativity, which can reshape our communities

and make them vital, livable and relevant in the face of the

economic changes of our time.

Richard Florida, author of the highly touted community

development treatise, ``The Rise of the Creative Class,''

says that if the goal is to attract a creative class of

entrepreneurs and workers, then cities must provide, in

addition to a tolerant social environment, diverse social and

cultural enhancements, like great parks, art, music and

lively community main streets. Art and design vitality are

emphasized as a key factor that has enabled economic

progress.

For decades, coalitions of arts organizations have

undertaken economic impact studies to demonstrate their

collective financial contribution to local, regional, and

state economies, receiving scant attention from policymakers

and political leaders. A recent study conducted by Americans

for the Arts found the arts industry generates $134 billion

in economic activity every year. A new report by Arts North

Carolina shows that the state's arts industry produces nearly

$1 billion in financial impact.

Clearly it is time to take a closer look at the measurable

financial value of the arts.

The use of architecture in recent art museum design

illustrates the impact of the arts on tourism and community

image. Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum of Art in Bilbao,

Spain, Santiago Calatrava's soaring structure for the

Milwaukee Museum of Art, and the newly celebrated Fort Worth

Museum of Modern Art by Tadao Ando have brought not only

extraordinary international attention, but also tourist

dollars to these cities.

Here in North Carolina, we are developing cultural

landmarks as well, such as Wilmington's new Cameron Art

Museum, designed by the renowned architect Charles Gwathmey.

The success of this project has considerably boosted the

cultural and civic energy of the city.

The Research Triangle region has invested more than $250

million in its arts and museums infrastructure in recent

years, with plans to invest nearly $150 million more in

cultural facilities in Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh. The

N.C. Museum of Art in Raleigh has commissioned New York-based

architect Thomas Phifer to create plans for its expansion.

Several other communities, including Charlotte, Asheville

and the Piedmont Triad, are planning major investments in

cultural facilities and the arts programs to attract jobs,

visitors and dollars. Cities, large and small, are

recognizing that cultural investments make economic sense.

As the arts take center stage in economic growth,

metropolitan regions have the opportunity to put their

cultural strengths to work. Many regions are investing in

industry clusters--concentrations of businesses that are

linked to each other through their suppliers and producers.

There are abundant examples of real success stories when the

cultural resources of a region become full partners in

shaping economic development strategies. Asheville is

developing a prosperous industry cluster around its regional

crafts heritage. Handmade in America leads a coalition of

regional organizations that promote the making and sale of

crafts, as well as tourism to artisans' studios, related

museums, historic inns and sites and the region's magnificent

natural resources.

North Carolina has a rich history of providing cultural

opportunities to its people. The first state-supported

symphony orchestra, the first state-funded art collection and

the first cabinet-level Department of Cultural Resources were

all created here, along with an extraordinary network of 93

community-based arts councils throughout the State. These are

superb sources to identify leaders who can be invaluable in

shaping the conversations and agendas for economic

development in our communities.

Our State's struggle with economic change will require a

rearranging of investment priorities and significant private

and public support. Only when the arts are used as full

partners in planning will North Carolina see sustainable

economies, lively communities and an enriched quality of life

for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the perseverance and achievement of Stephen Tyler Stokes in earning the rank of Eagle Scout, Boy Scouts of America, Occoneechee Council--Troop 104, on December 12, 2003, and entered into the Congressional Record as such. His Court of Honor commenced on July 24, 2004.

While a member of Troop 104 in Wake County, North Carolina, Stephen served in various positions including Librarian, Instructor, Troop Guide, Assistant Patrol Leader, and even Patrol Leader. He learned what it takes to assist his fellow scouts and how to lead them. Stephen attended the National Boy Scout Jamboree in 2001, at Ft. A.P. Hill in Virginia, which influenced him to become an Eagle Scout and a role model for younger boys.

In addition to devoting his time to being an Eagle Scout, Stephen attended Broughton High School in Raleigh, NC, where he helped establish the F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Program, participated in the Chess Club, and served as webmaster for the Literary Magazine and the Japanese Animation Club. Stephen received an Enterprise in Action Certificate of Achievement from Junior Achievement and was listed in the publication Who's Who Among American High School Students.

Stephen's commitment to serving his community and helping others is truly commendable. He has helped construct homes in Charleston and Philadelphia as part of Habitat for Humanity's ongoing inner-city improvement projects. During Stephen's 8 years with the Boy Scouts, he was an active participant in the Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, and Citizenship in the World volunteer programs.

Mr. Speaker, I know his father Steven and his mother Jamie are proud of all that their son has accomplished and join me in recognizing that the achievement of earning the rank of Eagle Scout is just the beginning of a bright future for their talented and deeply committed son.

The journey a young man makes to earn the rank of Eagle Scout requires not only a scout's dedication to his community, but also the community's dedication to the scout. I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Stephen Tyler Stokes, his family and Troop 104.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the current political debate on the economy is usually over the most recent economic statistics, but our economic future depends upon our remaining the most innovative economy in the world. The policies of this current administration and of this Congress are cheating Americans of our economic future, of the economic future that we deserve.

I rise tonight to speak specifically about the need for adequate funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office and about the need to help get nanotechnology from the lab to the market.

Patents and trademarks are critical to the promotion and development of the American economy. In an increasingly competitive global market, it is essential that the administration and we in Congress do everything we can to maintain America's role as the leader in the creation of innovative technologies and of new products.

Innovation and competitiveness depend upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the United States Patent and

Trademark Office, the USPTO. Our biotechnology, electronic, pharmaceutical and nanotechnology industries rely on the United States patent system. But because of record innovation and growth beginning in the 1990s, the USPTO is overburdened to the breaking point.

The Under Secretary of Commerce For Intellectual Property, Jon Dudas, testified that the USPTO may be facing the greatest workload and operational crisis in more than 200 years; in other words, in the USPTO's history. The backlog is now 475,000 patent applications. By comparison, the backlog in 1981 was 190,000 applications. By 2008, the backlog is expected to grow to more than 1 million applications. That is 1 million ideas, 1 million innovations, 1 million potential money makers and job creators that will sit on the shelf until patent examiners clear the backlog of cases in front of it and consider that application. Once an application reaches its way to the front of the line, the time a patent application takes to be approved is also increasing dramatically, from 22 months in 1981 to more than 3 years for many of our critical technologies. By 2008, the average pendency is expected to grow to 6 to 8 years.

The House has already passed a bill that would alleviate the backlog. H.R. 1561 would raise patent fees and allow the USPTO to use the revenues to reduce the backlog and patent pendency delays.

I urge my colleagues in this House, as well as the members of the Senate and the administration, to meet the needs of an innovative economy by allowing the USPTO to collect the increased patent fees, to improve their work.

Mr. Speaker, our most innovative technologies, our research intensive technologies, the very folks who will be paying the increased fees, are desperate to pay those fees and to improve the effectiveness of the USPTO in processing patent applications. The status quo is just unacceptable. We must have an efficient, cost effective patent and trademark system to remain the leader in today's global economy.

Mr. Speaker, as to the next nanotechnology industry, the administration's preference for partisan dogma over investment guarantees that most of the nanotechnology industry will develop in other countries, regardless of how much we spend here in the United States on research. The administration did support H.R. 766 which authorized funding for more nanotechnology research and development, but every amendment to that bill that would have increased the competence by our industry in nanotechnology-related manufacturing jobs was defeated in the Committee on Science along party lines. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), offered an amendment that would have authorized money specifically to enhance the advanced technology program efforts in nanotechnology. Again, that amendment was defeated on a party line vote.

The ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is the only source of patient capital for many high-tech, small companies in areas like nanotechnology, and there is usually nowhere else to turn in the United States for a company that is 3 to 5 years from the market and 2 to 4 years from interesting venture capitalists in their ideas. To the administration, though, the ATP is just a corporate welfare program that should be abolished.

Mr. Speaker, highly-skilled, well-paid jobs are going to exist in the nanotechnology industry whether or not we support those companies, that is true, but they are not going to exist here.

Mr. Speaker, the triumph of dogma over practicality and over our economic future is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for bringing this resolution to the floor today. In the last month or two, all of us in the eastern United States have been glued to our television sets watching weather reports as one Atlantic storm after another moved westward from the west coast of Africa across the Atlantic towards the United States. Three storms have made landfall in the United States and done great damage, great property damage and great loss of life.

We have learned more and more about storms just from watching the weather reports, watching with fascination the symmetry, the amazing symmetry of the storms, learning about the definition of the eye wall, how that told us whether the storm was strengthening or weakening or maintaining its strength.

There has been great damage and great loss of life from these storms. Hurricane Charley, which struck and made landfall in Florida as a category 4 storm, resulted in 31 deaths. Hurricane Frances made landfall in Florida as a category 2 storm but stalled over Florida and just rained and rained and rained with great, great damage. And, most recently, Hurricane Ivan struck the Panhandle of Florida and Alabama as a weak category 4, and then moved upward and caused a total of 49 deaths, including about 10 in my State, in flooding in western North Carolina.

These were powerful storms, but we were relatively well prepared for them. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) referred to the great, great savings in life that resulted from the preparation that we had as a result of the work of NOAA, but let me tell my colleagues how much of a difference that made.

When we look back early in our history, a much less densely populated country, a nation that was not prepared, had no forewarning when storms struck, let me tell my colleagues the loss of life. In 1893, a storm of unknown intensity struck Louisiana, made landfall in Louisiana. The estimate was that there were 2,000 deaths from that storm. That same year, a storm also of unknown intensity made landfall in South Carolina and Georgia with a loss of life of 1,000 or 2,000. In 1900, a storm that we now estimate to be a category 4 struck without warning Galveston and resulted in an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 deaths. In 1928, a storm struck again with very, very little warning in Florida, and resulted in more than 1,800 deaths.

Again, this is a striking contrast. We can thank the people of NOAA, the employees of NOAA for the forecasts and the warnings that we have relied upon to prepare for the storms that have struck the United States this year. It is not an exaggeration to say, because of the work of the employees at NOAA, that there are thousands of Americans alive now who would not have been alive had we not been prepared for these storms, and the way that we have not been prepared for storms before we had that capacity to see storms coming, to know their intensity and to prepare for them.

We now see more storms moving towards us. Hurricanes Jeanne and Karl and storms behind them seem to be taking a number as they are in line, moving towards the United States.

So this resolution is a modest gesture of appreciation for those employees of NOAA who are working around the clock to monitor the paths of hurricanes, the strength of hurricanes, to make sure that we are ready when those hurricanes reach the United States.

So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as many other North Carolina Members have in the last few days, I rise to express my hometown pride in the presumptive Vice Presidential nominee of my party, John Edwards. John Edwards has been very, very successful in his life. We used to call that the American Dream. But that is not where he started out. Where he started out and how he got where he is today is important, and he has learned from it.

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very tired of hearing that Senator Edwards is the son of a mill worker, but it is true and it is important. He understands what most folks' lives are like because his life has been the same way. His father worked in the mill, as my father did. His mother worked in the post office. His life has been like the lives of ordinary Americans. He had to depend on public schools to get ahead. Wallace and Bobbi Edwards could never in this world have sent John Edwards to some expensive New England boarding school. He had to go to the public schools. He understands to the depth of his soul the importance of public education for middle- class Americans and the importance of public education in creating opportunities for ordinary Americans.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight. I did not think I would be pleased to be here. In my office earlier, I was regretting greatly having agreed last week to come down tonight as I saw the time slip away and as I was, instead of dinner, eating the complimentary North Carolina peanuts that we pass out to our visitors, wondering when, if ever, tonight I would get dinner.

Then I heard the speeches of a few minutes ago by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and by others on the same topic but from a different perspective, and I felt a new energy and a new enthusiasm for our task tonight, and I would like to address some of the questions that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the others asked about John Edwards.

First, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) asked why it was that John Edwards did not have to answer any of the insulting questions that were asked of Dan Quayle when the first President Bush asked him to run as Vice President in 1988, and I think that there is a simple answer to that.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said that Dan Quayle had been in Congress for 12 years, John Edwards in the Congress for only six, but John Edwards had not been asked why he was qualified to be President when that question was put very pointedly to Mr. Quayle. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said he believed it must be because of the liberal media. I think there is a different explanation.

John Edwards is smart. John Edwards is smart. Everyone knows he is smart. Everyone who has spent any time around him knows that. He is plenty smart enough to be Vice President. He is plenty smart enough to be President.

Second, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and all the others said that this is a ticket of two crazy liberals, wild-eyed crazy liberals, out of step with North Carolina or even, they suggested, with Massachusetts, and I just wish they would get their story straight.

John Kerry and John Edwards are the Huck Finns of American politics because they got to attend their own political funeral. In December of last year and early January, they appeared to be politically dead. Their campaigns were not going anywhere. The former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, appeared to be walking away with the Democratic nomination. A respected political reporter here, Stuart Rothenberg, wrote a column that said, ``It ain't over till it's over, but it's over.'' Howard Dean was assumed to be the nominee.

So all the right-wing commentators began talking about how the Democrats were going to nominate a crazy liberal in Howard Dean; and, to establish that contrast, they said the Democrats were rejecting sensible, thoughtful, moderate candidates like John Kerry and John Edwards. Things did not go according to their script, and now the ticket is John Kerry and John Edwards, and those same thoughtful, sensible, moderate folks that just a few months ago they were praising, they now are tarring with the same brush that they tarred Howard Dean.

Also, they need to get their story straight because just last week, in the hours immediately after John Kerry had announced that he had asked John Edwards to run on the ticket with him, the first response from the Bush-Cheney campaign was a 26-page e-mail that outlined all of these differences, all these differences between Kerry and Edwards, they just had nothing in common, and it just showed how flagrantly political John Kerry was to have asked someone with whom he

agreed so little to run as Vice President with him.

Very quickly they abandoned that. Now they say they are just alike. There is absolutely no balance to this ticket; they are exactly alike. The same voting record. They are two peas in a left-wing pod. Again, their story would have a little more credibility if they would stick with it for just a little while.

In fact, both John Edwards and John Kerry are moderate in the best sense, not in some voting record and how they have reacted in the last 2 years to take-it-or-leave-it propositions, bills that have not been put to them to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' bills that have not been compromised an iota. That is not the test of their moderation. It is their willingness to compromise, to try to find common ground, to try to find sensible solutions, to listen to everyone involved in the political debate, to listen respectfully, to respect their views and concerns, and to listen carefully because they might actually learn something. Would that not be refreshing to have in a President and Vice President?

I was also startled to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that John Edwards and John Kerry were out of touch and criticized them so sternly for being wealthy, for being rich. This is a party that treats the richest folks like rock stars. They are almost embarrassing in their fawning over rich folks. And the richer the folks are, the more fawning they are, the more unctuous they are around them. But that is not the point. The point is not the success John Edwards has had.

Yes, John Edwards has been very, very successful. We used to call that the American Dream. The point is where he started out and what he learned from that. John Edwards, and I know they are tired of hearing the story of his being the son of a mill worker, but it is true and it is important. He understands what most folks' lives are like because that is the kind of life he lived. His father worked in the mill, his mother worked in the post office, as my father worked in the post office.

John Edwards' life was like most Americans' lives. He had to depend on the public schools to get ahead, to have opportunities for him. Wallace and Bobbi Edwards, John Edwards' parents, could not have sent John Edwards to some expensive New England boarding school. He had to go to the public schools. And John Edwards understands to the depth of his soul the importance of public education for middle-class Americans, the importance of public education in creating opportunities for ordinary Americans.

John Edwards never got into any school on anything but his own merit. He never got into any college, he did not get into law school because of who his daddy was. He got in because he earned his way. He has earned his way his entire life. He has never had anything given to him, and he will understand the lives of ordinary Americans because of that.

They have talked about his role as a trial lawyer and the money that he made and how that now puts him out of touch. I can tell you what a trial lawyer does. The suggestion that he handled frivolous cases and made a fortune off that is ridiculous. He took the cases that had merit. He took the cases where people had been harmed because someone had not done what they should have done.

John Edwards had to explain to juries how people who had suffered a terrible injury, how their lives had changed. He had to explain what their life was like before the injury, what their hopes were, what their aspirations, what they wanted their future to be like; and then he had to explain to the jury how that had changed and what their life was like after the terrible injury that they had suffered. And he had to explain the lives of many different people from many different walks of life.

I can tell you this, before you explain something to a jury, you have to understand it yourself. He was past master at understanding intellectually and at the pit of his stomach what peoples' lives were like, the lives they led and how their lives changed. And that would be a wonderful asset to have as a President or as a Vice President.

Finally, I want to address the lack of experience, the issue that they raise. That was, of course, part of the Dan Quayle debate as well. I was very startled to hear the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) describe that John Edwards had had less than 10 years of, his phrase was, public service, which I take to mean years in a political office. It was just 10 years ago that the members of the majority party campaigned for term limits. They characterized public service as career politicians. Now, 10 years later, they say that 6 years in political office is entirely too little experience, too little time in public life.

I think that the debate tonight of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) reminds us all how out of touch the majority party has become in 10 years and how if we want to have leadership in touch with the lives of ordinary Americans we need to change our leadership.