Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this Medicare conference report is, sadly, a missed opportunity. I was here in 1983. Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Bob Michael joined together to save Social Security. They came together, President Reagan, Speaker O'Neill, and Minority Leader Michael and said, we need to have a bill that has bipartisan support and will get the job done. It did. The Republicans rejected that model. Most Members of this body on both sides of the aisle recognize that it is long past time that we provide for our seniors and give them a prescription drug program; but it is not this bill that they expected, a feeble benefit that forces them to pay 80 percent of their costs. I will tell the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) her dad was right. He was a Democrat because this party has historically and now believes that we should have done better by our seniors. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which is against this bill because they want to see Medicare done away with, says this, ``The politically engineered premiums and deductibles, coupled with the odd combination of `donut holes' or gaps in drug coverage, are likely to be unpopular with seniors.'' The Heritage Foundation said that. Not Steny Hoyer, not Democrats. Even Dick Armey, the immediate past leader of our party wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Friday that this conference report is ``bad news for seniors.'' Your majority leader just past said that. Now, he wants to do away with Medicare. He does not believe we ought to have Medicare. He nevertheless says this is bad news for seniors. Because it is bad news for seniors, we ought to vote against this bad bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I am not going to object, I am not going to put people to the purpose of voting; but I will again say the democratic process is that we come to this floor. I will remind you that you said we had 17 minutes to vote. You made it very clear. You sent us a notice, and you said come with 15 minutes; we will give you 2 more minutes. This vote has now been held open longer than any vote that I can remember. I have been here 23 years. Perhaps some of you have been here longer. The outrage that was discussed when Speaker Wright held the vote open for far less time than this was palpable on your side of the aisle. Democracy is about voting. But just as you cannot say on Tuesday of Election Day, we will keep the polls open for 15 more hours until we get the result we want, you ought not to be able to do it here, Mr. Speaker. We have prevailed on this vote. Arms have been twisted and votes changed. And I will continue to reserve.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1152, bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the important work done by U.S. Fire Administration R. David Paulison and his dedicated staff in Emmittsburg, MD and Washington, DC. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 established the United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy to reduce life and economic losses due to fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination and support. Since that time, through data collection, public education, research ad training efforts, USFA has helped reduce fire deaths by at least half--making our communities and our citizens safer. For the past three years, the Fire Administrator has been tasked with administering the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, created by Congress to adequately train and equip our career and volunteer firefighters across the country. This $750 million program 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. The Fire Grant program has succeeded at getting much-needed dollars to fire departments in fair, efficient manner, and USFA has been widely praised for its work in administering the program. Authority for the Fire Grant program has now been moved to the Department of Homeland Security, and Members of the Fire Caucus, and all supporters of the fire community, will closely monitor the administration of the Grant program to guarantee that it continues to meet the needs of our fire departments. Madam Speaker, this legislation also contains provisions important to the National Fallen Firefighters Foundations, which was established more than a decade ago through the leadership of Senator Paul Sarbanes to create an organization that would properly honor all of America's fallen fire heroes--and take care of the surviving families and loved ones as they cope with their grief and attempt to move on after their loss. The Foundation carries out this mission with great compassion and dedication, and they have achieved a tremendous record of assisting the families of our fallen firefighters through the many programs, projects and activities they promote throughout the year. The provisions included in this legislation will allow the Foundation to continue, and to improve upon, the important work we have charged them to do. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H. Res. 423, recognizing the 5th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, legislation that established the Office of International Religious Freedom within the Department of State. This office is most often associated with its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, which describes the status of religious freedom in each foreign country, government policies violating religious belief and practices, and U.S. policies to promote religious freedom around the world. This document serves as an important tool for both Congress and the administration in making policy decisions regarding our relations with, and support for, countries around the world. But in addition to the report, and frankly just as importantly, the Office develops strategies to promote religious freedom, both to attack the root causes of persecution and as a means of promoting other fundamental U.S. interests, such as protecting other core human rights, and encouraging the development of mature democracies. The importance of this work cannot be overstated--the promotion of religious freedom is intimately connected to the promotion of other fundamental human and civil rights, as well as to the growth of democracy. A government that acknowledges and protects freedom of religion and conscience is one that understands the inherent and inviolable dignity of the human person, and is more likely to protect, the other rights fundamental to human dignity, such as freedom from arbitrary arrest or seizure, or freedom from torture and murder. But our interest in promoting religious freedom runs deeper than our support for democracy and stability--it is, simply put, our most important core value, the very reason the 13 colonies were established. American support for religious freedom abroad certainly predates passage of this legislation in 1998. I am particularly proud of the role I played during my tenure as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission to raise awareness of religious persecution in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics, and the work of the Commission to promote the protection of religious minorities in the Eastern Bloc and elsewhere around the world. Religious freedom is the first of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights--a reflection of the founders' belief that freedom of religion and conscience is the cornerstone of liberty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1803, ``It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.'' I was an active supporter of the original legislation, I am proud of the work done by the office since its creation, and am pleased to help commemorate this important anniversary.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct. I would add, Mr. Speaker, however, that I appreciate his giving me and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, credit. We worked hard on this. Mr. Speaker, this was the most bipartisan bill in the last Congress. But substantial credit is also due the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), as well as Republicans in the Senate, Senator McConnell, Senator Bond, and Senator Dodd. It was, in my opinion, an example of how the Congress ought to work. We sat down together, we talked about the problem, and we tried to solve it. In 347 days, on November 2, 2004, the American people will again go to the polling places. And every State in this Nation will exercise the most fundamental right in any democracy, which is, of course, the right to vote. And when they do, they will be reminded of one of the most painful episodes in American history, the disenfranchisement of an estimated 6 million Americans in the election of November 2000. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the election problems that plagued us 3 years ago and which undermined this great democracy in the eyes of the world, and indeed in the eyes of many of our citizens, will not be repeated. That is precisely the point of this important motion made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). It instructs the House to recede to the $1.5 billion in spending for election reform in fiscal year 2004 called for by the other body. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I also want to mention the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Without the gentleman from Florida, we would not have received the funding of approximately $1.5 billion that we included in last year's bill. But in the HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, we promised the States that they would receive assistance from the Federal Government to achieve the reforms we felt essential. That bill, proclaimed as the most important election reform legislation since the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, established minimum Federal standards for Federal elections. Properly funded HAVA will improve the security and accuracy of this Nation's election and registration system and prevent a repeat of the 2000 debacle. Despite HAVA's enormous promise, however, States have had considerable difficulty implementing the law's requirements because Congress provided only $1.5 billion of the $2.16 billion authorized in fiscal year 2003. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are over $600 million behind as of this date. HAVA also authorized $1 billion for this year. However, the House only appropriated $500 million in the Transportation-Treasury bill. Recently, the other body, in a bipartisan way, added a billion dollars to the transportation bill which already included $500 million. This amount not only fully funds HAVA at the fiscal year 2004 authorized level, but it also covers the shortfall from fiscal year 2003. This motion should attract the support of every Member of this body. It is consistent with the numerous pledges made by the Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the White House, and this Congress in a bipartisan way. Through HAVA, Mr. Speaker, we can make sure that the States have resources to make election reform a reality. And we can restore the public's confidence in our election system. We must do so. And this motion calls upon us to effect that end. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I talked to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and I have talked to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). It is my understanding the administration has pledged to include in the 2005 budget the $800-plus million left on this Congress's pledge to the States to ensure that every American not only has the right to vote but every American is encouraged to vote, every American is facilitated in casting their vote, every American will have an opportunity to check that they voted correctly and that every American's vote will be counted accurately.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, when we come back for the second session of the 108th Congress, there will be a new face in the House Radio-TV Gallery. That is because, after 20 years of service, the Deputy Director Beverly Braun is retiring December 12th. When Braun came to the Gallery in 1983, she and her colleagues sat up there in the southeast corner of the House chamber taking notes on floor proceedings by hand because they didn't have a computer, and the television reporters who covered out activities had to physically transport tapes to their bureaus. Beverly has shepherded the staff from learning to use a single 10K floppy disk drive machine to having individual 60 Gig hard drive laptops, and has helped incorporate technical developments that now afford the broadcasters use of fiber optic transmission lines. In the past 20 years Beverly Braun has worked under five speakers, under both Democratic and Republican control of the House and has been involved in coverage arrangements of many diverse events. Some were annual like State of the Union Addresses, St. Patrick's Day luncheons and Christmas Tree lightings. Some were periodic like mock swearing-ins of new members. Some were joyful like the joint meeting to celebrate Harry Truman's 100th birthday. Some were tragic like that lying in honor for Officers Chestnut and Gibson, and September 11th. Some were historical hearings such as Iran-Contra and Waco. Some were historical visits such as those by Queen Elizabeth, Nelson Mandella, Vaclav Havel, and most special to Braun, the Dalai Lama. As part of her regular Gallery work Braun worked with many Congressional staffers and committee members, but in recent years has primarily served as liaison to the Ways and Means, Financial Services and Rules Committees. In addition to her regular Gallery work, Braun helped with broadcast arrangements for 10 Democratic and Republican national political nominating conventions and provided on site assistance in San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, New Orleans, New York City, Houston, San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Braun was born to Phyllis (Lawson) and Ray Nicholas in Warren, Ohio in 1942, attended Ohio University and graduated from St. Vincent School of Medical Technology in Cleveland in 1961. She and her first husband Roland Braun lived in Pittsburgh PA where her son Stephen was born in 1964, and in Ramsey NJ where her daughter Leslie de Vries was born in 1966. They moved to Minnesota in 1967 where Braun became active in politics and women's rights organizations and where she ran unsuccessfully for a state senate seat in 1972. She later served as Communications Director for the Minnesota Bicentennial Commission, Director of the Small Business Division of the Minnesota Department of Economic Development and managed a Small Business Development Center for Control Data Corporation. Braun and her second husband, Skip Loescher, moved to Washington, D.C. twice, staying here since their second move in 1981. After spending 20 years with WCCO-TV and a short stint with Senator and Vice President Walter Mondale, Loescher has been the Washington correspondent for CNN Newsource for the past 12 years. Prior to her employment with the Gallery, Braun worked in Washington with the National Women's Education Fund and later founded a business which provided services to companies that did not have a Washington Office. Braun and Loescher's families are spread all across the country. Braun's mother Phyllis Beadle lives in Queensbury NY. Braun's son Stephen and his wife Anne live in Columbia MD. He has a son Nicolas and daughter Katie. Braun's daughter Leslie and her husband Jackson Griffith live in Sacramento CA with daughters Emma and Ellie and son Will. Loescher's son Jeff lives in Portland OR with wife Carol, daughter Nicole and son Tyler. Loescher's son Mick and wife Erin live in Peabody MA with sons Sean and Christian. Loescher's daughter Suzy and husband Jeff Quinlan live in Covington GA with son Alex and daughter Kate. Both Braun and Loescher are also blessed with aunts, uncles, cousins, former classmates and friends in almost every other state represented by the members in this chamber. After leaving Congress, Braun plans on possibly teaching, writing and doing more gardening at her home in Annapolis where she and her husband moved after 19 years on Capitol Hill. She also wants to address end of life issues. She and her husband hope to eventually pursue training and taking therapy dogs in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices . . . and spending more time with all those adorable grandchildren. Braun has always been a helpful and cheerful professional and she will be missed. So at the end of her career with us, let us say to Beverly as we have heard her say at the end of many a photo op . . . ``Thank you . . . lights!''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, S. Con. Res. 48, supporting the goals and ideals of National Epilepsy Awareness Month. More than 2.3 million people in the United States have some form of epilepsy. Thirty percent of them are children under the age of 18. About 180,000 new cases of seizures and epilepsy are diagnosed each year. A large number of children and adults have undetected or untreated epilepsy. Yet so many people know very little about the condition, including how to detect it, and how to treat it. I serve on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee and have long advocated an increased federal commitment for both the research and treatment for adults and children with epilepsy. I have supported greater epilepsy research at the National Institutes of Health to study causes and cures of this neurological condition. I was honored to be a part of establishing the first epilepsy-specific program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And I am pleased that this year the House has provided $3 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to implement a demonstration public health program to serve people with epilepsy who lack access to adequate medical care. I hope that funding will be included in the final omnibus appropriations bill for this purpose. While the progress we have made so far in increasing research and improving public health strategies for epilepsy is important, we must also continue to increase awareness and education. By increasing awareness we can affect social attitudes, government programs, and the delivery of health care services for persons currently without treatment. We can improve efforts for prevention and treatment. And perhaps one day soon we can find a cure. In about 70 percent of epilepsy cases there is no known cause. Of the remaining 30 percent, the most frequent causes are head trauma (such as from a car accident, sports accident, or a fall), brain tumor, stroke, poisoning (including lead poisoning and alcoholism), infection, or maternal injury. But with treatment, people can achieve full or partial control of seizures in about 85 percent of cases. Drug therapy is often required treatment, and less often, surgery. Dietary changes can also sometimes control seizures. Improved prevention and treatment is dependent on improved awareness and education. This week many of us in Congress are discussing the need to provide seniors greater and improved access to prescription drugs. Seniors with epilepsy are no different. They need unimpeded access to, and coverage for, the critical anti-epileptic drugs that treat their condition. Many people with epilepsy are concerned about the availability of all anti- epileptic drug options when enrolling in managed care plans. A Medicare bill that pushes seniors into managed care may not meet the needs of this population. When we consider the Medicare legislation before us, we must ensure that seniors, including seniors with epilepsy, should not be forced to worry about their drug coverage. I applaud this resolution and support the establishment of an annual Epilepsy Awareness Month.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in 5 days, we will observe the 40th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in American history--the assassination of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy stirred the imagination of our Nation and inspired a generation to ``ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring a man who answered that clarion call to a life in public service; a man who quite literally was a pillar in President Kennedy's New Frontier; and a man who is one of the greatest public servants in the history of our Nation. I, of course, am referring to Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., who celebrated his 88th birthday one week ago. Sargent Shriver's devotion to this nation--and humanity--sets an example for all to emulate and a high bar that only a few will ever hope to exceed. A native of the State of Maryland, and in fact a member of one of the Free State's founding families, Sargent Shriver has dedicated his life to improving the lives of others. A few years ago, Sarge was asked to explain his lifelong commitment to public service. ``I just feel my faith,'' he said. ``A life of service is like catching a disease. In a family it's passed on. . . . Our five children are all involved in service. It's in their veins.'' There is no doubt that this generation and future generations of Americans are the beneficiaries of his life of service. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1941, Sarge enlisted in the Navy, where he received the Navy Unit Citation and the Submarine Medal for service in both the Atlantic and Pacific. After World War II, Sarge accepted a position as assistant editor with Newsweek magazine. He later went into business with Joseph Kennedy, President Kennedy's father, and met Eunice, his wife of more than 50 years. Sarge than moved his family to Chicago, where he served on the Board of Education. In 1956, he was elected President of the Board, the youngest person to serve in such a position in any major American city. And in 1960, he joined the Presidential campaign of then-Senator Kennedy. After the election, he was asked by President Kennedy to create the Peace Corps and in March 1961 was appointed its founding Director. Sarge's vision for the Peace Corps was straight-forward and strong: ``to permit Americans to participate directly, personally, and effectively in this struggle for human dignity.'' In nearly 6 years at the Peace Corps, Sarge developed programs in 55 countries with more than 14,500 volunteers. Forty-two years later, the solid foundation that he created has only strengthened and expanded. Today, 163,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served in 135 countries. However, while Sarge is rightly identified as the founding father of this great American idea, his contributions to the Peace Corps do not tell the whole story. Sarge also served as the first Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Johnson. Then, between 1964 and 1968, he created VISTA, Head Start, Community Action, Foster Grandparents, Job Corps, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services. And, then, from 1968 to 1970, he served as U.S. Ambassador to France, before being nominated in 1972 to serve as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic Party's ticket with George McGovern. Few Americans have given so much to help so many. Yet, in the twilight of this incredible life, Sarge and Eunice continue to give. To call this record of public service exemplary is a vast understatement. Words cannot adequately convey the decency and humanity that has been brought into the lives of millions worldwide through the work of Sargent Shriver--international lawyer, ambassador, humanitarian. His life's work shall live on long after this and succeeding generations have passed the torch of public service to their progeny. ``Serve, serve, serve,'' Sarge was know to say, ``because in the end it is the servants who save us all.'' Mr. Speaker, today, I honor a great American and wish him only the best, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this Resolution recognizing Sargent Shriver.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of outstanding research. ARS is the established leader in agriculture science, producing quality research used by many to help create responsible science-based policy. As we prepare to celebrate their accomplishments of the past half-century, it is also an opportunity for us to bear in mind future achievements. ARS is the largest science organization in the world dedicated to agriculture research. As the Department of Agriculture's in-house agency. ARS conducts research to solve problems that are of high national priority and in the best interests of the Nation. This science is vital to the mission area of several Department of Agriculture agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). ARS also serves a number of other Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some components within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Interior (DOI). Not only is ARS responsible for providing data to these agencies, they also distribute information to producers, consumers, and other stakeholders. It is easy to see that research is an essential tool, but it is also a worthy investment. Federal agriculture research is a critical element in maintaining our competitive edge in the international arena as well as helps us address environmental challenges. We can better protect our resources from plant pests and animal diseases and can expect improved water quality, resource conservation, and renewable sources of energy. The value of these should research programs benefit not only agriculture, but all Americans. ARS is able to carry out their mission of providing scientific research through collaborative efforts. There are more than 2,100 scientists conducting research at approximately 100 locations across the country and overseas. At any given time, ARS has more than 1,000 research projects underway, each of which is incorporated into one of 22 national programs. The network of laboratories and research centers across the country allows ARS to address problems quickly and efficiently. I am proud to represent one center that has significantly contributed to this effort, the Beltsville Area Research Center (BARC), located in Beltsville, MD. I have worked with BARC over the years and have witnessed the work these researchers do and how critical it is to our daily lives. BARC is the largest and most diversified agricultural research complex in the world. Beltsville's record of accomplishments and programs has earned the center international accolade and attracts thousands of visitors each year. Research in the Beltsville area addresses issues of agriculture importance and high national priority through programs in the Plant Sciences Institute, the Animal and Natural Resources Institute, the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, and the U.S. National Arboretum. I am sure BARC will live up to its reputation of producing high quality research on the cutting edge that will propel U.S. agriculture into the future. We should take great pride for the many milestones that have been met and continue to support ARS and American agriculture.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the leader. We disagree. Our recollections are not the same. Our experiences are not the same. Now, I have been here a little longer than the leader, but we have both been here a long time, and when we were in charge you complained as well. Therefore, you can empathize, as you say, with the pain that we feel in the minority. But it is not the pain that we feel is so important, we want a bill. We may want a slightly different kind of bill than we think that the majority will report out on prescription drugs, but we want a bill. And the people who supported us want a bill, and they may want a bill that is slightly different; and democracy works when all sit down together and discuss their perspectives and try to forge a bill which accomplishes their objective. I do not think we are doing that. I lament that, and I do not think it is in the best interests of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is not in the quality of legislation that both the gentleman from Texas and I want to pass, even if we see that quality somewhat differently. I thank the gentleman for the information he has given us.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for next week and, perhaps, the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not sure by the announcement regarding next week's schedule. Is it the gentleman's expectation that we will be in next Friday or not? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. All right. So we will be off Friday. Now, is the gentleman pretty definite on the following Monday that we will be in at 6:30 as opposed to the normal Tuesday?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader. Last week we passed a continuing resolution until November 21. The gentleman did not indicate in his discussion of the schedule for the next 2 weeks the balance of appropriations bills that are pending, nor did he mention an omnibus appropriation bill. Can he clarify and give us his best thinking at this point in time as to where we are on the CR for November 21 and being able to leave on November 21? I know the gentleman mentioned the possibility of being here on Saturday, November 22. And does the gentleman expect any appropriations bills other than the energy and water, which he did reference would be on the floor either next week or the following week? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information. If that occurs, as the gentleman says may happen, if that occurs, can you give us your current thinking with reference to the date to which a further continuing resolution would be targeted?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, the FSC bill, Foreign Sales Corporations Extraterritorial Income legislation, you did not mention that. Can you tell me when or if you expect that bill to come to the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we too are concerned about the WTO's finding of noncompliance and the EU's assertion that if we do not act by the end of the year they are going to act. That is a $4 billion item possible cost to this country. My understanding is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has a bill. As the gentleman knows, there is an alternative available which, I think, frankly enjoys bipartisan support, at least the letters that are being sent around to colleagues would indicate that. In light of the fact that we want to pass legislation, Mr. Leader, can you assure us that the Crane-Rangel-Manzullo alternative would be allowed as a substitute to that piece of legislation to assure that we could, in fact, pass something?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. With respect to the Labor-HHS-Education bill, which is the largest appropriation bill, as the gentleman knows, that still is outstanding, do you expect that we will have a freestanding conference report on that bill, or do you expect it to be rolled into an omnibus?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the majority leader knows, there is substantial concern on this side of the aisle in this part of the House that some 206 or more districts, perhaps, will be left out of this bill in terms of consideration for individual education and/or health projects. I want to express our great concern about that. There has been a lot of discussion about it in the press, a lot of discussion about it on the floor. The gentleman does not necessarily need to comment on it, but I want to emphasize to him the great concern that we have, as two people who have served on the Committee on Appropriations. The majority leader is not on the Committee on Appropriations now, but he has served on that committee. I am not sure he has been on there 2 decades, but a long time. If that occurs, in my memory that would be the first time. Now, of course when Mr. Natcher was the Chair, there were no specific projects delineated for individual districts listed in that bill. But from the time that that started to be done in the mid-90s, this is the first time that I can recall on this bill or any other bill, that there has been a blanket preclusion of over 200 districts from participation in the investments made in those bills in the welfare of the American people. So I want to express that. The gentleman does not need to respond to that. I will yield to him if he wants to make a comment. He does not need to respond, but I want to reiterate that. Mr. Leader, on the conference report on energy, I also want to ask you about the labor-health because of the magnitude of these bills. The energy bill, obviously, is a major piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation. For the past several weeks you and I have been talking about conferences. You indicated this bill is coming to the floor. I again bring to your attention, Mr. Leader, that our Members appointed by the Speaker to the conference have no knowledge of a meaningful conference having been held on this bill. They do not have any meaningful knowledge of what might be in the bill. That is true as well, I will tell the leader, of the labor-health bill. I am a conferee on the labor-health bill. I have received no notices of meetings. I have attended no meetings. I have learned of no meetings with respect to that bill. The lack of the ability of Democrats to participate in these conferences, again, I tell the leader from my perspective, is unprecedented. It is certainly not unprecedented when Members meet with them. One side of the aisle would talk about their strategies, their priorities, their objectives. But, historically, when conferences have met, both sides have been invited to attend. There has been discussion about issues. The energy bill which is contemplated to come to this floor next week, I tell the gentleman, our side does not perceive that has happened. They have not participated. And I know that there has been a pledge that the conferees will at least, even though they are not participating, not invited, not able to articulate their view, will at least get 48 hours receipt of the conference report for the opportunity to review it for 2 days before it comes to the floor. I ask the leader in the case of the energy bill, will that be the policy on this side of the aisle and, therefore, if the energy bill is coming on Wednesday or Thursday, will the conferees receive at least a copy of the conference report no later than Monday?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the key phrase there, Mr. Leader, is should a conference be required. You are having meetings. We know that. You are having discussions. We know that. I reiterate again, notwithstanding all your numbers there, the Democrats are not included. I will tell the gentleman further, as he knows, that in the other body the bill that passed the Senate was the Senate-passed bill from last year. Senator Domenici, who is one of the conferees on the floor, said we are going to substantially rewrite this bill in conference. So the debate on the floor seemed somewhat irrelevant. It was a device to get them to conference. So this conference, more than some others where real bills were passed in both Houses, is a very important venue for the formulation of policy. Democrats are not being given access to those considerations in a full manner. But I am pleased, Mr. Leader, that 48 hours prior to the conference meeting, that we will be getting, whenever that may occur, that we will be getting a copy of the marked up proposal so that we can consider that, digest it, and bring our views to the conference. I assume, Mr. Leader, that that conference will be unlike the FAA conference to which this body recommitted a bill, which never met as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) pointed out on the floor, it never met, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has lamented and, as a result, you have to waive the rules. Mr. Leader, with respect to Medicare, we are in the same position. Do you expect the Medicare prescription drug bill to be on the floor any time in the next 2 weeks?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his observation; but, Mr. Leader, let me say something. Really what you just said is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is meeting with all those who seek to improve the legislation. Improvement, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. There are 435 Members elected to this House, Mr. Leader, as we all know. Their perspective on what improves or harms legislation differs, sometimes very substantially. But our Founding Fathers, Mr. Leader, formed a House representing a diverse American public, from many regions of this country, many areas of every State. Every State has differences within that State. My State does. Your State does. To say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is only going to talk to those that he perceives as interested in improving that legislation is to say that a bill that passed this House by one vote after the roll was kept open for some 45 minutes is to say that at least half of this House will be excluded. Mr. Leader, that is not in my opinion and in the opinion of this side of the aisle, and I believe in the opinion of the American people, the way they expect this House to run. It is not the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) view of what improves or does not improve this bill that counts. It is each of us who are elected to represent our constituents and put on the table the alternatives we believe improve that bill. They ought to be considered. We do not believe that is being done, Mr. Leader.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, you and I may have a different perspective obviously. You recall, as I have discussed in the past, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Everybody was for the Patients' Bill of Rights. In fact, in the 106th Congress, as the leader will well recognize, when he was the whip and responsible for counting votes, the Patients' Bill of Rights passed this House with over 250 votes of people who saw it in a way that ought to pass, ought to be the law of the land. As you will recall, the Speaker appointed eight out of the nine Republican conferees who had opposed the bill. Now, maybe that is the way the House in your recollection has always worked where 250 people vote for something. It never came out of conference, not surprisingly, when you had eight out of nine of the Republican conferees in the majority that opposed the bill that were in the conference. So apparently if it is on your side of the aisle and you oppose something, locking it up in conference is okay. If you are on our side of the aisle and you want to see a Patients' Bill of Rights or you want to see a Medicare prescription bill and you want to see a prescription drug bill that does not eliminate Medicare, that provides for affordable and accessible health care at a price that can be afforded by all of our seniors, then somehow you are perceived as not wanting to improve the bill and, therefore, is not worth being included. As you know, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), one of the senior Members of this House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) tried to have arrested not too long ago and thrown out of the Committee on Ways and Means by the Capitol Police. You will recall that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has now gone to where the conferees, theoretically, were meeting and was asked to leave. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, one of the seniors. Now, I will remind the chairman that Mr. Rostenkowski chaired this committee and invariably made sure that Republicans were, in fact, included, and invariably when bills came to the floor, he had Republicans supporting those bills and they worked with him. And you will recall that he worked with the President of the United States when we were in the majority to pass the 1986 tax bill. So that may be your recollection, Mr. Leader, of how the House runs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is one I will support. It will provide adequate pay, housing and training for the men and women serving our country on active duty and in the Guard and Reserves. It funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that the weapons systems with which we equip our troops are the most advanced and capable in the world for years to come. However, the report is not perfect. I am disappointed by the way in which the conference report treats civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Simply stated, the report will strip more than a third of our Federal civilian employees, over 700,000 hardworking men and women, of their most basic worker protections and rights. I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) left the floor. He indicates 71 and some of the other articles that protect Federal employees will not be waived. That is technically true, but the bill allows them to be suspended for the next 10 years. So although they technically cannot be waived, they will not be in effect at the decision of the Secretary. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to thoughtful reform of our civil service system. However, the report goes too far. It will undo decades of some of the most important worker protections enacted by Congress and supported for decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike. Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I will support this important agreement. I expect it to pass by a wide margin with broad support from both House Democrats and Republicans who stand squarely behind our troops and in favor of protecting our national security.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues, in my opinion, should review the work of Sir Isaac Newton. It was Newton, after all, who wrote 4 centuries ago: to every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction. Today we are seeing that principle play out right before our eyes. Earlier this year, the majority party enacted its third tax cut in 3 years, the most recent one giving America's millionaires an average tax cut of $93,500. And what do we suppose is the reaction to that action? Underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion? Yes. Cutting heating assistance for our Nation's poor? Certainly. And the smallest percentage increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health in 18 years? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is true. The 2.5 percent increase for NIH in the House-passed version of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill, which is the same increase proposed by the Bush administration, pales in comparison to the 15 percent annual increases NIH has received in recent years under our bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. I would say, parenthetically, we actually did not do that. The number got to a double, but because we added $1.7 billion in additional responsibilities for our biomedical terrorist research, actually we did not reach the double. But the proposed 2.5 percent increase for NIH fails to keep up with inflation in research costs and will not allow for any real increase in research efforts. In other words, this is a retreat. This appropriation even fails to provide funds to complete the John E. Porter Neuroscience Research Center, which is now under construction on the NIH campus. Mr. Speaker, the 3.5 percent increase for NIH in the Senate is certainly preferable to what this body passed. But even that 3.5 percent increase would fail to cover the cost of renewing ongoing grants at committed levels and would barely keep pace with inflation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important motion that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) has made to instruct offered by our side of the aisle, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) in particular, to insist on the highest funding levels possible for NIH. We should not permit, Mr. Speaker, tax cuts for the most affluent Americans to squeeze out funding for research on Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, and a host of other health concerns that affect the American people. Isaac Newton was correct. For every action, there is an opposite reaction. Cutting NIH is that reaction.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once remarked, ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.'' Today as we note the untimely passing on Sunday afternoon of our friend and former colleague, Indiana Congressman Frank McCloskey, who lost a year-long battle with cancer, let it long be remembered that this Hoosier embraced not only the important concerns of his constituents in southwest Indiana, but also the broader concerns of all humanity. In the early 1990s, I worked very closely with Congressman McCloskey and others to call attention to the atrocities and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen in Bosnia. Many in the international community, indeed many in this country, looked away. Frank McCloskey did not. A fact-finding trip to Bosnia in 1991 stirred and galvanized Frank's passion. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman McCloskey was among the first in Congress to call for air strikes against Serbian positions in Bosnia- Herzegovina from which Bosnians were being shelled and murdered. Frank urged that Slobodan Milosevic be tried as a war criminal, which now is happening. He and I worked to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, and he was not shy in criticizing the Clinton administration when he disagreed with its handling of that conflict. Mr. Speaker, political expediency practically demanded that Frank McCloskey focus on shoring up his position in the 8th Congressional District. As is well known, he won his first election to this body in 1984 by four votes. But in spite of the fact that he won six congressional races in one of the most competitive districts in America, political calculation did not crowd out the humanity in Frank McCloskey's heart. He was commanded by conscience to do what he believed was right. Frank McCloskey lived a full life serving in the Air Force, working as a newspaper reporter, and serving as Bloomington's mayor for 10 years before he was elected to this Congress. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by quoting John Kennedy who inspired Frank and inspired many of us in this body. Kennedy said: ``I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.'' Mr. Speaker, those were words that Frank McCloskey lived by. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to Roberta, his wife of 30 years, and his two children, Helen and Mark, as well as his family and many friends. Frank McCloskey made this a better body. He made this country better. We mourn his loss. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once remarked that: ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.'' Today, as we note the untimely passing on Sunday afternoon of our friend and former colleague, Indiana Congressman Frank McCloskey--who lost a year-long battle with cancer--let it long be remembered that this Hoosier embraced not only the important concerns of his constituents in southwest Indiana but also the broader concerns of all humanity. In the early 1990s, I worked very closely with Congressman McCloskey and others to call attention to the atrocities and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen in Bosnia. Recall that as the former Yugoslavia disintegrated and Milosevic trained his fury on Bosnia, millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands were killed, and tens of thousands were raped and tortured. Many in the international community--indeed many in this country-- looked away. Frank McCloskey did not. A fact-finding trip to Bosnia in 1991 stirred and galvanized Frank's passion, which, as the Indianapolis Star said on Monday, dominated both the twilight of his life and his political career. At the time of his death, he was the Director of Kosovo Programs for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, where he taught leaders how to govern democratically. Back in the 1990s, as a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Congressman McCloskey was among the first in Congress to call for air strikes against Serbian positions in Bosnia- Herzegovina. He believed such strikes were needed to prevent hostilities from spilling over to Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and other provinces. Frank urged that Milosevic be tried as a war criminal, which now in fact is happening. He and I worked to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. And he was not shy about criticizing the Clinton administration when he disagreed with its handling of the conflict. Mr. Speaker, political expediency practically demanded that Frank McCloskey focus on shoring up his position in the Eighth Congressional District. As is well know, he won his first attempt at re-election to this body in 1984 by four--yes, four--votes. But in spite of the fact that he won six congressional races in one of the most competitive districts in America, political calculation did not crowd out the humanity in Frank McCloskey's heart. He was commanded by conscience to do what he believed was right--for his constituents, for his nation, and for humanity, too. Mr. Speaker, Frank McCloskey crowded an enormous amount of living into his 64 years. He served our Nation for 4 years in the Air Force; graduated from Indiana University with bachelor's and law degrees; worked as a newspaper reporter in Chicago, Bloomington and Indianapolis; and served as Bloomington's mayor for 10 years before being elected to Congress. Still, though his contributions were many, one cannot help but think that they would have been even greater had he been given the gift of more time in his life. Let me close by quoting John F. Kennedy, who inspired Frank McCloskey, as well as myself: ``I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose,'' said President Kennedy, ``Human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.'' Mr. Speaker, those were words that Frank McCloskey lived by. We are all the beneficiaries of his tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and basic dignity. As we mourn his loss and honor him by naming this post office in his honor, I want to express my sincere condolences to his wife of 30 years, Roberta, and his two children, Helen and Mark, as well as his family and many friends.