[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 95 (Monday, July 12, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5525-H5531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NORTH CAROLINA'S FAVORITE SON, JOHN EDWARDS, AND THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTIAL TICKET
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, this evening I rise with several of my
colleagues and a number from my North Carolina delegation to talk about
our favorite son, John Edwards, as well as our ticket.
John Edwards is from a little place in Moore County called Robbins,
North Carolina. He currently resides in our State capital of Raleigh.
I normally do not respond to things some people say on the floor, and
I find it a bit of interest earlier that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle knew so much about him, they wanted to quote from the
Wall Street Journal. There are a few people in North Carolina who read
the Wall Street Journal, but if he really wants to know about John
Edwards, I would suggest he read the Raleigh News and Observer,
probably the Charlotte Observer or a lot of our weekly papers, and he
would find a lot out about John Edwards.
If he had been in Raleigh on Saturday, he would have had the
opportunity to see about 20,000 people standing in the hot July sun,
over 90 degrees for 4 hours, to welcome home John Edwards and
Presidential nominee John Kerry and their wives Elizabeth and Teresa to
Raleigh, North Carolina. It was a wonderful celebration of the first
North Carolinian on the Presidential ticket in modern times.
I will have more to say about this in just a moment, but first I want
to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Miller), for some comments.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. 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
[[Page H5526]]
agreed so little to run as Vice President with him.
{time} 2200
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.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for joining us.
When we talk about this ticket, and certainly John and his wife,
Elizabeth, my North Carolina neighbors and all of our colleagues in
North Carolina, their neighbors, and people from all walks of life are
just thrilled to see this ticket, to see John Edwards and Elizabeth
really rise to national prominence, because they truly are one of us.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn and yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price), for his comments on this ticket.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
taking out this Special Order and giving us a chance to talk about a
man whom we know very well and whom we know is prepared to serve this
country very well.
I commend my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Miller), for listening so carefully to the preceding hour and the kinds
of statements that were made on this floor. There is one that I thought
was particularly striking, and I just want to check my recollection of
this, if I might.
The gentleman from Georgia seemed to come over here and really
challenge John Kerry's faithfulness as a Catholic. That is what I heard
him saying. That is extraordinary. That is extraordinary.
He also, in the process, restated the establishment clause of the
Constitution. He said the first amendment prohibits the establishment
of a State religion. No, the first amendment prohibits the
establishment by the State of religion. And I would not pretend for a
moment that it is always a simple thing to balance that establishment
clause and the free exercise clause and understand how it can be
applied in specific cases, but I would think one thing it means is that
one in our country and under our form of government is not to take a
theological interpretation, let us say of when life begins and to make
that the law of the land.
There are many ways that our faith informs our politics, and that is
true of John Kerry and John Edwards. It is true of the present
President and Vice President, and we honor that. The wellsprings of
political motivation and political values run very deep, and for most
of us that involves our religious beliefs and our religious
backgrounds. That is very different from saying, though, that we enact
specific religious precepts as the law of the land; that we convert
those into civil law when there is not widespread consensus on those
precepts, as there came to be in the case, for example, of civil
rights, and many other religiously grounded values. But where there is
not that kind of broad consensus, over the years we have concluded it
is best to leave conscience free. It is best to leave the individual
and the collective expression of conscience free.
The gentleman from Georgia seemed to think that Mr. Kerry was being
less than faithful because he was refusing to make that transition from
a religious precept to the law of the land. And I wonder, where does
that stop? Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line? Are there
any limits to transforming religious precepts into civil law? Is there
anyplace you draw the line, anything you would be willing to define as
the establishment of religion?
[[Page H5527]]
No, there is great wisdom in that founding document, our
Constitution. The State is not to establish religion. The State is not
to interfere with the free exercise of religion. And I would suggest we
would all do well to honor those precepts and to be very, very cautious
in coming on this floor or going anywhere else and labeling a person
unfaithful to his religious tradition because he happens to disagree
with the interpretation of where these constitutional precepts apply.
I did not mean to start this way, Mr. Speaker, but the preceding hour
was so extraordinary in some of the charges made and in some of the
claims made that I felt I would add my contribution to what the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) very ably lined out.
The gentleman from the second district will remember very well when
John Edwards first came to the U.S. Senate, and in that first year we
had a serious test of our ability to deliver for North Carolina and to
collaborate in the interest of our State a challenge that came in the
form of a hurricane and a flood named Floyd. And that was a test for
all of us, but it was particularly a test for our new Senator; and that
is where I got to know John Edwards best and came to appreciate the
kind of energy and dedication to duty that he exemplifies and his
effectiveness. We did get a great deal of support for our State, relief
for our State; and John Edwards was a very valuable leading member of
the team.
We also know him for his leadership on many domestic issues. He is
probably best known as the leader in the Senate, along with Senator
John McCain from the other side of the aisle, of the fight for a
Patients' Bill of Rights. Very, very effective legislative effort. So
John Edwards is well-known as a legislator who has looked out for North
Carolina and who has looked out for the people of this country.
But in the few minutes I have tonight, I want to turn to another
aspect of John's leadership and one that, again, our friends on the
other side of the aisle seemed determined to denigrate, and that is his
experience and his leadership in national security and in foreign
affairs. Some have questioned that. But it is actually an important
question to ask. Does a candidate for President or Vice president have
credible experience and knowledge in foreign affairs, in security
matters; and does he bring that to the table as he asks the American
people to support him?
Let me just mention a number of aspects of John Edwards' experience
in terrorism and national security. On many occasions Senator Edwards
has transformed key anti-terrorist proposals into law. As a member of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Edwards has been an active
leader on important issues related to national security, with
particular focus on homeland security, intelligence reform, military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and U.S.-European relations.
For example, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Preparedness Act.
This bill, introduced by Senator Edwards, along with Senator Hagel,
Republican of Nebraska, establishes a coordinated national plan for
responding to biological and chemical weapons attacks and directs
States to develop plans for dealing with such attacks. This was not
just a proposal. Major provisions of this bill have been passed by the
Senate in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act.
The Airport and Seaport Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation
specified the use of new identification technologies to screen airport
employees. Parts of that proposal were passed by the Senate and signed
into law.
The Cyber Terrorism Preparedness Act. The Cyber Security Research and
Education Act. These bills strengthen our Nation's preparedness and
ability to ward off a cyberattack by terrorists. Parts of that bill
were passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President.
The Name Matching For Enforcement and Security Act. Senator Edwards
introduced legislation to improve the weak capacity of anti-terrorist
watch lists and databases to match up variants of foreign names. This
legislation was incorporated into the Border Security Act of 2002.
John Edwards has been part of a working group of Senators focused on
terrorism before 9/11. Before 9/11. In the summer of 2001, John Edwards
joined a working group of Senators from the Select Committee on
Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on
Armed Services who focused on the growing terrorist threat and
considered possible responses. Many of these issues, many of these
ideas, such as the mandatory sharing of intelligence between CIA and
FBI and other agencies, and the training of Federal, State and local
law enforcement officers to recognize and communicate critical
intelligence information, these ideas were later implemented in
legislation passed after September 11.
John Edwards has met extensively with leaders around the globe,
traveling in the Middle East, Asia and the gulf states, and Europe. He
has wide exposure and wide experience internationally. As several of my
colleagues have said, far, far more experience and exposure than our
present President had when he was nominated. Present President had
very, very limited international exposure, and actually seemed proud of
that fact.
John Edwards has been a member of the joint committee investigating
the September 11 attacks. He has focused in on intelligence failures.
He served as a member of the joint House-Senate panel investigating
those attacks during the inquiry. He developed particular expertise on
the shortcomings of the FBI's intelligence-gathering efforts. He
developed relationships with a broad range of experts specializing in
intelligence and national security policy, law enforcement, and civil
liberties, as well as receiving detailed briefings from the FBI and the
director of the British Security Service.
Fourthly, John Edwards has played a leading role in post-conflict
planning legislation. He played a leading role in improving America's
ability to ensure that post-conflict states, like Afghanistan and Iraq,
can address security challenges and humanitarian needs and political
development.
{time} 2215
In 2003 Senator Edwards introduced the bipartisan Winning the Peace
Act that outlined major reforms to enhance the government's capability
to conduct post-conflict reconstruction. And then, finally, John
Edwards has worked tirelessly to improve our military. As the Senator
from North Carolina, he represents Fort Bragg, the world's largest army
complex, as well as the headquarters of the Marine Corps Antiterrorism
Task Force. He has been active in the effort to improve the quality of
life for all who serve in the military and to reach out to military
families.
Madam Speaker, others want to speak. I am going to stop with that. I
hope, though, that it is evident; and one reason I have mentioned all
these various enactments and all these various initiatives is to
underscore the point that these are not just empty claims. These are
documented claims. This is a record for all to see. This is a Senator
who, in his term in the Senate, has been deeply involved in national
security and foreign policy issues. He has developed expertise. He has
developed a network of people that he works with. He has put forward
creative proposals, many of which have been enacted into law. It is an
area where he has invested a great deal and where he is prepared to
serve.
And I thank the gentleman for giving us all a chance to testify to
our knowledge of John Edwards's good work and our support for his
present effort.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
He certainly has represented the fourth district and part of the
district that I had the privilege of having for a while and part of the
district that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) has. He
certainly knows what it takes to be a good legislator, and I appreciate
his comments on that.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McIntyre) for his comments as well. I thank him for joining us this
evening.
Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) as we talk about the Vice Presidential
candidate, John Edwards, our friend.
John Edwards is a man of distinction, of dedication, and of
determination. He has been distinct in all that he
[[Page H5528]]
has undertaken. Distinguished personally, professionally, and
politically. In everything that he has tackled, he has gone at it with
integrity and with the utmost sincerity and authenticity to show that
his heart, his mind, and his whole being is engaged. When he puts
himself into it, he does it all the way in the best and in the most
distinguished way possible.
He is dedicated. He is dedicated not only to the job at hand but
dedicated to the people he serves. In fact, that is the hallmark of
John's life. He has always cared about people, shown that interest, and
gone the extra mile to care for people whether they were in his
hometown where he grew up in Robbins, North Carolina, whether it was
the people he served and worked with when he was practicing law, or
whether it is the people now who have served in North Carolina and that
he, indeed, serves and will serve in our entire Nation.
And he is determined. He is determined to provide opportunities for
all so that no one is left behind but that all have an equal chance to
succeed in life, and this has been evidence in his life. His
extraordinary vision will help lift America to a better and brighter
tomorrow. Whether we are talking about the farmers to the factory
workers, from health care to homeownership, from childhood to college,
from the armed services to agriculture, from the environment to energy,
from fighting crime to fighting terrorism, in every one of these areas,
Senator Edwards has distinguished himself, shown his dedication, and
lived out his determination.
In particular, when we talk about farmers, being a member, as I know
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is, as we serve
together on the House Committee on Agriculture, we know that Senator
Edwards's commitment to helping our farmers, too often the forgotten
ones in today's society, but yet we know if we go over to the Library
of Congress and walk into that great hall and look at all the
disciplines of learning and science and engineering and literature,
what is listed first? And they are not in alphabetical order,
necessarily. What is listed first is agriculture. The great tillers of
the soil and tillers of civilization, as Noah Webster once said.
And John Edwards understands the needs of rural America. Having grown
up in a small town, he understands small-town needs, small business,
and the understanding of what it means to be able to try to make a
living when economic circumstances are not the best. He spent time in
rural America and in rural communities. He spent time on the farms and
in the factories and in the rural health clinics and in the rural
hospitals that I have spent time with myself and in the rural public
school system such as the one we have in Robinson County, my home
county, where we have spent time there together looking at students'
needs and spending time with students and administrators and parents.
John Edwards also understands, as was mentioned a moment ago by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and as the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and I know, both representing Fort
Bragg, that he understands our military. In fact, one of the first
bills he introduced was to help with the pay raise for our military and
to also offer better health care for our military. John Edwards
understands these practical needs, and he exhibits and lives the values
of faith and family and freedom.
John Edwards is a man of faith. In fact, not only has he been
involved in the Senate Prayer Breakfast, which is nondenominational and
bipartisan, but, in fact, he was co-chairman of the National Prayer
Breakfast just a few years ago here in Washington. And we know the
great importance that that has played historically in this Nation that
every President since President Eisenhower, of both parties, has
participated in. John is a man of faith, and that is reflected in his
passion for people and in the high integrity and ideals that he upholds
and the way he conducts himself. He lives his faith and does not just
talk about it.
John Edwards is a man that does not have a shrill tone or speak with
bombastic language or unacceptable language, but instead his message is
plain. His message is positive. His message is powerful. His message
is persuasive. And that is what has won the hearts and minds of so many
people who have known him through the years. He will make sure that
rural America, as well as urban and suburban America, will not be
forgotten.
It says in the Old Testament that ``Where there is no vision, the
people perish.'' It has been evident in John Edwards's life that he has
always had vision. He has seen fare beyond even what other people said
he could not do, and he has helped take not only many people that he
has served, our State but now our Nation, to the future. John Edwards
is that kind of leader, that kind of man that will help shape a vision
for America.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for his comments. Certainly having come from
rural eastern North Carolina, he understands what he is talking about
and understands our friend John Edwards.
Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Clyburn), which really happens to be the State where our Vice
Presidential nominee was born. We are just grateful his parents decided
to come to North Carolina so he could be reared there and get an
education and make his living there. But we are happy to have the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) with us this evening to
share a few comments about our friend John Edwards on our ticket with
John Kerry.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Etheridge) for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to come to the well tonight
and to speak on behalf of one of our Nation's most promising leaders. I
know that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) has spoken
about his relationship with Senator Edwards. We have heard from the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price); and they have talked about the experiences they have had with
him as well as his record here in this city in our other body.
I was asked the other day by a friend why was it that I thought that
John Edwards was so optimistic about the future of this country when
all the headlines around us seem to indicate something else. I said to
him John Edwards was born in a little town not far from the town where
I was born, Sumter. I was born in Sumter. He was born in Seneca.
Geographically it is somewhat of a distance apart, but he was born and
reared in a value system that I am very familiar with. A value system
that is grounded in his faith which can best be described by the words
found in the Book of Hebrews: ``Faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen.'' I think that John Edwards is
optimistic about the future of this country because he has that kind of
faith that comes out of a value system that tells us all that, as was
said earlier, ``where there is no vision, the people perish.'' He has a
vision for the future of this country, and he has expressed that vision
time and time again throughout this Nation.
I heard it asked earlier what was the difference between John Edwards
and Dan Quayle. The difference is very stark. John Edwards went before
the American people. He laid out his life's history. He laid out his
vision for the future. He told the people of this country where he
would like to see us go, and he did so in such a way that exudes
enthusiasm and optimism, and he endeared himself to the people of this
Nation, and of course that is the difference. People got to know him.
People got to see him. And people tell me that even when they did not
vote for him because they may have thought someone else would make the
better candidate, they really were moved by him. And today he is a part
of what I consider to be one of the most promising teams of leaders
this country has ever produced.
I want to close my comments tonight by dealing with an issue that I
hear so much about: this issue of liberal versus conservative. In that
little town of Sumter where I grew up, I was born and raised in the
parsonage. My father was a fundamentalist minister who taught me in my
early years that there are times when it is good to be conservative. He
taught me that if I earn a
[[Page H5529]]
dollar, I ought to be able to save a nickle. He taught me that when I
leave the room, I turn out the lights, I conserve energy. But on Sunday
mornings after his sermon, he never asked his congregation to give
conservatively. He always asked them to give liberally.
So I grew up thinking that it is good to be conservative at times,
and it is good to be liberal at times. What life is all about is
finding the balance that will make us all better for having lived it.
We see that balance in John Edwards, and as we go forward with this
campaign, I think the American people will see that balance in John
Edwards and John Kerry and will entrust the leadership of this Nation
to that team that I am sure will make us all proud and bring back the
dignity and respect that this Nation has always enjoyed.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I appreciate being
here.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind
comments. And he is absolutely right. Elections are about the future,
and this election certainly is about our future and the kind of balance
we have. John Kerry had the good sense to reach down and choose a man
who really the people had already had a chance to see. And I thought
the gentleman's comments were absolutely on target with that because
never before have we had a candidate that our Presidential nominee
reached down and chose as Vice President that they already had a chance
to have a shake-down run at the level this one has.
I am also glad the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has joined
us. It is great to have someone comment and join this group tonight. I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North
Carolina for yielding to me. And I noticed I guess I am the only
Northerner here tonight. Everyone else has been either from South
Carolina or North Carolina.
{time} 2230
But I have to say when I listened to the other side of the aisle, to
the Republicans this evening, criticize our candidates for president
and vice president, I could not help but come down here and say a few
words, because I have watched both of these Senators who are now our
presidential and vice presidential candidates on the Democratic side,
and I have been very impressed with them.
I really resented, I do not like to use the word, but I resented the
fact that our Republican colleagues used all these lables, liberal
versus conservative, rich versus poor, because I know when I listen to
Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, they are not looking at things that
way, whether somebody is rich, or what somebody's ideology is. They are
just looking at it practically. And I have watched what they said.
I particularly want to pay notice of Senator Edwards tonight, because
he is the newest person on the ticket and he is always looking at
things from a practical point of view. The reason that he advocates
change in the White House, and the reason I advocate change, and I
think all of us do, is because we just do not like the practical impact
of the policies of President Bush and Vice President Cheney,
particularly as it affects the little guy. Because when I listen to
Senator Edwards, he is always talking about the little guy.
If you look at what happened over the last 4 years under President
Bush and Vice President Cheney, it is the middle-class, it is the
little guy that has been hurt, whether it is gas prices or it is
healthcare costs or it is education costs, or the fact that over the
last 4 years we have had a loss of over 2 million jobs and the jobs
that are now being created are not as good as the ones lost. This is
what our Democratic candidates are all about.
The ultimate irony, I have to comment a little bit on some of the
comments made about Senator Edwards being wealthy. He is wealthy, there
is no question about that. But here is a guy who grew up in a small
town, it has already been described, born in a small town in South
Carolina, raised in a small town in North Carolina, from a very modest
family. I have a little bit of his biography here.
His father Wallace worked in the textile mills for 36 years. His
mother Bobbie ran a shop and worked at the post office. He worked
alongside his father in the mill. He was the first person in his family
to attend college.
This is a self-made man. This is a guy who went to a state
university, North Carolina State University, graduated as
undergraduate, then went for his law degree, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, a very good school, but also a public state
university. He is self-made.
This is the very thing the Republicans keep talking about. They
always use the example of Abe Lincoln, born in a log cabin and became
president of the United States. Well, this is what we have here. This
is not some guy who was born wealthy and was given everything. He had
to work for it. That is what it is all about.
Then when I listened to some of these statements about the fact that
he was a trial lawyer and how bad that was, well, you know, let us not
put labels on people. I am sure there are some trial lawyers that are
bad, but there are a lot of trial lawyers that are good. It depends on
what you do.
The fact of the matter is that when I listened to, I think it was the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is a physician from Texas, a
Republican, who got up and started criticizing Edwards because he was a
trial lawyer, am I to assume that everybody who is a physician is good
and everybody who is a lawyer is bad? Is that what we have come to now,
this sort of divisive element in looking at things? Well, it is just
ridiculous.
If you look at Edwards' background, he was always fighting for the
little guy. I just want to give you a couple of these cases, because I
heard the gentleman from Texas, the Republican, talk about what is
fair. Well, it is not fair if there are people who are injured and they
do not have some way to redress their grievances.
This is an example. This is a very good example. I wanted to use one
of the cases that Edwards tried. It is Jennifer Campbell, who suffered
severe brain damage because of a doctor's mistake and the hospital's
complacency.
Edwards represented Jennifer Campbell, who was born in April of 1979
with severe brain damage because of medical malpractice on the part of
her mother's doctor and hospital. Despite the clear signs of fetal
distress during labor, the doctor failed to deliver the baby by C-
section and the hospital's nurses failed to help Jennifer by reporting
the doctor's conduct up through the hospital's chain of command.
Now, am I to assume that in that case the doctor did the right thing
and the doctor was the good guy, and the lawyer, in this case John
Edwards, who defended Jennifer Campbell who suffered from severe brain
damage should not have had somebody to try her case, her malpractice
case?
I am all in favor of malpractice reform. I do not see any problem. I
have even voted for a cap on tort cases in some instances. But I am not
going to suggest that it is not a good thing for a trial lawyer to take
a case like that, where somebody has been severely injured.
Another case, I will give one more, this was a Methodist minister.
Greg Howard and Jane Howard were killed in an auto wreck with a truck,
left behind an orphan five-year-old son. Edwards represented Golda
Howard, who lost her son Gregory in a car wreck with a truck.
The truck driver was driving too fast and following the car in front
of him too closely, and when the car in front of him braked, he swerved
across the center line into Greg Howard's 1984 Honda civic head-on.
Both Gregory Howard, a 31-year-old minister and Methodist camp
director, and his wife were killed. They were survived by their 5-year-
old son Joshua, who was not in the car. They are not supposed to be
defended in this case?
Clearly there is no question that Edwards is someone who has cared
about the little guy, and he saw being a trial lawyer as a way to give
back and effectively represent people who had been seriously injured.
These are not frivolous suits. That is not what we are talking about
here.
I just want to give one more example, because I know the time has
basically run out. I think it was my colleague the gentleman from North
Carolina
[[Page H5530]]
(Mr. Price), or maybe it was the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Miller), who mentioned Edwards' passion on the issue of Patients' Bill
of Rights.
I remember, because you have been to some of our Health Care Task
Force meetings that I chaired in the last few Congresses, and one day
we invited Senator Edwards to come over to from the Senate and talk to
our Health Care Task Force about the Patients' Bill of Rights, because
it was something we were trying to get passed on the floor of this
House.
He came over and was one of the best presenters and speakers that we
ever had. I had never even met him before. This was a few years ago. I
was so impressed about his passion and caring about patients and how
they had to have their rights protected.
This is something that we still need. If a case arrives where an HMO
says that a person is going to be denied care because they cannot have
a particular procedure or cannot go to an particular emergency room
because they need care, that is what this is all about in this House,
representing the little guy, the person who is damaged, the person who
needs healthcare.
He was a guy who came to our Health Care Task Force and talked with
passion about how we had to get this bill passed. And we still need to
get this bill passed.
It is somebody like him, as vice president, joining with John Kerry
as the president, that we can get something like that passed, because
you know that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been very
much against the Patients' Bill of Rights. They went to the Supreme
Court and got the Supreme Court to basically void the Texas Patients'
Bill of Rights.
So we need leadership. We need leadership in the White House. We need
leadership at the vice presidential level as well, if we are going to
see patients protected. That is what this is all about.
I am just so proud to be here tonight to say how proud I am that we
have this great ticket that includes a North Carolinian.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend
from New Jersey. Let me also thank the gentleman for being here and
joining us this evening on this evening of special orders to talk about
our ticket and for those of us from North Carolina to have a little
swelled up pride about having a North Carolinian on the ticket for the
first time in actually 140 years. We have to remember that really the
person that was on there 140 years ago really was from Tennessee. He
just was born in North Carolina.
So we have a great deal of pride in John Edwards and the fact that
our presidential nominee John Kerry had, as I said earlier, the vision
and the wisdom to reach out and touch him and bring him and Elizabeth
along. I think they will add a great deal to the ticket, and I thank
the gentleman for his comments and leadership.
As we said earlier, this thing of elections is really about the
future. It is about our hopes, it is about our dreams. It is about
responsibility on the part of individuals. But it is also about people
who care. The gentleman's point was on target.
We are elected, all of us, here in this House and over in the Senate,
to represent the people of this country. Every person that has a
grievance, within reason, ought to be able to have us to deal with it
in some way. If they do not get their shot and only those who have the
money and the influence to have people to get things done, then the
average person gets left out, and that questions a whole lot of things.
We talked earlier about our vice presidential nominee in John
Edwards. I like to think of the values that John Edwards learned
growing up in Moore County, in North Carolina, and they are the same
values that I think I picked up growing up on a farm down in Johnston
county.
When you grow up in a rural area, you learn you have to depend on
your neighbors. I told a group the other day, I remember, today we
would not think about going to our neighbor and saying I want to borrow
a cup of sugar or a cup of flour or some coffee. But that is the way it
was in rural North Carolina when John Edwards was growing up. People
would go over and do it, and then return it. Today we hop in the car
and go to the store and get it, because you have a few more resources.
But I think among those shared values that he picked up and he
learned were the value of hard work, love of family, faith in God and
in our country, and a dedication to the larger community, where
neighbors look out for one another, and everyone has a decent shot at
the American dream.
John certainly lives his faith every day. He is not the type of
person that you see wearing it on his sleeve, where he talks about it.
It is a part of him. I know actually even before he was in the Senate,
our children, our two older children attend the same church he does in
Raleigh, and he is faithfully there with his children every Sunday now
that he is in the Senate, and he was before when he was in Raleigh.
He is really in touch with the American people, because he never lost
touch with where he came from. Even though he grew up in Robbins and
went to North Carolina State University and on to the University of
North Carolina to get a law degree, he helped earn that money along the
way to get his degree.
Yes, he has been successful, because he has worked hard. There is
nothing wrong with a person working hard and being successful, as long
as they are honest in what they do. That is what the American dream is
all about. That is what public education is about, getting an
opportunity to make it. And whether the issue is working to improve our
schools, or bolster economic development to create good jobs, or making
healthcare, as you have talked about, a little more affordable for
working families and available for those who have been injured, John
Edwards always had the family of small town America in mind, because
that is where he comes from, where you grow up and the values you learn
are the values you carry with you all your life.
Just like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), when you
grow up in a small town, you may move to the big city, but the old
adage has been said, you can take the boy out of the country, but you
cannot take the country out of him when you bring him to the city. John
Edwards is the same way. You have those things, those values you
learned, that make all the difference in the world.
I once had the occasion to work in a cotton mill for about a year. We
did not call them textile mills then, we called them cotton mills.
There was a reason for that, because there was a lot of dust and lint
in the air and they were hot, they were dusty and they dirty.
It was good work, and there were great people that worked there. They
were great people. They were God fearing people that cared for their
country and helped one another. But it is hard work, it is hot work and
it is dirty work. His dad worked there for 36 years, and I can tell you
it is hot in the summer because there is very little breeze.
I have heard some on the other side question why John frequently
mentions his father's work in the textile mill. I think it is an
important point to make. I think he makes it because he wants people to
understand not only does he care about his parents, but he cares what
they taught him. Those are the values that he carries with him today.
John Kerry recognized that when he said, ``I want John Edwards to
join me,'' and he made that call last week. He understood it. He saw it
in him.
I think John Edwards is the embodiment of the notion that in America,
the son or daughter of a mill worker has just as much right to run for
higher office as the son or daughter of a President or a corporate
tycoon.
I predict to you he has already shown himself to be capable and able,
but I think the American people will see over the next several months
and learn to love him; a young man who came from Robbins, North
Carolina, married his college sweetheart, and has done quite well. He
has the tools to be a great vice president.
I guess one of the other things I like about John Edwards is he and I
share probably only one other thing: He and I were both first in our
family to go to college.
{time} 2245
Madam Speaker, you have a heavy obligation when you do that, because
you have an obligation to help others. He has a strong and abiding
commitment to helping working families get
[[Page H5531]]
access to college, because he understands education is the one thing
that levels the playing field. It does not make any difference what
one's ethnicity or economic situation is, or who one's parents are or
where you come from; if you get an educational opportunity, you have a
chance to make it. He knows firsthand that a quality college education
really is the key to the American dream.
I predict to my colleagues that as Vice President, he will fight to
promote education, because he does know, as I have already said, it
levels the playing field for everyone and gives them that chance for
success. Those are the values that have made America great, and those
are the values that he brings to this ticket. Those are the values that
John Kerry saw in John Edwards when he made that decision. I predict to
my colleagues that they will make a great team. They will make a
difference in America; and that, as has been said by all of my other
colleagues this evening in one way or another, they will give America
hope again, because there are those who want to provide fear. They are
about optimism and hope and dreams and possibilities and opportunities,
so people can feel good not only about America, but our position with
our allies and friends around the world, and that every person takes
responsibility for themselves as we move forward into the 21st century.
Let me now close by thanking my colleagues for joining me this
evening. And since I only have a couple of minutes, I want to close
with a little poem. I think it says a lot about this ticket of John
Kerry and John Edwards. It is written by the person who writes more
lines than anyone else. It is anonymous. It is entitled ``The
Builder.'' It goes like this.
``I watched them tear a building down, a gang of men in a busy town.
With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell, they swung a beam and a side wall
fell. I asked the foreman, `Are these men skilled, the kind you would
hire if you had to build?' He smiled and said, `No, indeed. Common
labor is all I need, for I can wreck in a day or 2 what men have taken
years to do.' I thought to myself as I went my way, which of those
roles have I tried to play. Am I being careful to measure the world by
the rule and a square, or have I been content to roam the town, content
to do nothing but tear things down?''
Madam Speaker, I predict to my colleagues that John Kerry and John
Edwards will be builders. What this country needs is people with a good
attitude, with a vision to build, bring people together, and let
America be America again.
____________________