Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. HOYER. I do not want to announce it for the gentleman, but I appreciate it. I appreciate the comments of the leader and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Huntingtown community in my district experienced a tragic and untimely loss, a loss to the U.S. Postal Service, a loss to the 5th District of Maryland, a loss to a community, and a loss to many close family and friends. I wish to take a moment today to pay tribute to the memory of Michael Dean, Postmaster of the Huntingtown Post Office in Huntingtown, MD. Mike Dean tragically died following a motorcycle accident on January 9, 2003. He was a highly respected Postmaster who had been recognized on numerous occasions for his outstanding work with the Postal Service. On many occasions, he was given the opportunity to advance his career by accepting a well-deserved promotion. He always refused, preferring to stay and serve the community of his beloved ``Downtown Huntingtown.'' His accomplishments within the Postal Service, within his community, and within his church are so numerous that it is impossible to list them all. For the Postal Service, Mike will be remembered as a loyal and trusted co-worker. He was a teacher and mentor to newly appointed Postmasters. He was a person his manager or a fellow Postmaster could call upon when help was needed anywhere, at any time. He was active for many years in the National Association of Postmasters of the United States. To his employees at the Huntingtown Post Office, he was much more than just ``the boss.'' He was a friend, advisor, teacher, and a leader by example. Mike was appointed Postmaster of Huntingtown 24 years ago, and he grew along with the town. Until his death, the bond between Mike Dean and his community seemed unbreakable. He served people in every way imaginable with grace, humor, and always with a sense of selflessness. Mike served on the board of directors of the United Way of Calvert County, and was a long- time volunteer with the Meals on Wheels program. He was active with local schools, serving on the PTA and establishing a ``Wee Deliver'' program to promote reading and writing skills. When a neighbor was ill, Mike was there to cut his grass. When a local farmer needed help, Mike was there to help strip tobacco. As a member of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Prince Frederick, he served enthusiastically as president of the Men's Club, raising funds for the parish for numerous projects. When the parish grew so large that it became necessary to create a new parish, he took a leadership role in the formation and development of Jesus the Divine Word Catholic Church. He leaves behind family, many friends, neighbors, and coworkers who mourn his loss deeply. Michael Dean's own life was not without sorrow and loss, but he had the ability to work his way through the pain and difficulty, and to emerge from difficult times still strong in his faith, and ready to serve his fellow man. In this way, I would like to take a moment to honor the memory of a colleague, a dear friend, and beloved family member to so many.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to us. I understand we are coming back at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday and leaving no later than 1 p.m. on Thursday. I know the gentleman's party has its retreat. Ours is this week, as the gentleman knows. I would ask the leader, Mr. Speaker, he indicates that the conference committee report may come back on Wednesday. If that is the case, does the gentleman have any information as to when the conference might meet?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that both of us are brand new in this job and this is the first time we are doing this, I want the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to know that I am pleased to yield to him today and will be pleased to yield to him in days to come. I want him to stay leader; I would just like to change the designation, the adjective, but I yield to the majority leader.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Assuming that the conference report would be offered on Wednesday, assuming that work gets done, can the leader give us any information on the kind of rule under which that conference report would be considered? And I say that, Mr. Speaker, to the leader in the context that most members of the Committee on Appropriations, not to mention most Members of the House, have not had the opportunity to see exactly what is in the bill. I think we just got the papers yesterday, so there has not been much consideration. As the chairman, I am sure, knows, there will be a desire on, I am sure, both sides of the aisle, perhaps, to offer some legislative proposals to the conference committee report if they are made in order. Can the gentleman enlighten us as to what kind of rule the conference committee report might be considered under?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman has said; but I am sure the gentleman also understands our consternation, because we are going on a retreat for 2 days. We are leaving here tomorrow morning. I ask the gentleman when the conference is going to occur. We really do not know when the conference is going to occur. As the gentleman knows, like himself, I am a ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. I have received no notice of a scheduled conference on this particular piece of legislation. I am one of the higher-ranking Members in the House. Therefore, I would think the gentleman and I would have access; but the more junior members of the Committee on Appropriations and those who do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations, while theoretically having some access to a conference, if the conference is never held, if there is no scheduled meeting, if they have no opportunity to participate in those deliberations, it is very difficult for them, short of acting on the floor, to consider this legislation. So I would simply ask of the leader, Mr. Speaker, again in light of the extraordinarily unusual process that has been pursued over the last 12 months in dealing with the appropriation bills, and the fact that we did not bring the Labor-Health, one of the largest bills that our committee considers, to the floor or to full committee or to subcommittee for consideration, and yes, the chairman introduced a bill, but it was introduced by the chairman alone; it was not cosponsored by anybody else. That did not give us much input. I will not belabor this point further, but I would hope and ask my colleagues, in light of the fact that this is the first substantive piece of legislation that we are going to consider, that it be considered with an opportunity for those of us who represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 49 percent of the people of the United States to have their voice heard meaningfully in the deliberations.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me make a couple of comments. First of all, the gentleman is almost right; we did 11 of the 13 bills. But the second largest bill, of course, as the gentleman knows, on discretionary spending, not only did we not do it, but it was not considered in subcommittee, much less in full committee, the Labor- Health bill, which is, of course, itself over $125 billion in discretionary spending, and somewhere approximately $300 billion, when we include the mandatory spending within that bill, as the gentleman recalls. But as the gentleman makes the point, this is the most unusual procedure for the appropriations process that I have seen in my 20 years on the committee. It is the least involvement, I think, that members of the Committee on Appropriations in the House have had on the product that now is being sent to us by the Senate. I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the Labor-Health bill introduced 2 days ago a Labor-Health alternative, which presumably will be used as a basis for that title of the bill to be conferenced. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I would very much hope that in light of the extraordinarily unusual circumstances under which this appropriation bill is being considered, essentially emanating from the Senate, which obviously from the House position is not what we want to see as normal practice, that the majority would very seriously consider, in the interests of democracy in this House, with a small ``d,'' and in the interest of full debate on the priorities we are going to set forth in this bill that deals with over $360 billion of discretionary spending, to have a rule that is not traditional, because we are not dealing with a traditional process. I would hope that the leader, in discussions with the Speaker, with the majority whip, and with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), would consider a process which would allow Members to have a greater opportunity to express their views on this particular bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for the better part of a year University of Maryland basketball fans have been celebrating and enjoying the National Championship won by the Terps in April 2002. This was a wonderful accomplishment for which coach Gary Williams and his players have been widely praised, and they deserve a tremendous amount of respect and credit for bringing, the University its first men's basketball title, But there is another individual whose contributions to the 2001-02 championship season should not be overlooked--former Maryland coach Charles ``Lefty'' Driesell, who earlier this year retired after 41 years in the coaching ranks. When coach Driesell arrived in College Park for the 1969-70 season, after having turned small Davidson College into a respected Division I basketball program, his stated goal was to make Maryland ``the UCLA of the East.'' And while no university has ever won titles at the rate of John Wooden's Bruins, the fact is that Lefty Driesell established at the University of Maryland one of the nation's elite basketball programs. Maryland fans now take for granted that the Terps will challenge for the ACC title, receive an invitation to the NCAA tournament, and be among the handful of serious contenders for a trip to the Final Four. But that wasn't always the case. Consider that during the first 50 seasons of men's basketball at the University, prior to the arrival of Coach Driesell, the Maryland men's basketball team won 53 percent of its games, twice finished the season ranked in the AP poll, and played in the NCAA tournament one time. In the 33 full seasons since Lefty came to Maryland, the Terps have a winning percentage of 65 percent, have been ranked 14 times, and have made a remarkable 19 NCAA tournament appearances. Because of the level of success that has been achieved and maintained, the University is now able to recruit from among the nation's top high school players. But it is the initial success, or ``turning a program around,'' that is the difficult first step. Coach Williams' two Final Four appearances and National Championship last year were built on the foundation established by Lefty Driesell in the 1970s and 1980s. Coach Driesell's career numbers are almost too much to comprehend, but a few are worth noting. He retires with 786 wins, behind only Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp and Bob Knight; he compiled 22 career 20-win seasons; he is the only coach to win at least 100 games at four schools, and one of only three coaches to take four schools to the NCAA tournament; he was twice voted ACC coach of the year and won more games during his 17 seasons in College Park than any other Maryland coach. But Charles Driesell was not just the ``Lefty'' we all came to know and love as the Maryland basketball coach. Joyce Gunter, his wife of more than 50 years, his four children and 8 grandchildren know him as a loving and committed father and husband. He has also been officially recognized by the NCAA as a hero for his actions the night of July 12, 1973. Driesell was surf fishing with some friends around midnight in Bethany Beach, Delaware when they spotted flames shooting from a nearby townhouse complex. Coach Driesell broke down the door and started getting the people out of the burning buildings, and he is credited with having saved the lives of ten children that evening. For his actions, Driesel received the NCAA Valor Award in 1974, which is presented to a coach or administrator currently associated with intercollegiate athletics, or to a current or former varsity letter- winner at an NCAA institution who, when confronted with a situation involving personal danger, averted or minimized potential disaster by courageous action or noteworthy bravery. In the nearly 30 years since its creation, the award has only been presented eight times, which speaks to the true heroism of Coach Driesell's actions that night. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Charles ``Lefty'' Driesell on his much-deserved retirement and thank, him for his contributions to the University of Maryland, its fans and the citizens of the great state of Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the hollow promises must end. Last night President Bush said, and I quote, ``Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.'' That was correct that he said that. Last year he said, ``Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.'' I think he was right to say that. The late fees, however, on those promises are piling up. My friends on the other side of the aisle, not, by the way, members of the Committee on Appropriations, and not under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who does an extraordinary job in our committee, but some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are licking their chops at the smorgasbord of tax cuts that would fatten the wealthy and leave scraps for most Americans and force our children to pay the bill. But they do not want to spend resources now that are needed for Federal agencies to respond to terrorist threats. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) tried to bring that to their attention. Nor will they honor the bipartisan pledge to improve our educational system. Within the limits of parliamentary procedures, we are limited in what can be offered in this motion. However, its purpose is critical. It is time to leave the hot air behind and the rhetoric behind and to live up to our commitment and the expectations of those who sent us here. It is time to live up to our commitment to indeed leave no child behind. We made a promise to help schools implement reforms to meet higher standards. We have asked States and local school districts to do the work, and we must show that we were serious, that we meant what we said, that we will put the Nation's money where the Nation's heart is. The House bill is $5.7 billion less than the other body's funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. If we pursue that number, we will leave millions of children behind. This is simply inadequate, inadequate to help local school districts meet the new mandates we insisted upon just last year. Title I is intended to help disadvantaged students meet high academic standards, a critical objective. Ten million children are eligible for Title I services. Again, the House only meets two-thirds of the $16 billion we need. I say to my friends, that is saying to over 3 million children in America there is no room in this rich inn. The other body provides an additional $500 million, and we ought to give them at least that level so that we leave no child behind. The other body also provides $2 billion more in IDEA grants, children with disabilities who seek an education. We promised the States we would participate; $2 billion light are we. The House level provides less than half of the Federal contribution toward the added cost of special education that is authorized under IDEA. Again, we as the representatives of the American people need to ensure the fact that America lives up to its promises. We must not forget our veterans either. Over 310,000 veterans are on waiting lists for medical care, and many veterans are waiting as long as 6 months for an appointment to see a doctor. To a person last night we stood and cheered and clapped with respect and appreciation for those who serve us in uniform both here and abroad. Should we do any less for them when they are through their active service but need the health care we have promised? It is an outrage to not do so. Freedom's defenders deserve better. We must fully fund VA medical care. We do not do it. Finally, with regard to homeland security, the Council on Foreign Relations reported last October that we are ``dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.'' The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pleaded with the President of the United States to respond to this vulnerability. The cost of addressing our vulnerabilities is a mere fraction of the President's $674 billion tax cut. I was elected to State Senate in 1966. Ted Agnew, who was then the county executive of Baltimore County, elected Governor that same year, and in the inaugural address he said this: That the price of progress far exceeds the cost of failure. The billions of dollars that were suggested by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could save us tens of billions of dollars, as the President said, in preventing just one catastrophic event. I hope my colleagues will support this motion. I hope my colleagues will stand and say we promise and we talk, but this motion says we are also prepared to take the walk. I believe Americans are prepared to take that walk as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and congratulate my chairman, as always, for trying to do the best job he possibly can under the circumstances and the facts that he is dealing with. I do not speak in my capacity as whip but as I guess still the ranking member of the Treasury, Postal committee, or whatever capacity I am in, because we have not reconstituted that committee. Mr. Speaker, in the Treasury, Postal committee we included a number of dollars in the supplemental, which would be the subject of the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of and that we would like to offer and we think is critical. First of all, there was $400 million in there for the emergency first responders. That is a critical figure. All of us are for that. I do not think anybody is opposed to that. As a matter of fact, all of us were for all the dollars that were in this bill. We voted on it, passed it, and it was sequestered by the President. We believe that it is underminding homeland security not to move ahead with these finances at this point in time. And not only the $400 million for first responders, but I was at the White House today with the leadership and brought up the funding of the election reform bill. The election reform bill was the most significant bipartisan success that we had in the 107th Congress. The chairman was a very important part of passing that and committing ourselves to funding that election reform legislation to make sure that every American vote not only is cast but is counted accurately. There was $400 million in that bill for that objective. The President agreed today that we ought to fund that. Mitchell Daniels agreed we ought to fund it. I do not say they were for this particular amendment, but they believe that funding is appropriate funding. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful and believe that we will get a higher figure. In this amendment was $28.5 million for the Secret Service to support the increased cost to protective details and to implement provisions of the PATRIOT Act we passed to secure our homeland. But it needs funding. This $28.5 million would be in that request. In addition, there were $39 million for the Customs Service Container Security initiative. We have heard recently the vulnerability of our ports and the infrastructure in our ports to boats, ships coming into our ports that may be laden with explosives. Customs needs to have additional resources in order to check this. I do not think anybody disagrees with that proposition. However, it has languished unfunded. Mr. Speaker, because my time is short, let me mention also, and lastly, $16 million in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, located in Glynco, Georgia. All of us know as a result of the tragedy of 9-11 of the outrage that was committed against this country, that we have made a determination that we are going to upgrade the security of our homeland. One of the ways we are doing that is adding Federal security officers. We are adding them at our airports, we are adding them at our Federal buildings, we are adding them in other places in our Federal infrastructure. We need to train them. This was not anticipated. The demands for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center have, therefore, been substantially increased. But we have not given them the resources to accomplish that training. In doing so, we undermine homeland security. What we are saying is we ought not to wait. We ought to act, and we ought to act now to protect the homeland security. It is very nice for us to pass bills and say we want to do this. But if we do not fund it, we cannot do it. We are going to be talking about that at the end of this month. I would hope to find a way to allow this amendment to be offered and that we could pass this amendment overwhelmingly because I believe the objectives are supported.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 7) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I want to join the distinguished majority leader. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has been one of the most distinguished Members of this body. He has reflected, I think, what the American public expects of each of us: the courage to state our convictions. He stood for those convictions and fought for those convictions, irrespective of their popularity or whether he found himself to be in the majority on any given proposition. I think every Member of this body admires the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for the courage of his convictions. We talk a lot about that, but I think few Members have displayed the courage of their convictions any more dramatically or faithfully than has our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). He is still a very young man, and he has much to offer his country. He fought for his country in Vietnam, and he came here and fought for its ideals. He will continue to serve, I know, as a productive and extraordinary American citizen. We wish him the very best in whatever he may do.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the aisle, I want to say again, as this will be I suppose the last time in the gentleman's role as majority leader that the gentleman addresses the House, we want to congratulate the gentleman on his service. We obviously have had disagreements through the years, but the gentleman has handled himself as a gentleman, and for this side of the aisle, we want to wish the gentleman Godspeed as he enters into a new phase of his career. I know the gentleman's family is pleased to welcome him back to full-time association. I know that was one of the gentleman's prime motives, as he expressed so eloquently on the floor. On behalf of the minority, we want to wish the gentleman every success and good health and happiness in the future.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise because I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on both counts. I had a new granddaughter on July 26 of this year. As a result, I was unable to be on the floor to participate and debate when we passed the homeland security legislation. I voted, however, and voted against it when it came up for a vote just a few weeks ago. I voted against it again for exactly the reasons that the gentleman from Wisconsin has articulated. I believe, unfortunately, it is a false promise. It is a promise that we will affect, by passage of this legislation, security for our homeland. In fact, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has said, what we will do is divert the eyes and attention and focus of those who work in the agencies that are to be reorganized from without, from the threat from the terrorists who would harm our people and our land and divert that to their internal concerns, again, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, as to where their desks will be located, whether they will have the corner office, whether they will be a supervisor, all of the issues that will be involved with reorganization. I make the analogy to a family that is going to move and they are worried about packing up the boxes in their house; and their focus, of course, is on those boxes and what items go in what box. They are not looking outside their house. So that if a terrorist should come or somebody should be outside their house, they may miss because of their focus inward. This bill, however, seeks to secure. It seeks to make our homeland more secure. And there are 435 Members of this body who are absolutely, irrevocably, and passionately committed to that objective. There is no one in this House who is not for ensuring the safety of our people and the security of our homeland. However, we are also concerned about the security of our families. We are concerned about the security of our workers. We are concerned about those 2.1 million people who are going to be put at risk as a result of the failure to pass the unemployment extension. What we are asking the majority party to do is not unusual, as I am sure the majority leader knows. In the course of the 1982 recession, under President Reagan we extended unemployment insurance for over 30 weeks. When we again had a recession in 1991 under the first President Bush, we extended unemployment benefits for more than 30 weeks. In this recession, however, we have extended them for less than 10. That puts individuals at risk. I understand the concerns of the gentleman from Wisconsin about objecting to the passage of this legislation because, unfortunately, we have seen in this Congress that reaching bipartisan agreement is very difficult. The Senate has sent us a bill, passed unanimously. All the Republicans, all the Democrats voted for that piece of legislation. It sits on the desk. The majority leader makes the observation that we do not have an agreement. We could get that agreement, I suggest to the majority leader respectfully. But, furthermore, I point out to the majority leader when this House adjourns sine die tonight or today, if that is the course of action we pursue, that bill will die. It will no longer be available to us, and on December 28 the unemployment extension will end. Eight hundred thousand people will go off the rolls. I do not know exactly how many families that is. There are perhaps two people on unemployment in one family, but it is certainly hundreds of thousands of families that would be put at risk. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has pointed out, 90,000 every week will be added to those rolls. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is probably correct, and the leader is probably correct. Even if we objected, the majority has indicated it does not intend to act. So the only consequence would be the failure of this bill to pass, not the relief to those unemployed workers and their families. It would not solve their angst as they come towards Christmas nor will it solve the problem of those who will enter the new year without support. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would urge, in conclusion, the majority leader to reconsider. We have time. We could pass this bill in literally minutes. I cannot believe that all of us in this House do not want to secure those individuals and those families who through no fault of their own but the economic downturn that has occurred in this country have been placed in a position of having no job, no support for themselves, their families. I would hope that the majority leader would consult with the Speaker, with the majority whip, with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and say to them, it is the right thing to do. We ought to pass this legislation. Our homeland needs to be secure, but our families and workers need to be secure as well.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of this homeland security bill of which we speak is that if we ask the American people, what are the two agencies most responsible for homeland security, one looking overseas at terrorists and one looking at terrorists here in America, they would respond overwhelmingly: the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The irony is neither one of those agencies is included in this reorganization, neither are included in this department, and, therefore, will not be affected in any way by the passage or failure of this particular piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Morgan Wootten has been changing the lives of young men in the Washington area for the last half century. Last month, Mr. Wootten, the head basketball coach at DeMatha High School in Hyattsville, MD, since 1956, announced his retirement. Coach Wootten finished his career with 1,274 wins, 44 consecutive seasons with 20 or more wins, 33 Catholic league championships, 16 city titles, and five national championships. Under Coach Wootten, DeMatha finished the season ranked No. 1 in the area, a record 22 times. More than a dozen of his players have gone on to play in the NBA, 150 have received college basketball scholarships, and more than 20 are currently coaching basketball at some level. And two years ago, the all-time winningest high school basketball coach in America was inducted into the basketball Hall of Fame. But numbers do not tell the story of Morgan Wootten, nor the impact he has had on the lives of those young men he has coached at DeMatha. He is most remembered by his players, and the students in his history classes, for the lessons he taught them about life. Coach Wootten preached to his players the importance of God, family, school and basketball, in that order. His true value is measured in the professional and personal success of those he has taught and coached, and by the number of former players and students who have remained close to him over the years. Mr. Speaker, President Theodore Roosevelt said that ``To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'' Morgan Wootten has educated several generations of young men in both mind and morals, and I offer him my warmest congratulations on is well- deserved retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. With all due respect, that was not my assertion, nor my question. My assertion was that in the event that I indicate to the Speaker that the minority side has no objection to the unanimous consent request propounded by the gentleman from Michigan to allow the unemployment extension bill to be immediately considered, would that have any effect under the rule?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Eichelberger is a Professor of Surgery and of Pediatrics at George Washington University and Director of Emergency Trauma and Burn Service at the Children's National Medical Center, in Washington, DC. He is also president and cofounder of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and a nationally recognized pediatric trauma surgeon. The reason Dr. Eichelberger is so highly regarded became evident on Monday, October 7, when he was called out of a skin graft surgery to begin preparing for a 13-year-old shooting victim who was on his way to Children's Hospital from the Bowie Health Center. The boy had been shot by the Washington-area snipers in front of Benjamin Tasker Middle School, and the dozens of fragments from the sniper's bullet had done extensive and life-threatening damage to a number of the boy's vital organs. Dr. Eichelberger and his team immediately began to make critical decisions about which organs could be saved, and which ones were beyond repair and needed to be removed. The right decisions were made, and the two and a half hour operation saved the boy's life. Although this brave young man faces a long and challenging road to recovery, I am pleased to report that he has been released from the hospital, and I am hopeful that he will in fact make a full recovery from his injuries. Mr. Speaker, this 13-year-old young man is one of the countless youngsters who have been touched by the gifts of Mr. Eichelberger and whose lives have been saved or made better by his compassionate dedication to public service. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that ``Mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.'' I am proud to say that in Dr. Eichelberger, we have given Washington area youngsters the best we have.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If, in fact, under the rules I indicate on behalf of the minority that we have no objection to that unanimous consent request, what effect would that have?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.