Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues on the Small Business Committee for their bipartisan effort, which allowed this bill to be voted

on just in the nick of time. I would like to especially congratulate Congresswoman Velazquez, who has worked tirelessly to bring about this victory for small business.

H.R. 4062 restores the 7(a) program to its former strength by lifting the caps on 7(a) loans. It also takes the important step of removing regulatory limitations that had prevented SBA loans from being a part of larger financing packages.

7(a) loans account for nearly 30 percent of all long-term loans for small businesses in America, businesses that are the number one job creators in this country. So it is essential that we get this program back up and running again. This bill would do that, and it would also extend the important 504 loan program and SBIC programs through the end of this year.

The next step is to make sure that these authorized programs in SBA are fully funded. The President's budget provided zero funding for 7(a) and a number of other important SBA programs. Furthermore, it is important that we put safeguards in place to prevent last-minute shutdowns like those we experienced this past January.

I am working with my colleagues to restore 7(a) funds and to ensure that in the future there are not caps or program shutdowns that deny small businesses access to critically needed resources.

This is the vital next step to the authorization we are passing today, and I urge my colleagues to make certain that we provide the resources to make good on the commitment this bill makes to small businesses.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on the list.

Madam Speaker, what would your nightmare budget look like? Can you a imagine a budget that would cut support for homeland security and small business development, that would do virtually nothing to improve one of the most sluggish economic recoveries in American history, that would break the Contract with America by raising the debt ceiling under cover of a budget resolution, that would balloon the debt and the deficit to previously unimagined dimensions, and that would do all of

this less than 5 years before the first of the baby boom generation begins to retire?

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that nightmare is a reality; and this reality has been created by the President and the House Republican leadership.

In the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, almost $10 trillion since President Bush took office, the Republican response has been to propose more and more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their motto is, just keep digging. There is no clearer example of this than the phony pay-as-you-go proposal in the Republican budget that requires offsets for entitlement spending but not for tax cuts.

Yesterday, Democrats and moderate Republicans came together and voted to instruct the House-Senate budget conferees to institute a real pay- as-you-go proposal, akin to the one that brought us out of deficits and into surpluses in the 1990s. But, as has become standard operating procedure around the House lately, when the vote did not turn out the way the Republican leadership liked, they kept that vote open and began the arm-twisting; and after 28 minutes they had twisted enough arms to bring the vote to a tie and to defeat this effort at sound budget policy.

So now we are left with a budget in conference that would provide the worst of both worlds. It sends us over the cliff fiscally while at the same time radically reducing funding for education, the environment, transportation, health care and law enforcement.

Let me focus, Madam Speaker, for a moment on what may come as a surprise to many Americans who have listened to the Republican leadership and the President spend a lot of time talking about homeland security and the importance of our first responders. This budget shows that talking is about all they are willing to do for our first responders, our police, our fire departments, our medical personnel.

The Republican budget makes significant cuts in Homeland Security and Department of Justice funding for first responders that results in an overall reduction in funding for our police of 33 percent, with a 50 percent reduction in funding for police in smaller cities and rural areas. They also cut funding for firefighters by one-third at a time when the Federal Emergency Management Agency is reporting that over two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association.

The Speaker yesterday concluded the debate on the budget resolution by saying the reason it was important to cut taxes for millionaires was because millionaires are the small business owners who are creating all the jobs in this country. Our friend, the gentleman from Ohio, just repeated that argument on this floor tonight.

Some of those millionaires are small business owners, but again the Republican budget shows the true motivation of our friends on the other side of the aisle. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership have fought to zero out funding, in fact, for the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program that provides close to 30 percent of the long-term loans for small businesses; and they zero out countless other small business programs like Microloans and others geared toward minority businesses. If, as the Speaker implied, the reason for tax cuts for millionaires was really to help small businesses, why did it take an extended press and letter-writing campaign orchestrated by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, to get the Republican leadership to finally back off of some of these cuts in Small Business Administration funding?

The answer, I am afraid, is obvious. The tax cuts were not meant to help small businesses or to spur the economy. They were meant to provide a windfall for the most fortunate among us.

Governing is about getting our priorities straight and taking the public trust seriously. Through the Spratt alternative budget resolution, fiscally responsible Democrats have made our priorities clear: fund the programs America needs like education, health care, housing, homeland security and safety net programs, balance our budget by freezing scheduled tax reductions for those making over $500,000 a year, and target tax cuts in ways that benefit ordinary Americans and stimulate our economy.

There is still time, Madam Speaker, for our colleagues to wake up and reject the Republican nightmare budget and to pass a budget that points to a brighter future. House-Senate conferees could start by adopting real pay-as-you-go rules. I urge them to gauge the House's true sentiment and do just that.

Mr. Speaker, this chart tells an important story about pay-as-you-go rules, about the importance of the real pay-as-you-go rule that was adopted as part of the bipartisan budget agreement in 1990 and the folly, as our budget goes back into deep deficits, of adopting a phony pay-as-you-go rule going forward.

Members who were here in the 1980s remember the well-intentioned, but ineffectual, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedures, where there was rampant gaming of the budget process, all kinds of rosy scenarios that ultimately failed to mask rising deficits.

Finally, in 1990, the first President Bush--who, unlike the present President Bush, understood the first rule of holes, which is if you are in one, stop digging--the first President Bush joined with the then- Democratic congressional leadership to conclude a courageous 1990 budget agreement which put the pay-as-you-go rule in effect. That proved to be very hard to game. It proved to be effective, along with the statutory caps on discretionary spending. And so, along with the 1993 Clinton budget plan passed with Democratic votes alone, the two budget plans, 1990 and 1993, with tough pay-as-you-go rules, produced the reduced deficits throughout the 1990s and actually took us into surpluses, now only a fond memory, surpluses that enabled us to pay off almost $500 billion of the national debt.

In 1997, we concluded another bipartisan budget agreement. Our friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, was one of 219 Republicans who voted for the renewal of the 1990 pay-as-you-go rule, a real pay-as-you-go rule, the one that they now disparage.

We are now going back into deep deficits. What an inopportune time, not only to let the pay-as-you-go rule expire, which our friends on the other side of the aisle did a couple of years ago, but now to propose a defective rule that has no promise for getting ahold of this situation!

It is like trying to fill a bucket with water when there is a hole in that bucket. We can simply not balance the budget with constraint on the entitlement side alone.

Our friend Mr. Nussle has talked about the revenues that are going to be coming in future years. What he did not mentioned was the revenue picture from 2000 to the present, where we have each year had reduced revenues coming in, the price of tax cuts that were not paid for.

So we need a real pay-as-you-go rule that follows the formula that worked so well in the 1990s. The Republican proposal is a sham, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct.

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

There have been a lot of numbers used in this debate, thrown around with great abandon. I must give my Republican colleagues credit. They have used numbers and rhetoric very cleverly over these last 2 days, but I would urge my fellow Americans watching this debate to pay very, very close attention to the way the numbers are actually being used and also to what is not being said.

For example, Democrats talked for 20 minutes yesterday about how the Republican budget seriously underfunds our first responders. The Republicans responded by saying our numbers were all wrong because their budget increased funding for homeland security. Then they listed numbers showing increases in transportation and border protection as examples. Yet they were strangely silent about funding for police departments, for firefighters, for other first responders, which was actually what we were discussing; and they were silent for the understandable reason that their budget gives these first responders far less support than they had before 9/11!

We have criticized the Republican budget for creating a spiraling deficit as their spending plans and their tax cuts kick in over the next 10 years. They say we are confused because the Republican plan is going to cut the deficit in half over the next 4 or 5 years. That, in itself, is debatable, but I promise my colleagues that they will hear no Republican talk about the effect of their budget on the deficit over the next 10 years, as their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extra spending kick in, because the result is deficits in the $500 billion range, as far as the eye can see.

We have talked about how the Democratic substitute does not merely reduce the deficit, but actually eliminates the deficit within 10 years, while redirecting more resources toward areas Americans care about, like education, veterans' benefits, first responders, housing and safety net programs.

Our Republican friends say, Aha, you do this by raising taxes on Americans. Well, we do understand that there is no free lunch, and we want to reinstate the real pay-as-you-go rule that served us so well through the 1990s. But rather than raise taxes, we are talking about merely freezing scheduled reductions for those making over $500,000 a year and also closing some egregious corporate loopholes.

It is true that the tax cuts for millionaires in our plan are less than the tax cuts for millionaires in theirs. But I doubt we will hear our Republican friends putting it quite that way.

So, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pay very, very close attention to what numbers are being used by each side and to what is not being said. Budgets are, after all, about priorities, and the Democratic priorities are clear. Fund the programs America needs, balance the budget, and target tax cuts in ways that stimulate the economy and do not merely enrich the most fortunate among us.

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

Mr. Chairman, this budget represents the worst of both worlds. It sends our national debt spiraling out of control, yet, in the process, it provides very little stimulus for an economy that is still struggling to create jobs, and it cuts services for those most in need of government support and for those charged with keeping our Nation safe.

That is what I want to concentrate in the few minutes I have here, the Republican budget's significant underfunding for our Nation's first responders.

The administration's homeland security budget cuts the State Homeland Security Grant program by almost 60 percent. It does increase the Urban Area Security Initiative, but overall there is a $150 million reduction in funding. Moreover, there is a shift in funding toward some higher- risk urban areas at the expense of smaller cities and more rural areas.

Then, if you go over to the Department of Justice budget, you see the problem is compounded. The COPS program that has furnished support for personnel and equipment for our local police departments is cut 87 percent. The Byrne Grant program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program are both zeroed out in the President's budget and are replaced with a Justice Assistance program, but at a net cut of 40 percent.

So when you combine all of this, the homeland security cuts and the Justice Department cuts, the administration is proposing a 33 percent decrease in homeland security-related funding for local police overall, and if you are looking at small- and medium-sized cities, the cuts are more like 50 percent.

But the attack on first responders does not stop there. The President's budget reduces funding for FIRE Act grants by one-third, $250 million. It provides no funding at all for the SAFER program that was enacted by Congress last year to help our chronically understaffed fire departments.

A recent FEMA study showed that over two-thirds of fire departments in this country operate at staffing levels that do not meet the minimums required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Our fire departments are understaffed, and underequipped, and this budget actually compounds that problem too.

There is a dangerous trend at the Homeland Security Department to move funds that had been used for an all-hazards approach toward a terrorism-only approach. Of course, we need to do new things to prepare for terrorist threats, but we also need to make certain that we are not doing worse than we did before in terms of the support we offer to our police, fire and other first responder agencies.

The 9/11 attacks reminded us that our first responders are hometown heroes. The President and the Republican leaders are giving them lip service, but they are asking that our first responders actually do more and more with less than they had before 9/11.

That is hypocritical, and it is dangerous: one of many good reasons to reject this Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a couple from my district, Larry and Jean Elliott, whose lives tragically ended in Iraq this week.

In life and death, the Elliotts saw service as God's calling. Missionaries for the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, they intermittently stayed at the mission house of First Baptist Church in Cary when they were in North Carolina. Long stationed in Honduras, they were watching CNN one day when they saw a broadcast of an Iraqi man pulling dirty water from a hang-dug well. It was a scene that struck a chord with Larry. In Honduras, he and Jean had spent years building schools, developing water purification systems to provide fresh water to rural residents, coordinating visits by medical and dental teams from the U.S., and translating for other relief workers. They knew the importance of taking care of basic human needs as a ministry of compassion and sacrifice.

Larry and Jean were not deterred by the dangers of Iraq, and they went without hesitation. A friend said their courage stemmed from a sense of peace and a belief that their destiny was in God's hands.

They were scouting the best location for their water purification project when they became casualties of the war: they were killed in a drive-by shooting in Mosul on March 15. It

happened just two weeks before they were scheduled to return home.

Mr. Speaker, family and friends say Larry and Jean were totally dedicated to missionary work. They served without question--not for glory or recognition, but simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. They were the embodiment of the spirit of Christianity, and we are honored to claim them as North Carolina's own.

Three children, Gina, Scott and Todd, survive the couple, and their many friends and admirers grieve for them at First Baptist. The Elliotts' deaths leave a tremendous void, but they also inspire the rest of us to work harder and to practice our faith in ways that honor their service.

We thank God for the joy Larry and Jean Elliott found in their faith and honor all the candles they lit in lives around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I join the authors of this resolution in commending the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of oppression and in praising the valiant service of the United States and coalition forces in Iraq. We are as proud as we could possibly be of our troops, their sacrifice and their service.

But to put forth this partisan resolution in this way is both an affront to our troops and a disservice to our country, sowing division where there should be unity.

This resolution is not necessarily objectionable because of what it says, but because of what it omits. There is no reference, for example, to the mid-course correction that is called for in terms of financial accountability, contracting practices, securing international cooperation, and repairing our relationship with long-standing allies whose support is integral to our ultimate success.

The minority has been denied the opportunity to improve this bill, to give our troops the body armor they need, for example, to achieve pay equity for National Guard and Reserve personnel, to provide much needed health care and benefits for our wounded servicemen and -women, and to offer condolences to the families of those killed in Iraq.

This resolution rightly affirms our support for the Iraqi people as they adopt an interim constitution that upholds the values of open debate and democracy. How ironic that this very bill is structured to shut down discussion and debate.

The rule rammed through by the majority is not only a closed rule, making it impossible to offer a Democratic substitute, but it also eliminates the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. That takes to a new level the procedural abuses that have become almost routine in this House.

At stake is the manner in which we, as members of the House, are permitted to express our encouragement. We can support our troops serving in Iraq, yet still debate how to extend support to them and their families and to hasten the day when they can return. We can support the Iraqi people, yet still debate how best to ensure the development of a stable, democratic form of governance. To debate such issues does not reflect a lack of patriotism. To the contrary, it's a celebration of it.

We should be proud, Mr. Speaker, of the progress we have made in Iraq. At the same time we should address the deficiencies in our prewar intelligence and our post-war occupation plan.

No one disputes that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein gone, but we are doing our troops and the American people a grave disservice if we perpetuate the illusion that they are somehow ``safe'' or that our mission in Iraq is accomplished. Many difficult tasks still lie ahead, and glossing over the serious questions that remain unaddressed by this administration jeopardizes our mission to secure and stabilize Iraq.

I urge the Republican leadership to honor the collaborative and unifying approach that we are urging on the people of Iraq. This body should support our troops and lead by example, and this resolution falls short on both counts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, but it is only a partial step in the battle to clean up our airwaves.

By increasing fines for broadcasters, we are addressing only a symptom of the problem, not the cause. We cannot ignore the correlation between indecency on our airwaves and the increased concentration of media ownership. It is not a perfect correlation, but it is a strong one.

In recognition of that, our colleagues in the other body have improved this bill in several ways. I wish our colleagues in this Chamber had followed suit.

First, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I pushed for an

amendment, not made in order, unfortunately, which would have addressed the true effects of media consolidation before moving forward with the FCC's newly relaxed rules. This amendment, introduced by Senator Dorgan and adopted in committee, calls for a GAO study, and it stays the new rules pending the completion of that study. I wish the leadership in this Chamber had allowed us to offer the same.

Secondly, the Senate Commerce Committee also adopted an amendment, sponsored by Senator Hollings, which would take steps to ensure that parents can use V-chips to block violent programming. The bill would require either that programs be rated for content, so that they may be filtered with the V-chip, or that a ``safe harbor'' family hour be created so that violent programming is simply not televised when children are likely to be watching. My colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and I have introduced a companion bill in this Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, at the root of all these efforts is the undeniable fact that we are losing control of our airwaves. I hear from constituents all the time saying, ``Where are the standards? How can I shield my children from inappropriate programming? And why are the people who put this on the air not held accountable?''

They are right. Our communities virtually have no say in the quality of the programming they are subjected to on broadcast television. And the network executives in L.A. or New York do not seem to feel they owe them anything.

As big media conglomerates get bigger, they are sinking to new lows. We are witnessing a race to the bottom as these networks seek to expand their influence through shock value instead of quality programming.

The Super Bowl was only one example, Mr. Chairman. CBS may blame MTV for its infamous half-time spectacle, but the common denominator for both networks is their owner, Viacom. And the ``wardrobe malfunctions,'' or whatever you want to call these episodes, will not stop there.

If we are serious about cleaning up our airwaves, we need to do what the American people are demanding: Give them back their local media. And we need to do much more than impose fines on the broadcasters that, even if they are increased, are hardly going to make these corporations bat an eye.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James Wesley ``Willie'' York. Mr. York was a builder, developer, realtor and philanthropist whose creativity and generosity have shaped Raleigh and the State of North Carolina in ways we will appreciate and honor for years to come. He died in Raleigh on March 2, at the age of 91, after an outstanding career that spanned the 20th century.

Long before shopping malls and urban planning became the norm in America, Mr. York took the bold step of developing land that combined multifamily housing and shopping facilities in a community setting. When it opened in 1949, Raleigh's Cameron Village was the first shopping center in the Southeast, and it has flourished through multiple changes in the years since. From that visionary development, Mr. York completed numerous other construction projects that have become landmarks in Raleigh. They include York Industrial Park, the Raleigh Farmers' Market, the Velvet Cloak Inn, Mission Valley Inn and Shopping Center, and Northgate Shopping Center in Durham.

Mr. York was also a public servant and made numerous contributions in this arena to enhance the public good. As a member of the Raleigh School Board, he became a leader in the peaceful desegregation of the school system. J. W. York Elementary School was named for him in 1965 in recognition of his efforts. From 1976 to 1985, Mr. York brought visionary leadership to the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority to ensure that it would continue to meet the demands of a growing region. By organizing major bond campaigns, he raised over $163 million to finance construction of a major runway, additional terminals, and ground transportation. A 1933 graduate of North Carolina State University, Mr. York was also a life-long Wolfpack fan and devoted supporter of that institution. His leadership and generous contributions shaped development of the campus and gave life to the J. C. Raulston Arboretum.

Mr. York is survived by seven children, 13 grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of his son Smedes, who has continued his father's development and philanthropic work. Smedes' tenure as mayor of Raleigh from 1979-83 was a progressive era for our capital city, and he has been a respected voice in many projects before and since.

The Fourth Congressional District and all of North Carolina are more livable places because of Mr. York's vision and gutsy determination to enhance the character of our infrastructure and the life of our communities. His legacy is much more than the bricks and mortar of his buildings; they are visible symbols of his strength and imagination. They will continue to be welcome reminders of his leadership in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of North Carolina's most beloved leaders, former State Senator John Winters, who died on February 15.

John was one of North Carolina's towering business and political leaders of the Twentieth Century. John was a member of the Raleigh City Council beginning in 1961, went to the N.C. General Assembly in 1974 as one of two African American state senators elected since Reconstruction, and served from 1977-1983 on the N.C. Utilities Commission.

John had a dignity about him, and a tenacity as well, that infused every job he held. He began as an amateur boxer in New York City and later worked as a milkman and skycap in the 1950s.

He opened John W. Winters & Co. in 1957 and built new homes or apartments almost every year afterwards. His developments included Biltmore Hills, where he named streets after famous African-Americans, Madonna Acres, Wintershaven, and several small shopping centers. John understood that homeownership was an important way for people to build economic independence and a stake in their community, and he made it available to hundreds of families.

He practiced his craft of bringing people together during the most turbulent of civil rights times by being respectful, confident, compassionate, and wise in the ways of political and business leadership.

As we go forward from February's Black History Month celebrations, it is appropriate that we remember this African-American pioneer now and throughout the years as a model of kindness and practical assistance to those who sought a step up. He completely understood how to ``walk with kings and princes but not lose the common touch.'' I personally benefited from his counsel and encouragement and appreciate the trail he blazed for all seeking social justice and expanded opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record ``The Lion in Winters,'' an editorial from the Raleigh News & Observer extolling John Winters' personal qualities and numerous civic contributions.

John Winters had a gentle smile, but he was tenacious at everything he did, and possessed of the grit and courage to back it up. It helped, because during the era in which Winters came along, an ambitious black man faced many obstacles constructed of the stern stuff of prejudice.

Winters, a former Raleigh City Council member and one of the first black state senators elected since Reconstruction, died Sunday at the age of 84. What a marvelous life he led, and what a gutsy one.

Winters used savings from his days as a milkman and skycap to build a successful development business with a multitude of projects, many of them in southeast Raleigh. Federal and state initiatives would help make home ownership possible for people of average means, but in this area Winters had an important role in offering people a chance at that dream.

All the while, he was working as a City Council member to advance civil rights and make Raleigh's transition into an integrated community a peaceful one. Winters was a forceful advocate for his beliefs in equality and opportunity, and in the North Carolina of the 1960s that wasn't an easy thing to be. Thankfully, he lived long enough to see many of his dreams realized.

Former Gov. Jim Hunt called Winters a ``bridge-builder,'' and that's a good description. That Winters was a skilled business leader helped with the bridges, and gave him a chance also to help others who aspired to follow him into a business community where opportunities for minorities were few in that era.

John Winters made his mark. His hometown of Raleigh will wear it proudly, forever.

Mr. Speaker, on February 26, my colleagues Doug Bereuter, David Dreier, Martin Frost and I introduced H. Res. 543, a resolution establishing a House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments.

This resolution would provide for the establishment of a commission in the House of Representatives to assist parliaments in emerging democracies. The legislative branches of governments of emerging democracies are largely comprised of new legislators who face the challenges of creating new democratic systems without the benefit of previous legislative experience. The legislatures of these fledgling democracies often lack the training, equipment, and resources they need to carry out their work effectively. For democracies to mature and to withstand cyclical turnover in government, strong government institutions--particularly national legislatures with appropriate infrastructure--are critical.

From 1990 through 1996, the House of Representatives, through a task force ably led by our colleagues Martin Frost and the late Gerald Solomon, provided equipment, technical assistance, orientation, and training to new parliaments in Central and Eastern European countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia in an effort to develop and strengthen those institutions. The program was designed to improve the efficiency of parliaments and the professionalism of its members and staff, as well as to increase transparency and accountability. The ``Frost-Solomon Task Force'' not only served the United States foreign policy goal of helping to establish democratic institutions in other countries, but also developed significant goodwill in the countries in which it was implemented. As one who participated in the Task Force, I found our work immensely rewarding and was struck by the ways the parliamentary leaders we worked with looked to the U.S. Congress for inspiration.

Since its founding, the United States has championed the development of democracy around the world. This goal continues to be in the national interests of the United States. The House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments would help emerging parliaments function effectively and responsively, and would enable this body to champion democracy and representative government in a tangible way.

I invite my colleagues to join us in carrying on the work begun by the Frost-Solomon Task Force by cosponsoring the House Commission For Assisting Democratic Parliaments Resolution, H. Res. 543.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of one of North Carolina's most respected law enforcement officers, a man whom I am proud to have called a friend.

Deputy Mark Reid Tucker served our community as both a Wake County Sheriff's Deputy and a U.S. Marshal for eastern North Carolina. No matter the rank, law enforcement was a job he loved--and a job he did exceedingly well. He was killed in the line of duty earlier this month at 49 years of age.

Always equipped with a strong sense of right and wrong, Mark thought of law enforcement as a calling. It was a job that suited him perfectly.

Mark joined Wake County's Sheriff's Department in 1976. I first knew him as the president of the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, and he has championed the interests of rank and file law enforcement officers from that position since 1988. After serving with the Sheriff's Department for some 20 years, Mark's lifelong interest in politics spurred him to pursue a federal marshal appointment in the Clinton administration. It was a long, hard battle, but Mark showed characteristic stamina as the process dragged out for several years. When his nomination appeared indefinitely stalled because of partisan battles over Presidential appointments, President Clinton decided to use a rarely invoked recess appointment privilege, and Mark went on to be confirmed to a full term as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 24, 2000. There is no federal appointment that has given me more satisfaction, both because we worked on it so long and because Mark served with such dedication and distinction.

Mark was thrilled to be a part of the U.S. Marshals Service. He took security very seriously, working with local judges, Federal agencies, and my office to ensure that the courthouse was brought up to the standards for Federal judicial facilities. He also recognized that he had a responsibility to maintain good relations with the community. Taking on the role of an unofficial goodwill ambassador for the Marshals Service, Mark usually carried a deputy's badge in his pocket that he could award to a smiling child or interested citizen. When President Clinton left office, Mark returned to the beat in Wake County, going back to his roots and to the people who had long relied on his commitment to the job.

Mark was only the fourth officer to be killed in the line of duty in the Wake County Sheriff's Office's 71-year history, and the overwhelming response of his fellow officers makes clear how acutely they felt his loss. An entire community of law enforcement officers-- from the DEA to the Marshals Service to local deputies--came together to find the person responsible, making an arrest within 48 hours. They said it was the least they could do for the deputy they described as ``well-respected,'' ``dedicated,'' and ``a gentlemen, as well as a friend.'' Close to 1,500 people from law enforcement across the State attended his memorial service.

Mark leaves behind his loving parents, Dallas and Virginia Tucker, his wife Patricia, and sons Chad and Matthew. This tragedy has thrust the whole family into the media spotlight, and Patricia in particular has spoken of her husband and the circumstances surrounding his death with courage, compassion, and dignity.

Mark Tucker perfectly exemplified the dedication of our law enforcement community, and his death is a reminder of the risks these officers take for us every single day. But Mark was one of a kind, a unique combination--a cop's cop, a skilled political leader, an active and engaged citizen, a solid family man, a magnetic personality. His death is a great loss for the community, and we will miss him terribly. May we find comfort in the outpouring of affection and respect and gratitude that his memory has brought forth.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to inform my colleagues that last Friday, the American Association of School Administrators selected Wake County Superintendent Bill McNeal as the 2004 National School Superintendent of the Year.

Bill has a career of service to Wake County that dates back to 1974, when he arrived to teach middle school social studies. He rose through the ranks to serve as an Assistant Principal, Principal, Assistant Superintendent and Associate Superintendent. He is a graduate of Merrick Moore High School in Durham, North Carolina and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from North Carolina Central University. Bill is the definition of a homegrown leader, and I couldn't be more pleased that his outstanding commitment to education has been recognized on the national level.

As Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services, Bill played a key role in developing Goal 2003, Wake County's groundbreaking effort to take elementary education to a new level. Adopted by the Wake County Board of Education in 1998, Goal 2003 aimed to have 95 percent of the county's third and eighth graders performing at or above grade level in 5 years. Upon assuming the position of superintendent in 2000, it was Bill's challenge to implement strategies for achieving this goal. The tremendous academic improvement which has been achieved as a result is a testament to Bill's leadership and to the power of pursuing a common endeavor on behalf of our children.

Today the Wake County Public School System serves more than 104,000 students from kindergarten through 12th grade in 79 elementary schools, 25 middle schools, 16 high schools, and 5 special/alternative schools. It is North Carolina's fastest growing, highest-performing large urban school district. With a record-high average score of 1067 on the SATs, a low dropout rate, end-of-grade test scores higher than the state average for every ethnic group and income level, and continued academic growth among struggling and advanced students alike, it's evident that Bill's emphasis on academic excellence for all children has had a tremendous impact.

As a former teacher himself, Bill has worked hard to make sure that the views of educators are valued and utilized in the school system's planning efforts. He has convened the Superintendent's Teacher Advisory Council to provide him ongoing feedback about teacher and classroom issues. In addition, he recognizes that the success of schools depends on teachers accepting increasingly complex roles and leadership responsibilities. The challenge is to create the conditions necessary for success and to structure the work of teaching to make it more attractive and rewarding.

Mr. Speaker, as I join in recognizing Bill McNeal for this tremendous honor, I also want to thank him for his service to the schools of North Carolina's 4th District. Just this week, Forbes Magazine named the school system he leads third in the nation on its Top Ten List for the Best Education in the Biggest Cities. I know that Bill's outstanding efforts in Wake County will continue to serve as a model for others across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the contributions of one of North Carolina's most tenacious and visionary leaders: Tom Howe.

Many North Carolinians might not recognize Tom's name, but they surely have seen his work. Tom is the Director and General Manager of UNC-TV, our state's highly respected public television network. Last month, he received the Governors' Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Nashville/Midsouth Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This prestigious Emmy award is given annually to recognize an ``outstanding industry leader,'' a designation that fits Tom perfectly.

For more than a decade, Tom has presided over our state's 11-station public television network, bringing us comprehensive coverage of public affairs and a deepened understanding of North Carolina's past, present, and future.

I have had the privilege of working with Tom in the policy arena. He fought a courageous and somewhat lonely battle for years for equitable treatment for UNC-TV and other systems similarly situated from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System. The successful resolution of this matter is still yielding benefits and will for years to come. More recently, Tom has spoken out effectively on the preservation of localism and community standards on our airwaves in the context of the Federal Communications Commission's decision on media concentration.

Tom has been ahead of the curve in television's digital conversion, anticipating industry trends and leading the way in innovative technology. Not only has he beaten the FCC deadline for digital conversion, he has also brought 4-channel multicasting to UNC-TV, ensuring even greater coverage and enhanced educational opportunities for viewers. His dedication and persistence have ensured that UNC-TV continues to be an exemplary network, both in terms of the technology he utilizes and the programs he broadcasts.

Tom Howe knows television, and he uses the power of the medium to effect positive change: to inform, to educate, and to bring viewers the kind of meaningful programming that is increasingly hard to find. I congratulate him for this well-deserved award, and I thank him for his commitment and leadership.