Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me time. Let me start, as we start almost every one of these discussions, with the expression of respect and affection for the gentleman who chairs our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), one of the best Members of this House. We disagree, obviously, from time to time on issues, but he is a gentleman who runs his committee and leads, to the extent that he can, this institution in a fair manner. But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, because perhaps above his pay grade we have not seen the same kind of fairness extended and the same kind of adherence to good order that ought to happen. My distinguished friend says sometimes below his pay grade perhaps we do not find that either. Mr. Speaker, this Congress seems destined to end the first session of the 108th Congress in the same hapless and undemocratic way in which we began it. One of our first acts this year was to pass an omnibus appropriations bill on February 13 that wrapped up 11 of the 13 annual spending measures for fiscal year 2003 in one piece of legislation. It was bad enough that we could not finish our work on time and had to pass that omnibus bill 4\1/2\ months, a full third of the year, after the start of the fiscal year. But what was even worse was the fact that the Republican leadership dropped that 3,000 page bill on the Members and forced them to vote on it within a few short hours, a 3,000 page- plus bill. As I said back in February, that was the worst appropriation process that I had seen in 22 years in this body. That was not the desire of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) nor the result of his leadership. However, we now seem determined to outdo ourselves once again. Here it is, November 5, and only 3 of the 13 annual appropriations bills have been signed into law; Defense, Homeland Security and the Legislative Branch. Another spending bill, Interior, awaits the signature of the President. This body today will consider the conference report on the fifth, Military Construction. At least four other spending bills, however, are likely to be included in a year-end omnibus, Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, District of Columbia and VA-HUD, and three others are theoretically, Mr. Speaker, theoretically, in conference; Energy and Water, Transportation-Treasury and Labor-HHS- Education. I will say, since this was written, it is my understanding there is actually, shockingly, a conference being held on Energy and Water. How do I know? Because the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) told me he was going to one. So I am very pleased to see that. I am convinced if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) were making the decisions, we would have full conferences on every bill that is pending. But, Mr. Speaker, there is none, as far as I know, except a motion to go to conference on Foreign Operations which was approved this morning, so we cannot really hold them accountable yet. Mr. Speaker, I am a conferee, duly appointed by Speaker Hastert, on two of those bills allegedly in conference, Transportation-Treasury and Labor-HHS. But let me say, if there are conference meetings going on today or in the past or in the future, I have not been notified of those hearings. I have not attended any. I do not know where they are occurring. I have not had an opportunity to have any input, nor have the 662,000 people that I represent had a voice in those conferences. Either no meetings are being held, or duly appointed conferees on our side of the aisle are being purposely, deliberately, undemocratically excluded. This House passed the Labor-Health bill on July 10. The Senate passed its version nearly a month ago, on September 10. When and where are the meetings, Mr. Speaker? Why are the conferees being deliberately excluded? I have asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that, and he assures me that we are having ``conferences of the willing.'' I presume that means conferences of those who agree. But the voices of dissent or difference are stifled, ignored and shut out. This House passed the Transportation-Treasury bill on September 9. The Senate passed its version 2 weeks ago tomorrow, October 23. Are we meeting on that bill? I have no notice of it. If we are, why are conferees on our side of the aisle, appointed by the Speaker, being deliberately excluded from those meetings? Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts: This leadership is rendering conference committees absolutely meaningless. That is a corruption of the processes of this House. It is a corruption of democracy and the people we represent in this, what we call proudly, the People's House. I do not believe that it is the policy that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) would pursue if he were making the decisions. I have served, Mr. Speaker, on the Treasury and Labor-Health- Education subcommittees for more than 21 years. I am not a new kid on the block. I am used to being included in conferences. I can never remember a time when Democrats controlled the majority, Mr. Speaker, that we failed to hold real conferences on appropriations bills. The distinguished gentleman from Florida, my friend for whom I have unlimited respect and affection, he and I have participated in numerous conferences on the Labor-Health bill that went for days, sometimes weeks. I can remember an extraordinary, historic debate between Senator Byrd and Bill Natcher on a very important provision of our bill that went on literally for days. They had a disagreement. They talked about it in conference. Reporters could see it, the public could see it, Members could see it. There are no conferences that the public can see. There are no conferences the press can report on. Whatever is being done, is being done in secret, undemocratically, unfairly, and it demeans this institution, Mr. Speaker. There are other conferences other than the Committee on Appropriations. There have been no real conference committees on two of the most important pieces of legislation still facing this Congress, on adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and on comprehensive energy reform. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives, serving on this floor longer than any other Member, has been excluded from the conference to which the Speaker appointed him. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), third or fourth in seniority in this House of Representatives, excluded from the conference on prescription drugs. He, however, heard there was a meeting. He went to the meeting. He went through the door, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said, ``You are not welcome, Mr. Rangel. This is only a meeting of the willing. No dissent is allowed in this room,'' except if you happen to be a Republican on the other side of the Capitol, in which case maybe we have to talk to you. But, then again, as we know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Grassley apparently feels in effect he is shut out. Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is absolutely outrageous that Congressional Republicans are considering across-the-board cuts to cover a $3 billion gap, we hear, between House and Senate spending bills. We have not been asked, however, to participate in a conference in which you may make the decisions on what to cut. In the last 7 months, this Congress has passed two emergency supplemental appropriations bills totaling $166 billion. There was zero, none, no debate on how we would pay for those. There was a bill pending in which the Committee on Ways and Means wants to add $60 billion to the debt confronting this country. No question about how it is going to be paid for, it will just be passed. And yet we worry about how to pay for some $3 billion for election reform, for veterans health care and for money to combat global HIV- AIDS, and how to provide $400 million to the Forest Service so they can fight devastating wildfires in the Interior bill. Mr. Speaker, if this process were being run by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), you would find the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I standing here and saying we may disagree on this item, that item or the other item, but we have had a fair opportunity, as he gives us in every committee meeting, to state our points, to offer our amendments, to vote. That is not happening. It is not the gentleman from Florida's fault. The leadership of this House demeans the House by not providing for those procedures.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by Mrs. Lowey to accept the Senate's level of funding for the U.S. contribution in fiscal year 2004 to global programs to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a difficult motion for Members on either side of the aisle to support. It simply calls for the adoption of a funding level for HIV/AIDS programs that was supported in the Senate last week by a vote of 89-1. Furthermore, it does not even reach the authorized level of funding that was signed into law by the President and supported by 375 Members of this House in May. In fact, the President during his State of the Union Address committed $15 billion in foreign assistance spending over 5 years to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Congress has since authorized this level through the enactment of H.R. 1298. Regrettably, the President's budget did not call for the full $3 billion authorized for FY 2004, and the amount provided in the House version of the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations bill falls woefully short of that $3 billion which is necessary to begin making good on our commitment. Mr. Speaker, the problem of HIV/AIDS is especially acute on the Continent of Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where 29.4 million people are living with HIV and AIDS. Put another way, while the African Continent accounts for only about 10 percent of the world's population, more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people reside there; and there are 11,000 new infections in Africa every day. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel to South Africa and saw first hand the extent of the pandemic, the challenges facing African countries as they attempt to deal with this scourge, and the dire need for economic assistance to implement prevention programs and to provide treatment for those already infected. We are at a crucial stage in the global war against HIV/AIDS, with the number of worldwide deaths expected to double from last year's estimate of just over 5 million to nearly 12 million next year. To those who would argue that we cannot afford the additional funding provided in the Senate bill, I say that even this level is still not enough. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to help stop the spread of this HIV/AIDS, to provide comfort and relief to those already suffering its effects, and to give hope to millions around the world who live in despair because of this horrible disease. Our compassion and morality command that we seize that opportunity and live up to the commitment we have made.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it's with great regret that I come to the floor today to note the untimely passing on October 22 of Corinne Michel, a friend of so many of us privileged to serve in this House, and the wife of former House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois. As Mike Johnson, a former Chief of Staff for Bob Michel, told Copley News Service: ``[Corinne] was never affected by all the limelight. Bob used to say people in politics have their feet planted in midair. Hers were always planted firmly on the ground.'' And as Millie Arends, the city treasurer in the Michel's home city of Peoria, Illinois, noted: ``She was well-read on everything. Her husband said she was one his best assets.'' Corinne Michel was born in Onida, South Dakota, and was raised in St. Paul, Minnesota, Pittsburgh and Peoria, Illinois, where her father managed the Livestock Market News. In 1943, she graduated from Peoria High School, and then met Bob when the two sang in the a cappella choir at Bradley University. Corinne was an accomplished classical pianist who graduated with two music degrees and then taught music in the Peoria public schools. In 1948, the Michels were married and eight years later Bob was elected to the House, where he served with distinction for 38 years--including 14 as the Republican leader--before retiring in 1995. While Bob served his constituents and nation in Washington, Corinne raised the couple's four children back in Peoria. She was active in Peoria Players and Central Illinois Youth Symphony and helped bring opera and ballet to Peoria. She also represented Bob at events in his home District. In Washington, she was active in Congressional spouse organizations and chaired the Republican Women's Federal Forum. The Michels' son Scott told the Chicago Tribune: ``Music played a huge role in her [his mother's] life and she passed it on [to her children]. I would come home from school and there would be classical music on the stereo and she would be playing the piano.'' And said our colleague Ray LaHood, a former Chief of Staff for Leader Michel and the successor in his seat, said: ``She was one of the loveliest persons I have ever met.'' A sentiment that all who knew her shared. He continued: ``She never sought the limelight . . . but her husband sought her advice and she gave it to him in her own quiet way.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my sincerest condolences to my friend, the former Republican Leader, who not only is a great credit to this institution but also an American of unquestioned patriotism and courage. Bob Michel, who was wounded as an infantryman in World War II and received two Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart and four battle stars, laid his life on the line so that succeeding generations could experience the freedoms that we enjoy--and too often take for granted--today. Let's recognize today that while Bob Michel soared to great heights throughout his career, he always had a steady, able partner on that journey--his beloved wife, Corinne, whose loss we mourn today. I also want to express my condolences to the Michels' sons, Scott, Bruce and Robin; daughter, Laurie; and three grandsons. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for that observation. I think it is helpful that Members can be confident they can schedule events for the eleventh, Veterans' Day. I think that will be very helpful for Members. The gentleman did not mention the FSC bill, the Foreign Sales Corporation bill. Can the gentleman tell us when you might expect that bill to be on the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand that, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. We agree: a formal conference should have been held. Because it was not, the majority had to waive the rule in the rule that was presented on the floor of the House. With respect to the energy bill and Medicare, I would tell the gentleman in neither case, in the energy bill nor in the prescription drug bill, did the Democratic conferees believe there has been a conference in either instance, in either one of these very important issues on which there have been any kind of discussions regarding the substance of those bills. I simply observe that that is shutting out the representatives of 130 million Americans on our side of the aisle to give their perspective, in conference, with conferees appointed by the Speaker. Now, we all understand that we have discussions with Democrats on our side and there are discussions with Republicans on your side, talking about strategy, talking about compromise, talking about how to work things out. That is understandable. That is necessary. It always and must occur. However, at some point in time, the conferees, we suggest to the gentleman respectfully, need to be included in discussions, not in a pro forma conference at the end of the process, being informed what the bill is. That, frankly, is all that has been happening.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observation. I must, however, say the information he has is different from the information I have on the conference. On the FAA, for instance, there was a meeting on July 24 in which there was no paper, no markup notes, no chairman's mark, no suggested bill, and that was the last meeting, to which the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Democrat, who, as you well know, worked hand in glove with Mr. Shuster and with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) over the years on those committees, simply did not participate. I agree with you, Mr. Leader, on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information. I would note that earlier today, of course, we passed a continuing resolution that will fund the government through November 7, next Friday. We are not going to meet next Friday. It is my presumption, therefore, that the gentleman or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), or both of you, contemplate an additional CR. You have not mentioned anything about the week of November 10 either, Mr. Leader. As you know, November 11 is Veterans' Day. Assuming, as I assume, that we will not finish our business by the close of business on November 6, and in light of the fact the gentleman announced we will not be here on the seventh, can the gentleman for scheduling purposes give Members an idea of what might be the schedule for the week of November 10, again in light of the fact that November 11 is a day that most Members will want to be home with their veterans and citizens. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observations. The leader and I, as the leader knows, have been having a lot of discussions about these conferences that are being held, somewhere, sometime, with some people. I do not know whether the leader was informed, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) took the gentleman literally and found where a meeting at least was going on with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and Secretary Thompson, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), both conferees appointed by the Speaker, went, opened the door, and went through the door with a number of Committee on Ways and Means Members. I must tell the gentleman with great sadness, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) was not overwhelmingly happy to see them, which surprised me to no end, after our discussions and my conversation with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), telling him how these conferences were going on and you wanted to see a bill go through. The gentleman might want to talk to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), because essentially he asked the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to leave. We were shocked and chagrined and surprised, of course, that he would do such a thing. I say this somewhat jocularly, obviously, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were not invited to this meeting, and, if these bills come to the floor next week, they are going to do so without having any Democrat participate in any substantive discussions on the prescription drug bill. The leader is correct, it is a complicated bill, an incredibly important bill, and both sides have expressed strong support for adopting a prescription drug plan for our seniors. There are obviously differences on what ought to be in that plan. But I would again say to the leader, notwithstanding your belief, I think the gentleman may be not informed as fully as he might be, because we continue to have great difficulty finding out where these conferences that the gentleman has been talking about and that the gentleman and I have been talking about, where they are going on, when they are being scheduled and who is supposed to participate. We have been talking about this, and, at some point in time, we really do expect that we will be invited to the conferences. We had a serious bill and we had some disruption on the floor today, Mr. Leader, with reference to the FAA reauthorization bill. We recommitted the bill from this floor to conference. No conference occurred. No Democrats were invited to attend. As far as we know, no conference ever occurred. The bill reappeared, however, with a change. Mr. Leader, we do not think that is in the best interests of this institution, we do not think it is in the best interests of the country, and we do not think it is in the best interests of passing legislation, conference reports, which have broad-based support. I know, as the leader says, these are difficult, and I do not doubt that the leader is absolutely correct, that when an agreement is reached, it is going to take 7 or 8 days for the staff to put it together and in shape. I think the leader is probably correct on that. I am hopeful that even if we are never invited, which seems to be the practice to date, that, at the very least, when somebody, somewhere, in some room, somehow makes a decision as to the bill that is going to be reported to the floor, that, at the very least, we get a copy of that bill in a timely fashion so, as complex a bill as you correctly observe it is, we have the time to analyze it, digest it and determine what we want to do on that bill. I would hope that these comments would be taken in a constructive way, Mr. Leader, because I am very serious about the fact that I have participated, the gentleman has participated, we talked about this in conference committees where we sat down, we talked about it. I can remember the gentleman and I agreeing on some and disagreeing on some in conference, in HC-5 in particular, where we had large numbers of people participating in conferences. I thought those were positive, productive, and reflective of what our democratic legislative process ought to be. We are very distressed on this side of the aisle that that does not appear to be happening. I would hope that you, Mr. Leader, as the majority leader, frankly, as the person most responsible for the schedule, but also one of the most significant leaders in this House, that you would try to work in a very positive way in bringing about conferences, which, again, include the conferees appointed by the Speaker of the House. I yield to the gentleman if he would like to make any comments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. I thank you, Mr. Leader. That was going to be my question. Does the gentleman expect both the energy conference report and the Medicare conference report, the prescription drug report, to be on the floor next week?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observation. We, I think, are getting different information from our principals. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I think, do not share that same view as to whether or not they have been included, two of our most senior Members of this House, two Members deeply concerned about both issues. In any event, Mr. Leader, I appreciate the gentleman clarifying the schedule for next week and the week thereafter. That will be helpful to our Members.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, sadly, the corruption of democracy continues in this House this day. Almost unanimously, we sent a bill back to conference committee for further consideration to protect the safety of the public. During the course of that debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the subcommittee, said nothing in response to an assertion made about public safety. Nothing, I say to my colleagues, can be further from the truth. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) went on to say, ``So we will take this bill back to conference.'' Nothing, my colleagues, could be further from the truth. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) went on to say, ``We will revisit this issue.'' Nothing, my friends, could be further from the truth. He went on to say, ``Anyone who would like, we will make a copy of this report available.'' Nothing, my friends, could be further from the truth. There was no conference, there was no discussion, there was no democracy. Shame on the processes undermining democracy in this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has turned what should have been a bipartisan achievement into a partisan travesty. When we passed this legislation by a vote of 418-8 on July 11, we explicitly barred the privatization of air traffic controllers. We did so because we were concerned about the safety of the American public. The Senate bill which passed 94-0 went even further. It extended the protection to airway system specialists. Why? On behalf of the safety of the American public. Then the Republican leadership hijacked this legislation. It adopted a conference report that rejected the opinion of the House and rejected the opinion of the Senate and stripped out the language barring privatization, again, passed to protect the safety of the American flying public. Instead, it allowed 69 air traffic control towers to be turned over to private companies which must always put the bottom line first, and it removed the protections for airway systems specialists, removed mandatory and terrorism training for flight attendants, and permitted foreign airlines to raid U.S. markets. Even Republicans balked at these changes, and that is why this legislation has hung around for so long, but Mr. Speaker, without the explicit prohibition on privatization that was included in the bill we passed in June, the administration is free to move forward with privatization, notwithstanding the will of the House and the will of the Senate. That should not be acceptable in a democratic legislative body. The flying public deserves better. America deserves better. They need to know that the people on the ground responsible for air safety are not being forced to cut corners to save dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote for a fair process and vote for the public safety by voting down this legislation and this conference report. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for yielding me the time, and I congratulate her for her leadership on this critically important issue. She is the principal author of this resolution, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I are pleased to join her in this important statement. Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself with the very thoughtful remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on this issue. I rise to also thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my friend and counterpart on the Republican side of the aisle, the majority whip, for working with us closely and ensuring that this resolution, which is nothing less than a shared expression of our American values, receives prompt consideration tonight. Madam Speaker, intolerance based on one's religious belief, ethnicity and race is a poison that has coursed throughout the body of human history, and it has caused untold suffering, pain and strife. This great Nation itself, Madam Speaker, was settled by people who fled religious persecution, and I submit that we, the elected Representatives of the strongest and freest Nation on earth and the progeny of that proud legacy, have a moral responsibility to expose and combat such intolerance and prejudice wherever and whenever it rears its head. On Thursday, October 16, as has been said, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made hateful and repugnant anti-Semitic remarks at the Islamic Summit Conference, and those remarks deserve and demand our condemnation in this resolution today. Among other things, the Prime Minister stated, ``The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today, the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.'' He added that, ``They,'' referring to the Jews, ``have now gained control of the most powerful countries, and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.'' He urged Islamic Nations to unite against being ``defeated by a few million Jews.'' And throughout his remarks, he referred to Jews as the enemy. Madam Speaker, these anti-Semitic comments are not simply outrageous and hateful, they are divisive and dangerous. They serve only to foment the destructive lie preyed upon by Hitler and other anti-Semites throughout history, the baseless accusation of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, to which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) referred to earlier, and we, without question, must emphatically and without reservation, and in the strongest possible terms we can summon, reject these toxic untruths. But let me add, Madam Speaker, that what is perhaps even more disturbing, as the gentlewoman from Nevada has so correctly pointed out, more disturbing than one man's malignant invective and his ignorance of the Jewish people's persecution today and throughout history, more disturbing is the fact that he received a standing ovation from many of the leaders of Muslim Nations in attendance. Not only as the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) pointed out did they not walk out, they applauded. They applauded approval. Madam Speaker, that must be unacceptable, not just in this land but throughout the world. Agreeing with or acquiescing in such religious and ethnic bigotry is every bit as dangerous as an incitement to it, and neither the acquiescence nor the incitement can go unchallenged in the civilized world. As the British politician Edmund Burke wrote more than 200 years ago, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' We must not do that. I thank the gentlewoman for her time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize ``Navy Day,'' observed on October 27th, and to pay tribute to the impressive work done at the naval bases in my district, Patuxent River Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Surface Warfare Center and St. Inigoes. The Fifth Congressional District's naval bases are critical facilities that help our nation meet the threats and challenges of a new century, and their geographic proximity to the nation's capital also makes them valuable homeland security assets as well. I would like to take the observation of ``Navy Day'' to salute their efforts and to acknowledge the vital roles and important military capabilities performed at these three facilities. Navy Day was established on October 27, 1922 by the Navy League of the United States. October 27 was suggested by the Navy League to recognize Theodore Roosevelt's birthday. Roosevelt had been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy and supported a strong Navy as well as the idea of Navy Day. In addition, October 27 was the anniversary of a 1775 report issued by a special committee of the Continental Congress favoring the purchase of merchant ships as the foundation of an American Navy. As a community, we owe special thanks to the members of the naval family that sacrifice their own safety to protect our nation. They define the spirit of public service and we are grateful for their past and present services. Over the past several months, in Iraq and around the world, their purpose has been the protection and security of our people, and the promotion of peace, stability and the rule of law in Iraq, the Middle East and the international community, and they should know that a grateful nation supports their service and sacrifice. We celebrate Navy Day in commemoration of past and present servicemen and women of the Navy as they have fought the enemies of freedom and prevailed. Their courage and resolve is fundamental to our security and way of life. Navy Day gives us the opportunity to appreciate their achievements and gain inspiration from their bravery. They succeed because they are dedicated to the values of this country and to its national security in the face of global terrorism. The Navy plays a key role in the lives of thousands of Maryland residents, and thus I continue to place the future of the Navy in Maryland as one of my highest priorities. As the Department of Defense, the White House and Congress prepare for the next round of base closings in 2005, I am certain that the overwhelming support of the community, the important three-way partnership between federal, state, and local officials necessary to protect this powerful economic engine for the state, and the valuable homeland security assets of these bases prove the important contributions to our nation's defense and prosperity of Southern Maryland's defense installations. May God continue to bless our country and may God continue to bless the men and women of the fifth districts Naval bases.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I learned this week of the passing of Alija Izetbegovic, formerly the President of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a former Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I knew President Izetbegovic and followed the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina closely and with great concern. Under Izetbegovic's early leadership in 1990 and 1991, Bosnia- Herzegovina sought to cope with the disintegration of the former Yugoslav federation of which it was a part, a particularly difficult task given the republic's very multi-ethnic population which had benefitted greatly under that federation. Eventually, Izetbegovic led Bosnia-Herzegovina to respond by asserting independent statehood in early 1992, an act used immediately as a pretext by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in neighboring Serbia to wage a war of aggression and genocide. Seeing the international community take little action to stop well-armed Serb militants from seizing more than two-thirds of the country, the regime of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, another neighbor, later joined the fray. In the next three years, the ethnic cleansing associated with this conflict would cause the forced displacement of millions, the death of hundreds of thousands and the rape or torture of tens of thousands of innocent people. By 1995, the international community was essentially shamed into taking more decisive action by atrocities like that which occurred in Srebrenica and fresh attacks on civilians in Sarajevo. The international community also recognized that not doing so had definite implications for the future of post-Cold War Europe. The result was NATO intervention and the negotiation of the Dayton Agreement, which preserved Bosnia territorial integrity on the one hand but hampered its recovery and development by legitimizing internal division on the other. Alija Izetbegovic, ethnically a ``Bosniak'' or Muslim Slav, retained power, but shared the presidency in a new arrangement with Bosnian Serb and Croat counterparts. Given these circumstances, it is difficult to assess Izetbegovic's legacy. As a dissenter in Tito's Yugoslavia and as a politician during the emergence of multi-party politics, Izetbegovic expressed devoutness to the Islamic faith and pride in Bosnia's Muslim heritage. The conflict, however, denied Izetbegovic the chance to prove his claimed desire to respect the religious beliefs of others, to embrace Bosnia's cultural diversity and to become part of Europe. While Sarajevo was under siege, he correctly asserted that international principles of tolerance and respect were as threatened as that city's population. As the feckless United Nations and Europe failed to stop the conflict quickly, Izetbegovic's Bosnia became increasingly vulnerable to militant Islamic infiltration as well as corruption, both of which plague the country to this day. From his hospital bed in late September, however, Alija Izetbegovic was quoted as saying to the media that Bosnia will survive as a state if ``Serbs stay Serbs, Croats stay Croats, and [Muslims]stay [Muslims], but they also should all be Bosnians . . . Nobody should seek revenge but rather justice, because revenge starts a chain of evil that has no end,'' adding that people ``should not forget the past but not live in it. They should turn toward the future.'' As I note the passing of Alija Izetbegovic, Mr. Speaker, and we express our condolences to his family, friends and supporters, we should also recall with equal sadness the troubled times he and the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina faced a decade ago.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I look forward to hearing from the gentleman as to where these conferences are occurring because I assure the gentleman that I will be enthusiastic about participating and raising this issue and other issues when we find out where that elusive conference is occurring. I thank the leader for his information.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the last question, the gentleman will be happy to hear. The House voted by a pretty good number to instruct the conferees on the issue of overtime pay, a substantial number of votes from his side and most of the votes from our side, if not all, all but two. Can the leader tell me whether or not he believes that instruction is being implemented by the conference?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I will notify the gentleman that I am not being noticed. My conclusion is different than his, however. My conclusion is that I would be invited if they were having them. I do not think they are having them, but I may be in error, Mr. Leader. If the gentleman will check on that and let us know whether or not, in his terms, a formal conference has been held or is scheduled to be held on the Labor-Health bill, it will be news to me. But I would appreciate that information, and I appreciate the gentleman's offer. Madam Speaker, last week the gentleman and I had a discussion about these conferences. On the Labor-Health bill, we are very concerned about the Labor-Health bill's funding as the gentleman knows. In the No Child Left Behind, the President was very strong on the No Child Left Behind. We believe in that bill, that that is short about $8 billion. Does the gentleman have any information as to whether or not such sums may be added to the Labor-Health bill to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I keep harping on this because I think it is important to make the point. Our folks are not included in whatever discussions are going on. As a result, we have no idea as to whether or not we think, in fact, Medicare is being strengthened or whether it is being weakened, whether prescription drugs are being made available to seniors, whether they are affordable, accessible, guaranteed, all of which we think is very important. We think this needs to be a voluntary program. I think we agree on that. But as a result of not being included, we do not know, and we think it is not good for the process that whatever meetings are going on are not what we believe to be conferences of conferees because conferees are not being included. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), specifically, have not been included, and they are chief conferees, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman from Texas is a conferee himself, as I understand. We would hope that if, in fact, they are going to bring this bill to the floor, and if, in fact, a real conference is to be scheduled that it be done soon and that all of the conferees be included to discuss the parameters of a bill which can pass both House and Senate and be sent to the President. Of the appropriation bills the gentleman mentioned, does he know which ones are most likely to be on the floor next week?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, we would hope that would give Members no less than 48 hours to review the bill, have the staffs review it, so we know what is in it. Because, as I said, we have not had the opportunity to be included in the conference. On the Medicare prescription drug, the gentleman mentioned the Medicare bill in response to my question. Can he tell me the status of the Medicare conference, and can he tell me whether or not he expects that bill to be on the floor prior to the November 7 target date for adjournment?

Mr. HOYER. As the leader knows, this bill comes about by a WTO ruling which places in jeopardy the United States, and we believe that we have a solution which advantages U.S. manufacturers, and we are very hopeful this does move ahead so our country does not confront at the end of this year, as the European Union has suggested it might, take action if we have not corrected the deficiency which the WTO has found. I hope that we could move that bill before we leave here. The leader mentioned several conference reports which will come up next week. Which are the most likely? Energy was mentioned. Energy was a possibility for this week. How confident is leadership that energy will come next week? This is a complicated bill, a very important bill; and I would ask you to comment, and I would ask you to facilitate the availability of this bill as soon as possible, and more than 24 hours before because it is a complicated bill. We need time to review it; and as the leader knows, we have not been included, from our perspective, in the conference proceedings so we do not know what is in this bill at this point in time. First, how confident is the gentleman that the conference report will come next week; and, second, can we be assured that we will receive a copy of the report and the accompanying bill hopefully by Friday afternoon?

Mr. HOYER. Unfortunately, it is our position that the children, those 12 million children, the 6.5 million families, the 200,000 military families who would otherwise be eligible, are the ones who are paying the price for the inability of the two Houses to come together when apparently both Houses believe that they ought to get the tax relief of which we speak, and but for the difference on making it permanent, would be getting. I would again reiterate our hope in the next 2 weeks that we plan on being in session, that if we cannot resolve the differences between the two Houses, we would urge leadership to reconsider that and pass at least the 1- or 2-year extension while we try to reach agreement on the differences that exist between the two Houses. Mr. Leader, on the FSC bill, it is our understanding that the Committee on Ways and Means will mark up this legislation on Monday. Does leadership expect the bill to be on the floor next week or does leadership expect it to pass before we leave?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman, would it be fair to conclude there will be no action on the child tax credit?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, November 7 is indicated as the target date for adjournment. So that Members can plan, how confident is leadership that we can meet that date? How strong is leadership's intention to meet that date?