Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 49, the Clerk be directed to make the following change: In the paragraph regarding the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, strike ``Mr. Higgins''.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his information.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader. I know that the majority whip and myself are working on this, and running it by your office as well as we are the leader's office on our side. Hopefully we can move that. I know that all of us believe that we have an opportunity to at least resolve the violence and hopefully reach towards a peaceful resolution of that dispute, and hopefully we can move forward on this resolution. I thank the leader for his response. Secondly, Mr. Leader, the supplemental appropriation, we hear about the supplemental appropriation, clearly for the tsunami victims as well as further assistance to our troops and efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Can you tell us whether or not there is any possibility of that coming next week, or do you anticipate that would be the week following or sometime thereafter?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the information. I understand he anticipates a substantive resolution on the Solomon amendment and the court ruling thereon. But can I ask you, is it your understanding that a resolution regarding the recent Palestinian elections will come to the floor next week as well? Is that possible?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purpose of inquiring of him the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman (Mr. Hyde) and the Ranking Member (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this important legislation to the Floor today. As the former Chairman and Ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, I was honored to advocate for the basic human rights of dissidents in the former Soviet Union, including in Ukraine, and know well their commitment to freedom and democracy. And today, as this legislation recognizes, the people of Ukraine have achieved their long sought goal and under the leadership of their new President, Viktor Yushchenko, and today are moving forward with a spirit of optimism and hope. Over the last several months, the people of Ukraine have weathered nothing short of political crisis. The November 21st presidential runoff between then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and President Yushchenko, who was then the opposition leader, was racked by voting irregularities and illegalities. Ukranian and international observers both determined that state resources were abused in support of Prime Minister Yanukovich, who ``won'' that runoff. There was illegal voting by absentee ballot, multiple voting, assaults on election observers and the use of counterfeit ballots. Ukranian citizens bravely engaged in peaceful demonstrations, the Parliament passed a resolution declaring that there were violations of law during the runoff, and it passed a resolution expressing no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Yanukovich. Then, the Ukrainian Supreme Court declared the runoff invalid and ordered a new presidential election on December 26th. As all the world watched, the people of Ukraine elected Victor Yushchenko as their President by a clear margin. Mr. Speaker, I specifically want to note the great personal courage of President Yushchenko, who was poisoned by dioxin in late summer. He also has shown maturity and leadership throughout this political crisis. In fact, yesterday, on his first full day in office, President Yushchenko visited Russian President Putin in Moscow, who had openly backed Mr. Yankukovich. The new President's leadership, as well as the people of Ukraine's commitment to democracy, bodes well for this nation. And I join my colleagues in congratulating them on this accomplishment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise as well to say that no Member of this body has been any more personally affected, and certainly no Member of this body has more consistently raised the consciousness of the American people and, indeed, the international community on the importance of never forgetting. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who is committed to this issue and has been a leader and has traveled and headed the delegations of the Helsinki Commission to the Parliamentary Assembly and raised our voice in foreign lands. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress. In particular, I want to say to the gentleman from California, his indefatigable commitment to human freedom and basic human dignity is a source of inspiration to all of us privileged to serve with the gentleman. It should be emulated by us all. Madam Speaker, 60 years ago at 3 p.m. on January 27, 1945, Soviet Red Army soldiers entered Auschwitz concentration camp. Those of us who visited Auschwitz long after that date but who saw the horrible implements of death constructed there by the Nazi regime can only imagine, knowing the horror that we felt, the horror and revulsion that those Soviet soldiers, human beings, must have felt as they entered that camp in a village in southern Poland 30 miles west of Krakow. What they discovered there haunts us today and should haunt us every day. A Russian Army officer described the reaction to the sight of the camp's remaining 7,000 prisoners, who had been too ill or weak to move and were left to die in the cold by the fleeing Germans. He said, ``The soldiers from my battalion asked me, `Let us go. We cannot stay. This is unbelievable.' It was so terrible, it was hard for the mind to absorb it.'' But the mind, Madam Speaker, must never forget it. The Nazis had spent weeks moving the most able-bodied prisoners, destroying documents and bulldozing buildings. But the liberation of the largest Nazi concentration camp, where 1.5 million innocent souls were murdered, women and children, young and old, opened the world's eyes to the unspeakable evil of the Holocaust. While it is appropriate that this somber day be marked in ceremonies all around the globe, it will be a further tragedy if on this occasion we only look back without also looking ahead. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) did that. We cannot remember the liberation of the concentration camps and the defeat of the Nazis in World War II and at the same time cast a blind eye toward the growing problem of anti-Semitism that still infects the world today, and tragically grows today. Nor can we ignore the hatred and prejudice that fuels the genocide in Sudan today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned Darfur. Hatred knows no gender, no race, no ethnicity. It lurks in man's heart today as surely as it did during the Holocaust. Even today in this country we talk about some people in our country in a way that demeans them and dehumanizes them and gives to others the misapprehension that they can act against those people, whoever they might be. We see tragic instances of that. And that reality, as painful as it is to accept, compels us to use this solemn occasion to restate our commitment to freedom and basic human rights. And it compels us to fight hatred and prejudice wherever it rears its head. Our President spoke just a few days ago in his Inaugural Address about the commitment of this country to freedom, to liberty and, yes, to human rights. He was right to do so. We owe those souls who perished at the hands of Nazis at Auschwitz, who perished at the hands of Milosevic, who died at the hands of those in Sudan and in every other place where hate and prejudice was the motivation for murder. We owe those souls our unremitting pledge to never, never, never permit these horrific periods in human history to be repeated. I was one of those who felt that we waited too long as we saw the genocide in Serbia and in Kosovo and in Bosnia. We must not delay our response. If we do so, we remember Auschwitz, but we remember it without learning its lesson.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to congratulate him on the extraordinary work he has done in leading the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on behalf of the Congress and on behalf of the American people known as the Helsinki Commission. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has been a stalwart, steadfast, strong voice on behalf of making sure that we confront anti-Semitism; that we confront prejudice; that we confront hate; that we confront the adverse effects of all of those human emotions, and has been a strong voice within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe dealing with this issue of anti-Semitism. In fact, the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and others, but primarily the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), have been responsible for the seminars that have been held in Europe raising the consciousness of all Europeans, as we need to raise the consciousness of all Americans and all peoples of the world to be aware of the invidious, tragic, horrific consequences of prejudice and hate. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey on his extraordinary leadership. He has been a giant in this effort, and I thank him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his presentation. We were told the President wants to proceed on a bipartisan fashion in the next 4 years to deal with the important issues that confront our Nation. I think that is appropriate and, hopefully, we will do that. However, on this first day, the rules package is usually a partisan package. It was when Democrats were in charge; it is now when Republicans are in charge. That is understandable. But as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has so correctly pointed out, there was an exception, and that exception was dealing with the ethics of this institution which, in fact, deals with the confidence that the American public has in this institution. Mr. Speaker, the opening day of a new Congress should be one in which the interests of this institution are paramount. The body of rules we adopt to govern debate, decorum, and the actions of our Members should reflect that. To be sure, the American people who elected us to this great body can expect to see sharp differences on this floor over the substance of legislation. That is as the framers of the Constitution planned. But the framers also intended, I believe, and the American people deserve to know, that this House is committed to holding its Members to the highest ethical standards. Today, as I think has been attested to by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the House moves in the wrong direction. The rules proposed for the 109th House ignore the fundamental principle of protecting the ethics of this House. The proposed Republican rules before us will seriously weaken the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to enforce standards of integrity by providing that no action will be taken on a properly filed ethics complaint after 45 days unless the committee votes by a majority vote to take action. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will speak, who chaired with Bob Livingston, our former colleague, the amendment of these rules. Under the current rules, which have functioned well since 1997, a properly filed complaint that has not been addressed by the chair and ranking member or the committee itself automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. That is as it should be. Inaction ought not to be tantamount to dismissal. That is what this proposal does. The Republican proposal would make it extremely difficult to investigate properly filed complaints. Under this new rule, either side, either side will be able to guarantee a deadlock when a legitimate, factually strong ethics complaint against a Member is filed, provided the chair or ranking member take no action. We have been told that the most egregious attempts to weaken the ethics systems have been abandoned. I beg to differ. The most egregious attempt is the one before us now currently remaining in this rule. Let no one miss this distinction: the proposal to protect an indicted leader, a proposal that has been withdrawn by the majority, always was speculative, because we do not know if a leader will be indicted. In sharp contrast, however, the rule before us will have a concrete, demonstrable effect on every ethics complaint filed from this day forward. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only mechanism that this institution has to police itself. When we weaken the committee, we weaken the standards that we are all expected to uphold, and we erode public confidence in this institution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke eloquently to the maintenance of the status quo when he was in the minority urging us to be vigilant in rooting out unethical behavior in this institution. He was right then. He is not correct now in offering this rule which weakens that process. The adoption of this rule will substantially weaken our commitment to ensuring ethical conduct. I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) was right in his letter. I think he had the intellectual honesty and integrity on this floor when he spoke. He is going to vote for the rule because he believes that some offensive aspects of the proposal have been taken out. But I tell my friend that the most egregious, long-lasting, impacting change remains in this package. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the integrity of this institution, on behalf of our commitment to ensure ethical conduct on behalf of the American people, that this not be passed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. At the present time I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this was not unanticipated. I rose during the consideration of the rule on Saturday and said, ``But the fear of the American people,'' referring to the bill that was to be considered pursuant to the rule that was then under consideration, ``is in the dead of the night, in the cloudiness of quick consideration that many things are included in these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that either House really knows is in there.'' I said that on Saturday. Later that day it was discovered on the floor of the Senate legislation which had been discussed in this House but the ramifications of which, the meaning of which, the effect of which was really not known. That is of great concern. The chairman of the Committee on Finance in the Senate said it was ``an outrage.'' John McCain said ``the process is broken.'' Mr. Speaker, nine of 13 appropriation bills were included in the pages of the legislation that is before me here on the desk. Now, this is approximately 1,500, 1,600 pages. The bill is actually between 3,300 and 3,400 because the bill has fewer words per page on it. Seventy-five percent of the bill which we considered, which included the language which has brought us here today, 75 percent of that bill had never been on the floor of the United States Senate, never considered, never debated, never open to the public's review. Seventy-five percent of the bill that was brought to this floor. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not the granting of unanimous consent to ensure that the government keeps running until the 8th of December. We are all going to be for that. That is the appropriate thing for us to do. Nor is, in my opinion, the staff work. We have an extraordinarily excellent staff on the Committee on Appropriations, led by an extraordinary leader of judgment, of wise counsel, and great integrity who was forced, along with staff, to work in an incredibly telescoped fashion. So 75 percent of the bills were never considered on the Senate floor, one of the bills never on the House or Senate floor, and one never even reported out of the Senate subcommittee. In addition to that, and some may not know this even at this point in time, there were three major authorization bills included in this bill that have never been debated on the floor in terms of their effect: the Satellite Home Extension Reauthorization Act, the Snake River Water Rights Act, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. My presumption is, and I have not talked to each one of the ranking members of each committee, the Resources Committee in two of the cases, Committee on Energy and Commerce in the third, my presumption is that they agreed and therefore did not object to their inclusion. In addition to that, we deleted provisions that were approved in the House, approved in the Senate, one affecting millions of Americans on minimum wage. This House directed the conference to keep it in by a significant majority vote. The Senate adopted it. It was dropped without really any ability to discuss it, as my ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations said, in conference. I have been on the Committee on Appropriations not as long as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but a significant number of years, 23 to be specific, and was used to going to conference, to sitting at the table representing the 662,000 people I represent and saying I believe that we ought to do A or B. There was no opportunity given by this procedure to do that. Now the sad fact is that this is not an abberation. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, this is the way we do appropriation bills now. Last year we did not adopt the majority of the appropriation bills until the following calendar year; the year before that until the following calendar year, once in January and once in February. My goodness, it is November 24 today. We are doing it early, one could say. But the fact of the matter is this has become the practice of this House, the practice of this House not to have conferences, not only on appropriation bills, but not to have conferences on Ways and Means and tax bills that affect millions and millions of Americans, not to have conferences even when we refer bills from the floor back to a conference. And we have found last year a bill being reported back that had never gone to that conference notwithstanding the vote of this House to send it to conference, and no conferee had an opportunity to say anything about the bill. Mr. Speaker, the lamentable fact is we are here because of a process that is undermining this democratic institution. We are here because we are not taking the time to include all interested parties, including the American people, in the consideration of this legislation. We have closed rules, closed conferences or no conferences, conferences called without Democrats being included, dropping items approved by both Houses, and adding measures not approved by either House. This is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are not going to object to this unanimous consent. It is the appropriate request to make. The good news for the American people is, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has observed, it will give us an opportunity to do something that has been vetted, that has been considered, has been considered in the open with due hearings, on television, in a bipartisan fashion, reported out, and I refer of course to the 9/11 Commission report. This report seeks to prevent another tragic attack on the United States of America and the loss of 3,000 souls within hours, within minutes. This report was unanimously adopted. This report was passed overwhelmingly by the other body with less than four people opposing it, and it came to a conference, essentially, a meeting: the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) on our side, a number on the other side of the aisle. The Senate came together. Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins came together and agreed and were overwhelmingly supported by their Senate colleagues. They said we have a bipartisan agreement to make America safer. Governor Kean and our distinguished former colleague, Lee Hamilton, said we must act now. They said that in July. Mr. Speaker, we have not acted. But as a result of what we do today, we will come back to this House on the 6th or 7th of December with an obligation to act on the omnibus appropriation bill, but it will give us an opportunity to do the right thing and pass the 9/11 Commission report which is overwhelmingly supported. I will tell my friends in this body, I was somewhat dismayed at the Speaker's spokesman when he said that what good was it to pass a bill that the majority of the conference did not support. I will tell my friends in this House, without fear of contradiction, not one, and I invite anybody to come to the floor to contradict me, if the 9/11 Commission report is put on this floor as reported out of the Senate and as agreed to in the conference committee on this bill, it will be passed overwhelmingly in this House. And I will say to my friend, the spokesman for the Speaker, the good is that the American people will be well served, whether or not a majority of your conference agrees. That is the good. That is why we are here. That ought to be our focus. And because of this happenstance, this mistake, this rightfully-to-be-reconsidered provision that was put in the bill without due consideration, or, if given due consideration, inartfully drawn by someone not in this body, then we will be advantaged because we will have an opportunity to respond to the American public's concern and the unanimous recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and to the support of the President of the United States who asked this to pass. Now, Mr. Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, says he is supportive of the President's view that it ought to pass. Now, if we have the President, we have the Secretary of Defense, we have the overwhelming majority, I do not know of anybody on our side of the aisle who is going to oppose it. Maybe there are some. And I am sure that there are certainly sufficient Members on your side of the aisle to ensure 218 votes to pass such a unanimously and supported recommendation to make America safer. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Wisconsin under my reservation.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time under my reservation, I thank the gentleman for his comments and would join him in reiterating the fact that the fault lies not in the staff. The fault lies not in the objective in this particular provision that was trying to be attained. It was that a significant, very harmful mistake was made. Whoever made it made it, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, in the press of a process which did not give time for reflection, so that, having been caught at a time when we did not then have time to correct it because the rush to judgment was in place, we now have taken that time, and I think that is a good thing. I appreciate the staffs helping us get to that point on both sides of the aisle. I want to say, secondly, that our Founding Fathers set up a process, Mr. Speaker, that was not as efficient as authoritarian regimes claim to be. If you have the votes and you can jam something through, so be it; but our Founding Fathers, Mr. Speaker, wanted a reflective process, a process where there was full and fair consideration in both Houses, because their concern was that democracy would work if everybody had the opportunity to see it and to participate in it. This process of thousands of pages of bills being passed within hours under a martial-law rule did not allow that process to occur, and the result was inevitable, that things would be passed unknown to this body, unknown to the American public and of great concern to them which would not have enjoyed a majority of support in this House or the Senate if they had been fully aired. Hopefully, this will be an object lesson which will lead us to a process more open, more open to minority views, with time given to staff and Members to digest, to reflect, and to make wise judgments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, our ranking member, who does such an extraordinary job on the Committee on Appropriations in focusing us on our priorities as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, initially I want to rise and say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman, is like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like Bill Young, and that goes for everybody on our side of the aisle. I want to say some nice things, and let me take just one second, but I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the rule that I perceive Bill Young as one of the fairest, most decent, and most positive leaders in this House. It is an honor to serve with him. I will tell my colleagues, as an opponent of term limits, I think the fact that Bill Young is leaving as chairman of the committee is another compelling argument against term limits. His talent, his fairness, his vision will be missed as our chairman. Thankfully, he will still be on our committee, giving us his sound counsel and leadership. And, Bill, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the example you have set for all of us of what it means to be an American, working together on behalf of our country and not on behalf of our party, on either side. I thank you for that, sir. Mr. Speaker, here we are yet again this year considering an end-of- session omnibus appropriations bill not because of our Chairman Young but because of the disagreements, frankly, within his party. This is the fourth in the last 5 years and the eighth time in 10 years since our Republican friends regained the House majority that we have not passed appropriation bills as they should have been passed. This clearly is not how our appropriations process should work, with this House rolling nine separate appropriation bills into one and giving the Members just a few hours to review it. My chairman said 14 hours. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture is reviewing the bill right now. It is, I judge, at least two feet tall, right in front of her. I do not know whether the camera panned to that, but it is an extraordinary document. It epitomizes this failed 108th Congress in which Republicans failed to enact the budget, failed to enact an energy plan, failed to enact a transportation bill, failed to enact welfare reform, failed to enact higher education reauthorization, and failed to enact a patients' bill of rights. Now, despite this dreadful appropriations process, there are many good provisions, as Chairman Young has said, in this bill. Not only that, I am going to vote for this bill. For example, there are more than $90 million to support an African Union peacekeeping force intended to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We must act on that. This bill also maintains the Federal commitment to election reform, providing $14 million for the new Election Assistance Commission. And we again recognize the dedicated service of our Federal civilian employees by providing a 3.5 percent pay raise, which is consistent with the pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Our staffs, hopefully, will all receive that as well. These funds also allow FDA employees to move from substandard workplaces into modern, state-of-the-art facilities. Finally, let me say that I am disappointed, however, that the A-76 outsourcing, supported by the majority of this House and the majority of the Senate, was nevertheless dropped out of the conference report. This will put Federal employees at greater risk. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am disappointed that we once again failed to reimburse small airports in the Washington, D.C., area. The Republicans and ourselves say we are on the side of small business. These airports have been disadvantaged by the actions of the terrorists and by our security concerns closing them down. We should have made them whole in this bill. We did not. I hope that in the future we will. Again, I thank Bill Young for his leadership and for his service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe it appropriate for me to rise in light of the gentleman from Texas's remarks. First of all, I note that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is on the floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the most respected Members in this body. He is a gentleman who has led our committee with fairness and great ability. Mr. Dyer is also on the floor, our chief clerk of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations continues to be, in my opinion, one of the committees that really strives to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the responsibilities that it has and the responsibilities that this Congress has to the American people. The budget to which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) spoke has resulted in a dysfunctional appropriations process over the last 4 years really. I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for 23 years, so I have some experience of the workings of that committee. In the early years that I served, it was also difficult to pass appropriation bills. Then we got into the 1994 election, the majority changed and, in 1995, of course, we shut down the government on November 22, 1995. The government essentially remained shut down and with sporadic periods of being open between then and early in January of the following year. Since that time, particularly since the election of President Bush in 2000, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, this year, we have clearly had a dysfunctional budget and appropriations process, about which my friend from Texas seems to be so proud. In fact, this is the third year in a row where we have passed an omnibus appropriations bill including most of the appropriations. We have ignored the regular order. We have ignored the process of adopting appropriation bills one by one. We have ignored the process of having our appropriation bills open to full disclosure and consideration, not only by the House of Representatives, but by the American people. We have prevented the American people from having the opportunity to make their views known on these appropriation bills. Why? Because we have passed them in the dead of night, as we did last night, come out with a very quick Committee on Rules report, a martial law rule, and an inability to expose those to the light of day. Now, most of those appropriations bills, the nine bills that will be incorporated into this omnibus have, in fact, been subjected to hearings, discussion on this floor, discussion on the Senate floor, and most, I do not know what percentage, but I would guess well over 90 percent, perhaps even as close to 97 or 98 percent of the bills have, in fact, been subjected to the regular order and the legislative process as it should run. But the fear of the American people is that in the dead of night, in the cloudiness of quick consideration, that many things are included in these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that neither House really knows is in there. So when my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) refers to this as being a process that is contrary to regular order, he is absolutely right. It is not something of which we ought to be proud. To that extent, I disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas. It is, in fact, something that we ought to commit ourselves to not repeating. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend, is on the floor, and was the chief of staff of one of the most distinguished leaders with whom I have had the privilege of serving, Bob Michel, himself a member of the Committee on Appropriations. I used to remember Leader Michel during the times when he was the Minority Leader of this House saying that this process was wrong when we pursued it, when we got into a deadlock and could not get bills passed. So it is not that it is solely the actions of one party. It is, however, to say that we ought not to pretend that when we are doing it, that it is good, and that when the other guy is doing it, it is bad. It is not a good process. We did not in the year of last year pass eight of our appropriations bills until the calendar year following the beginning of the fiscal year. It was January. The previous year, it was February before we adopted most of the appropriations bills. I regret that we do not consider the appropriations bills one by one. There has not been a conference on the Labor-Health bill, a bill which will have approximately $150 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. It has not been conferenced. I have been a member of that committee for 23 years. I did not participate in a conference on that bill. Now, because of the way our committee operates, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and others have kept me apprised, and I am not surprised at that. As I said, they are good and decent and fair leaders of the Committee on Appropriations. We ought not to delude ourselves because of their fairness and because of the fact that they have kept me informed and kept the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) informed and others informed. But the American people who have been precluded from seeing that bill conferenced have not been informed as our democracy contemplates, so I do not share the gentleman's pride in this process. Mr. Speaker, because I have the time and I am on my feet, I also want to make a comment. I may make this comment again when he is here. In my view, the House of Representatives has sustained an extraordinary loss in the last election. I do not speak in terms of the fact that another candidate won the election. I, in no way, denigrate that candidate. But I do rise to lament the loss of a giant of this House, a Member of this House who, in my opinion, is arguably the best legislator in this House, a Member of this House whom I have grown to have the highest respect for, for his intellect, for his integrity, for his focus on fiscal responsibility. No one, no one in this House or in the United States Senate has any more faithfully focused on fiscal responsibility than my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Charles Stenholm). It is a great loss to the House that he will not be serving with us next year. As we consider this appropriation bill, and as the gentleman from Texas remarks with respect to constraining funding, I will tell my friend that we have constrained funding less over the last 4 years perhaps than at any time since I have been here, less than we did during the Clinton years. Domestic discretionary spending has risen higher over the last 4 years, as perhaps the gentleman knows, discretionary spending has risen higher. Now, there have been some reasons for that. Certainly, 9/11, terrorism, the war in Iraq. As the gentleman from Texas knows, I have supported that funding. We cannot, we must not send our best abroad to fight terrorism without supporting them fully. I have done that, and I intend to do that. But having said that, I do not intend to pretend that that money is for free, that somebody is not going to pay that bill. Earlier this week, the Republicans increased the debt of this Nation by $800 billion, meaning that over the last 42 months we have increased the national debt by 25 percent, $2 trillion. I personally do not believe that that is something of which to be proud, $2 trillion in additional debt. I have three grandchildren. One is a little older, one is little younger, and one is very young. And all of them are going to pay that bill. Because this generation of Americans, acting through its Members in the House of Representatives, has determined that it will not pay its bills. I think that is an immoral policy. It is the refusal to accept personal responsibility for the challenges confronting our generation, and we are going to allow the next generation and perhaps generations thereafter to pay that bill. The immediate consequences, of course, were evidenced yesterday. I hope they will be ameliorated. I hope interest rates will not skyrocket. I hope the deficit will, as the gentleman from Texas hopes, will be constrained. But I will not delude myself, I tell my friend from Texas, that it is discretionary spending that has caused our problem, because those of us on the Committee on Appropriations know it is not discretionary spending. In fact, discretionary spending as a percentage of the budget is less today than it was in 1962 and 1972 and 1982. So we ought not to delude ourselves that our failure to fully fund No Child Left Behind, as the gentleman from Florida has said, is something of which to be proud. There are going to be children left behind as a result of us failing to do that. So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that I will vote for this omnibus bill when it ultimately gets to the floor. I will vote against this rule, but I will vote for the omnibus bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Jim Dyer, and each one of our chairmen and ranking members have worked hard to try to come to grips with bills that meet our responsibilities. These bills do so only in part. I thank my chairman and would say that there are areas in which we are short, not because we want to be short, but because the resources are not there to meet our commitments. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this brief time, at a time when debate is not fulsome and I had time to ruminate to some degree on what I consider the very serious fiscal challenge that confronts our country. We cannot pretend that we can have tax cuts and war and investment in education and transportation and energy and other needs of our country and simply pass the debt along to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is not right.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Terry R. Carlstrom who for four decades has managed the stewardship of some of our Nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. Mr. Carlstrom is retiring after 41 years in Federal service during which he served with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service. Mr. Carlstrom's stewardship extended over the past 22 years to the protection and enhancement of 14 units of the National Park System and the numerous memorials in our National Capital Region. First, as Associate Regional Director for Professional Services, and then for the past 8 years as Regional Director of the National Capital Region, he has extended his watchful eye and guiding hand to the protection of our most symbolic National Icons: the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial; Presidential Memorials to FDR and Lyndon Baines Johnson, the White House; and memorials commemorating the American heroes at home and abroad in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and in World War II. His leadership in the complete reconstruction of the 5 major scenic parkways, which provide the gateways to our Nation's Capital, ensured their scenic protection while providing for user safety. He also was instrumental in the creation of the Streetscape Standards for the Monumental Core by an interagency task force. I join the men and women of the National Park Service and the National Capital Region in recognizing Mr. Carlstrom's sincere interest in the welfare and safety of every employee, a dedication which is evidenced by his support and leadership in a safety program that reduced the lost time accident rate by 100 percent during the last 5 years. He established the National Capital Region's Communications Command Center in Hagerstown, Maryland, which has assured continuous and complete communications for our park rangers in remote locations throughout our far ranging parks. Mr. Carlstrom has provided oversight of 14 parks in the National Capital Region: the National Mall and Memorial Parks; Anacostia River Parks; Rock Creek Park; the White House and President's Park; C&O Canal National Historical Park; George Washington Memorial Parkway; Civil War Battlefield Parks at Antietam, Monocacy, Harper's Ferry, and Manassas; the Wolf Trap Farm National Park for the Performing Arts; Prince William Forest Park and Catoctin Mountain Park; and the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail. During his tenure he guided the establishment of Mary McLeod Bethune Council House and Carter G. Woodson National Historic Sites, the President Lincoln and Soldier's Home National Monument, and the boundary expansions of Monocacy Battlefield and Harper's Ferry National Historical Park. Further, he was a leader in establishing numerous partnerships, including the preservation of the Washington Monument; refurbishment and joint management with Montgomery County of Glen Echo Park; the Accokeek Foundation and National Colonial Farm; and the Alice Fergusen Foundation's Hard Bargain Farm. Recognizing the importance of these important relationships with agencies and individuals beyond the National Park Service, he established an Assistant Regional Director for Partnerships. Mr. Carlstrom leaves a lasting legacy to Americans from coast to coast. As a young forester in the 1960s, he established sensitive timber management programs for the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming and for the Chippewa people on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota, which today provide for timber demands, enhanced recreational opportunities and excellent wildlife habitat. Through his efforts wetlands in North Dakota have been protected for waterfowl propagation, a portion of the St. Croix National Scenic River in Minnesota and Wisconsin has been preserved for future generations, and resource protections were enriched as a result of his master planning for five Arizona national parks--Tumacacori National Historical Park, Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Coronado National Memorial, Saguaro National Park and Organ Pipe National Monument. As Chief of Planning of the National Park Service's Denver Service Center Western Team, he led several planning initiatives to protect Redwood National Park, to expand protection of the watershed and to preserve the remaining ancient Redwood groves. Remnants of the ancient Anazazi culture, which can still be found in Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Meade National Recreation Area, remain protected today because of wilderness plans initiated under his leadership. Those wilderness plans, which were prepared at the direction of Congress, recognized that the areas should be under the protection of the National Park Service and not exposed to multi-use land management. In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act brought 55 million acres under the auspices of the National Park Service. The Act was carefully crafted to provide for the continued subsistence use and protection of the living culture of the Native peoples and enable the appreciation of these unique lands by future generations of their fellow Americans. Mr. Carlstrom headed the multi- agency task force which prepared the environmental documents and analyzed thousands of public comments that permitted President Jimmy Carter to create National Monuments via Presidential Proclamation as an interim measure pending the ultimate placement by Congress of these millions of acres into National Parks and Preserves. Mr. Carlstrom's four decades of devotion stand as examples to all of us who preserve the treasures of which our Nation is proud, our vast resources, our varied cultures, our storied history. I am proud to recognize him today for his years of service and thank him for his hard work, care for his fellow human beings, and his many, many accomplishments.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman from Tennessee that Lewis Carroll is writing the speeches that are being given on this legislation: Up is down, black is white, good is bad, and bad is good. Dick Armey said Republicans control this town, and you have for 4 years. Republicans control it. This House, the Senate, and the White House. Not a nickel is spent because Democrats vote on it. It is all your spending that you are talking about. All your spending. The immoral, intellectually bankrupt fiscal policies that we have been pursuing for the last 4 years resulted in this request for this gargantuan increase on the debt on the head of every American, young and old. Bill Clinton was President of the United States and, in 1998, no increase in the debt; 1999, no increase in the debt; 2000, no increase in the debt; 2001, no increase in the debt. Not until the Republican fiscal policies were adopted did this country start to sink deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. From less than $6 trillion, in 42 months you have taken this country another $2 trillion in debt. Let us talk of moral values in America. Let us talk of squandering the public resources of a $5.6 trillion surplus that President George Bush said was available when he spoke to this Congress in February, 2001. We have some fiscal conservatives, they say, on this floor and they say spending is the problem. Why have they not stopped it for 4 years? They say there has been terrorism. I agree. There has been a war. We had a war under President Clinton, Members recall, one the other side of the aisle was not enthusiastic about, but we lost very few people, and the despot who committed genocide against the Bosnian people is now locked in The Hague. I tell my friends, this is the right thing to do if we adopt the motion to instruct that will be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the most fiscally responsible Member of this body. Increase it for a short time. The United States cannot welch on its debt. We must pay our debt, but fiscal responsibility ought to be adopted by the majority that have control to do so.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am prepared to pay for the public works projects that I secure. The public works project that this side secured pales into insignificance beside the public works projects that you get for your Members on your side of the aisle, 17 times as much as we did, and you came here saying we are against pork. Seventeen times, my friend. Seventeen times is the pork in your bills.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and pay tribute to the service of a valued friend of mine and a courageous veteran from Maryland, Clancy Lyall. Just last week we observed Veterans Day, where we honored the bravery and sacrifice of our veterans and their families and all of the men and women who make up our Nation's armed forces. On June 6, 1944, U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower sent our troops on a mission to confront one of the world's most tyrannical dictatorships with some notable words of inspiration. ``You are about to embark on a great crusade, the eyes of the world are upon you, the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.'' Despite a tragic number of casualties, the allied forces were ultimately triumphant in liberating Europe and in defending the world from further oppression by ending the control of the brutal and bigoted Nazi regime. As a member of the E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, known as the ``Band of Brothers'' during World War II, Clancy Lyall jumped onto the beaches at Normandy on D-Day, fought at the Battle of the Bulge and helped capture Hitler's ``Eagles Nest'' retreat. Sixty years later, on June 6, 2004, Clancy was able to return to Normandy with hundreds of WWII veterans where he participated in the ``Normandy Memoire 60th Anniversary'', and was awarded by the French Government with a chest badge in Carenton where his unit distinguished themselves in battle. Southern Maryland is fortunate to have Clancy Lyall in our midst. He has served our community as a loud voice for Veterans and has organized Memorial Day and Veterans Day parades for many years, privileging our community with an opportunity to honor these important observances. He has also served as the Past Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans Service Organization, meaning he has made a choice to not only be a member of the veterans' community, but to take part in the organization and work to further the causes of veterans. And, Clancy has worked to preserve stories of the war through presentations at area high schools so that students are able to begin to truly know and understand the human experiences of World War II. I know that all my colleagues join me in saluting my friend and representative of one of the true heroes of the ``Greatest Generation,'' Clancy Lyall, for his unwavering devotion to our country, and his uncompromising dedication to our community. Clancy, a grateful Nation is indebted to you for your extraordinary service in war and in peace.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican-controlled Congress is shambling to the end of one of the lightest workloads in decades without a hint of embarrassment, New York Times, 9/24/04. No budget, no budget enforcement plan. No energy bill. No highway bill. No intelligence reform. No export tax relief. No welfare reform. Eleven of 13 appropriations bills still on the desk. Lost jobs. The 108th Congress is a do-nothing Congress, contemptuously arrogant and disdainful of long-established political and parliamentary procedures. So said Al Hunt in the New York Times. Norman Ornstein's much simpler, much more pointed observation about the 108th Congress. ``Pretty pathetic,'' said Norm Ornstein. And the last 24 hours have been a stunning testament to the pathetic product of this 108th do-nothing, do-bad Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides critical funding for our Nation's first responders, for the defense of our borders and our ports, and enhances our transportation and infrastructure security. While I believe we continue to have critical, unmet homeland security needs, and have supported repeated democratic efforts to increase the funding in this bill, Chairman Rogers and Mr. Sabo have done an admirable job with their allocation, and I support this agreement. I am particularly pleased with the $65 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters--or SAFER--Program, and I was proud to have worked with Curt Weldon to pass an amendment this summer to provide initial SAFER funding. This conference agreement's $65 million in new hiring grants will help bring fire departments to adequate staffing levels and improve the safety of our firefighters and the communities they serve. The agreement also contains $650 million for the Fire Grant Program, and while we do not maintain the $750 million provided the last 2 years, this is a $150 million increase over the presidents request--an increase that is vital to our firefighters, too many of whom risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our homes and our families without the modern equipment and advanced training they deserve. Thanks to the equipment, vehicles and improved training provided by fire grants, more than 15,000 departments across America are now better trained and equipped to respond to fires, automobile accidents, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism. We have an obligation to provide our firefighters with the necessary resources to improve their safety as they risk their lives in our defense every day, and funding for the SAFER and Fire Grant Programs helps us make good on that obligation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). There is nobody in this Congress, there is nobody in this country who has fought any more vigorously for firefighters, paid and volunteer, than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). It is an honor to work with him on these issues. I understand his passion, and I thank him for his work on behalf of the fire service of this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement which supports our men and women in the Armed Forces and provides for the security of this Nation. It also specifically, of course, provides for the training and equipping of our troops engaged in the war on terrorism. I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision to reauthorize the assistance to the firefighters grant program. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on the fire service provisions in this bill for their support of that and for their leadership on this effort. I also want to wish the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been such a fighter on behalf of the fire services, a speedy recovery from his heart surgery. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), all mentioned by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and their staffs have worked hard on this measure and their leadership for our Nation's fire and emergency service personnel and is appreciated by all. I also want to thank my own staffer, Geoff Plague, who sits here with me, for his untiring and focused work on behalf of firefighters. I am particularly pleased that this measure returns jurisdiction over the grant programs to the U.S. Fire Administration, which was widely praised for the effective manner in which it administered the program during its first 3 years. Last year, over the objections of many in this Congress, the program was moved and is now being returned, and I think that is to the benefit of the program. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton) for their support in this effort. While this is one of the most critical challenges our government faces today and one for which we have consistently sought increased levels of funding, it is not the objective of the Fire Grant program itself. I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his untiring efforts on behalf of our men and women in uniform, not only those who are on the front lines at the point of the spear, but also those who are here at home ready, willing, and able to go to support our efforts, to defeat terrorists, and to bring international security. The gentleman's work on behalf of those men and women has been extraordinary and appreciated by them. Again, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this conference report, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work to bring it to the floor before we leave and recess or adjourn for the elections.