[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15149-15155]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15150]]

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.

                              {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. Madam 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.
  Madam 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. Madam 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

[[Page 15151]]

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?
  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

[[Page 15152]]

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 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

[[Page 15153]]

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 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.

[[Page 15154]]

  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 (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

[[Page 15155]]

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 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.

                          ____________________