Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We come now to the end of this debate. It has been a short debate, too short a debate; but it has been a long road from November 2000 to today. It was a road taken by many people. Paul Vinovich, the chief counsel of our committee, Chet Kalis, who has done an extraordinary job on this bill and was one of the anchors, in my opinion, as we worked through this bill. Roman Buehler, who had strong contributions to this bill and a great knowledge that he brought to the consideration of this bill. Pat Leahy, who did an extraordinary job himself. Matt Petersen, Maria Robinson, Keith Abouchar, Dr. Abouchar, of my staff, who from the very first of this bill has worked daily on its provisions. Len Shambon, Bill Cable, Matt Pinkus, Noah Wofsy, Bob Bean, Neil Volz, who are no longer with us; and Beth Stein, who now works in the Senate. All of these staffers have played an extraordinary role. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged earlier the Speaker of the House. I want to acknowledge the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who was steadfast in his support of this process and whose help was absolutely critical to the final product and who met with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and me when we requested him to do so to discuss how we could move this bill forward. And then, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who is on the floor here today, that the gentleman from the State of Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my dear and close friend, one of the giants of this institution, his commitment to funding this legislation was and is absolutely critical. He and the Speaker have been extraordinarily supportive. And now we come to a challenge to get the $2 billion that we are going to need for this year and the $1 billion after that and the $1 billion after that to ensure that this is not an empty promise. Mr. Speaker, there are two bills I think that when I end my career I will look back on as being the most important bills in which I was involved: one that I had the privilege of sponsoring, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and this bill I have had the privilege of cosponsoring with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). There was an article in the paper just a few days ago talking about the gentleman from Ohio and me and our relationship and how we worked together in a nonpartisan fashion. Not in a bipartisan fashion, but in a nonpolitical, nonpartisan fashion, knowing full well that Americans expect us to work together to make sure this institution works as well as it possibly can, with fairness to all 435 Members. I am blessed by the fact that the gentleman from Ohio is committed to that objective and he runs an open, fair, and effective committee. I am pleased and honored to be his colleague. I want to say as well that I am honored to have served in this House that has come to this day in a bipartisan fashion. When the roll is called, we are going to see the overwhelming majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats vote to ensure that every American not only has the right to vote but will be assured that this greatest of democracies will ensure that every individual, high or low, black or white, rich or poor, will be assured that their vote will count.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the Waters Commission on which I also had the opportunity to serve.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. I want to speak on the substance, but I want to spend 30 seconds on the process. I want to tell those of my colleagues who were not here prior to 1994 that their side of the aisle was regularly outraged at procedures that were pursued, none of which were as egregious as some of the process that we are confronted with. I do not believe this is a process that anybody on the Committee on Appropriations would sanction, on either side of the aisle. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is absolutely correct, and I join him in those comments. Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit this House can point to real legislative accomplishments this week. We considered our most solemn duty, a resolution authorizing our Commander-in-Chief to use our Armed Forces. We finally passed two appropriations conference reports; two down, 11 to go. We will soon take up landmark election reform legislation, the Help America Vote Act of 2002. But, Mr. Speaker, one week does not a session make. There is little doubt that the preceding 5 weeks were anything but an evasion of leadership and responsibility. While we bobbed and weaved, the American people took it on the chin again and again and again. The unemployment rate showed a tiny reduction from 5.7 to 5.6 percent from August to September, but it still was far above the rate of 3.9 percent in October, 2000. There are 8.1 million unemployed Americans today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of 2\1/2\ million Americans from just 2 years ago. The year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7 million new jobs. Since January of 2001, we have lost 1.5 million jobs. The poverty rate increased for the first time in 8 years in 2001. In the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans slipped back into poverty, with 32.9 million now living in poverty and this the richest nation on the face of the earth. The median household income fell 2.2 percent in 2001, after increasing every year since 1992. More than 400,000 bankruptcies were filed in the second quarter of this year, an all-time high. In the same quarter, 1.23 percent of home loans were in foreclosure, a record high, but that is not all. The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1.4 million people from the end of 2000 to the end of 2001. Health insurance costs increased 12.7 percent in 2002, the largest annual increase since 1990. Prescription drug prices increased by nearly twice the rate of inflation in 2001. And then, of course, as all of us know, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value between January, 2001, and September, 2002. But the topper, the most egregious statistic for which we have a large share of the responsibility, has been the historic reversal of the Federal budget. The $86.6 billion surplus inherited by this administration, excluding Social Security, that President Bush inherited has turned into a $314 billion deficit, almost half a trillion dollars; and the only medicine the Republican party's economic gurus can prescribe is this--cut taxes. As we consider this continuing resolution, I urge the American people to ask themselves Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are we better off today than we were 2 years ago? The answer tragically and unfortunately is we are not.

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

Mr. HOYER. I believe there is time, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. We have heard much about the budget and the fact we have not passed the budget in the same form through two Houses. But as I recall, we passed a deeming resolution budget, which means the House numbers are the numbers we are supposed to adhere to. Am I not correct that we used that deeming resolution to pass the five bills to which the gentleman previously referred that have passed the House? Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, could we not, therefore, have passed the other eight bills in the same manner?

Mr. HOYER. I agree with the gentleman, because there are very substantial differences. The gentleman mentioned a number of differences in our priorities. But what that would have done, Mr. Speaker, is to make it clear what those differences are for the American people in terms of education, in terms of health care, in terms of biomedical research. So we could have done that and set before the American people the differences that exist between our body and the other body, could we not?

Mr. HOYER. Again, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I agree that would have been easier; and, furthermore, I believe, had there been agreement and a majority for the House-passed budget numbers, we could have passed our bills. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the votes are not there to sustain the budget the House passed and put forward, and that really is the nub of the problem, that we passed a budget that was not realistic and that, therefore, we and the Committee on Appropriations are unable to pass bills which can garner the requisite votes to pass. And I sympathize with the gentleman's challenge.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, today and tomorrow the Members of this House consider our most solemn constitutional obligation, a resolution that authorizes our Commander in Chief to use our Nation's Armed Forces. We do not savor this awesome responsibility, but we will not shrink from it either. The seriousness of this occasion dictates that we debate today not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans, Americans of conscience and principle who love their country and who are committed to the security of this Nation and its people. This resolution in my view does not sound the drumbeat of war. Rather, it provides Saddam Hussein with his last chance for peace. I will support it. The resolution reflects the concerns and judgment of Members of this House from both sides of the aisle. It supports our diplomatic efforts, limits and defines the scope of authorization and requires the President to notify Congress before using force and to consult with Congress throughout the process. Saddam Hussein's malevolence and expansionist designs are not in dispute. He used mustard gas and attacked civilians during his 8-year war with Iran. He attacked Kurdish villages in northern Iraq with chemical weapons. He invaded Kuwait before an international coalition repulsed him. He fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. He attempted to assassinate our own President, former President George Bush. And he has and continues to savage and enslave his own people. Saddam Hussein is a vanquished tyrant who owes his existence to the fact that the international community did not effect his ouster in 1991. In hindsight, the cause of peace and regional stability, as well as the well-being of the Iraqi people who toil under his boot, dictated that result. Yet, like the long line of aggressors who pockmark history, Hussein has preyed on international irresolution. He disdains and refuses to submit to weapons inspections. He continues his efforts to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he sponsors international terrorism. Saddam Hussein continues to be an unacceptable threat whose duplicity requires action, action now. Reverting to a failed inspection regime would permit hope to ignore history. Hussein is in no position to negotiate. He must provide unrestricted access to all Iraqi sites with no single compensation acceptable. And if he refuses, he must realize the consequences and realize as well that he is solely responsible for those consequences. The United States must continue to seek the widest support for a tough inspection regime that ensures Hussein is disarmed. Unilateral action carries tremendous risk. Yet we know that international vacillation has often emboldened tyrants and compounded bloodshed and instability. In just the last decade, a halting, indecisive United Nations bore witness to genocide in the former Yugoslavia and tragically did little to stop it. The reign of terror perpetuated by Slobodan Milosovic blazed until NATO extinguished it. Thus, in the face of tyranny, we must not allow our commitment to secure the imprimatur and participation of the international community to become the sine qua non of American policy. The risk of inaction today in my opinion poses previously unfathomed dangers for tomorrow. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the most virulent strain of terrorism which targets innocents and glories in suicidal mass murder could render national inaction a virtual death sentence to far too many. Let there be no mistake, the United States must continue to be a leading proponent of multilateral institutions and the peaceful resolutions of disputes. However, in the absence of international unity in confronting Hussein and his criminal regime, we must not be frozen into inaction in the face of a clear and present danger. Let me add, with all due respect to my colleagues who have expressed their sincere concern that this resolution authorizes the President to use Armed Forces preemptively, that I see a clear distinction here. We have had an ongoing engagement in Iraq since that nation agreed to terminate its hostility towards its neighbors in 1991. Our pilots who have been fired on by Iraqi military can attest that our engagement continues. Thus, I do not agree that we are setting a possibly dangerous precedent. Mr. Speaker, we have given and should continue to give diplomacy and international coalition-building efforts every opportunity. Saddam Hussein has chosen to ignore his obligations and to continue his dangerous designs. If he fails to seize this last chance for peace, then he will bear sole responsibility for his own destruction. Mr. Speaker, we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our purpose is not territorial acquisition. Our purpose is 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. We must not shrink from this responsibility.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations commemorates the beginning of the Space Age by celebrating World Space Week this October 4th through the 10th. Celebrated in nearly fifty nations, this week is designated to recognize the progress of technology, anticipate new economic opportunities and find new means for transforming life in space and on Earth to improve the lives of people around the world. The theme for Space Week 2002 is ``Space and Daily Life''. The benefits of community participation in World Space Week are far reaching. It is a proactive way to demonstrate public support for space programs, encourage youth to learn about space and the possibilities of the future, promote institutions around the world that are involved in space and to foster international cooperation in space outreach and education. I am proud to say that the 5th District of Maryland has a variety of dynamic activities that will allow community members to participate in Space Week. The initiatives taken by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the Office of Space Science Sun-Earth Connection Education Forum, the Living with Star Initiative, Prince George's County Economic Development Corporation and Maryland Space Business Roundtable have made it possible for every public high school and middle school in Maryland to receive information on World Space Week. In today's increasingly technological world, it is vital to the future advancement of our country to encourage our youth to take an active learning interest in academic fields and career paths such as space, science and math. Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt, which is a school in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District that I represent, has responded to this need by organizing a panel discussion about space in conjunction with Goddard Space Center. This event is a testament to their dedication to academic excellence. Roosevelt High School has even been honored as a 2002 National School of Character, which recognizes their outstanding efforts to encourage the social, ethical and academic development of students through character education. I would also like to commend the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland for its contributions to the exploration and peaceful use of outer space. The cutting-edge technologies they have developed have played a large role in attracting scientists, engineers and technicians who create next-generation spacecraft, sensor and instrument technologies which are used to benefit Maryland, our society and the international community. Goddard is the lead center for the Living with a Star Initiative, a multi-year program that will eventually produce new systems, spacecraft and technology to study the effects of the sun on the Earth. In fiscal year 2002 I worked to help secure $25 million for the program and I will continue to work to obtain such resources to help ensure the success of such projects in the future. World Space Week 2002 serves as a positive voice in recognizing past and future accomplishments and innovations in exploration, development and use of space and space education for the benefit of all humankind and I am proud of the role that Maryland's Fifth Congressional District plays in promoting this week each year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let us be thankful that the millions of American children who just started the new school year have better things to do than to watch proceedings on the House floor, because if they were, they would be learning some terrible lessons from the Republican leadership. Lesson 1: 2 plus 2 equals 3. That is what we call the GOP's ``fuzzy'' math. And that is what enabled our Republican friends to enact enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while still pretending that they are committed to a balanced budget, deficit reduction and priorities like education. Lesson 2: Say one thing, do another. Our Republican friends have voted 7 times over the last 3 years to put our Social Security surpluses in a so-called lockbox, and then they have turned right around and passed a budget that raids those surpluses to the tune of $2 trillion. Lesson 3: Do not do homework because, as this Republican leadership has demonstrated, we do not even need to worry about completing the basics. While our Republican friends act like they are on a permanent summer vacation, the truth is they simply have become congressional truants. On this, the third day of the new fiscal year, this House has failed to complete work on even 1 of the 13 appropriations bills. Since Members returned from the August district work period, we have not considered one spending bill on the floor of this House. Not one. Rather than bring up the energy and water bill, we are loading up the suspension calendar. Rather than consider the foreign operations bill, we are spending time on sense of House resolutions. Rather than doing the work that the American people expect to be done, we are in session for only 3 days again this week. While we dither, the American people suffer the consequences, and our economy is tanking. A real Patients' Bill of Rights, stalled by the GOP leadership. A real prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare, blocked by the GOP leadership. Pension reform that protects workers and legislation to eliminate offshore corporate tax havens, disregarded by the GOP leadership. An increase in the minimum wage and an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits, a critical step that we ought to be taking, ignored by the GOP leadership. Mr. Speaker, this leadership would even undo important bipartisan legislation that we have already passed. After all the fanfare about the No Child Left Behind Act, our Republican friends would slash spending on the act's programs by $90 million, and they call for the smallest increase in education spending in 7 years. Today, as we pass this second continuing resolution, let us be thankful that America's children are hard at work at school doing what is expected of them, because we are not. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of us. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from California on the floor, and with the last remaining seconds I have, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) may speak. The gentleman will come up here and say, ``Look at what the Democrats did.'' Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1981. For the next 6 years with a Republican President and a Republican United States Senate, we ran up the largest deficits in the history of America. From 1993, under Bill Clinton, until the time he left, for 8 straight years we brought the deficit down and came into surplus. We have now squandered that $5.6 trillion, and we are down to zero, and the economy is hurting. Let us do better.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The chairman of our committee, and our committee, in my opinion, has tried to act as responsibly as we possibly can, and I count myself advantaged by having the opportunity to serve on the gentleman's committee, one of the fairest people on the floor of this House. However, I think I did not misspeak, and what I said was during the month of September, the month before the end of the fiscal year, we have not considered one appropriation bill on the floor of this House. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). My bill was one that passed. But in September not one bill have we considered on the floor.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because as I turned around, I saw the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird), and it was an oversight that I did not mention his extraordinary leadership in bringing this matter to not only the attention of all the Members and pressing for attention of this matter, but also to the country. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his singular focus on this critical issue.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution, which was developed by the Committee on House Administration and the Bipartisan Working Group on Continuity of Government led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It urges the States to examine their laws regarding the conduct of special elections to the House. The purpose of the resolution as has been said, is to ensure that in the event of a catastrophe, the States will conduct special elections as expeditiously as possible. The two cochairmen of the bipartisan working group, the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas, introduced the measure currently before us. H. Res. 559 was referred to the committee which has jurisdiction over congressional elections, the Committee on House Administration. Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 2 of the Constitution provides: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by people of the several States.'' That is, of course, the only way to become a Member of this body. That requirement of popular election may be unusual in a leglislative body, because most legislatures can have appointed Members, at least for a time. A variety of distinguished former Members of the House and scholarly observers of the Congress have proposed other ideas, ranging from filling vacancies through gubernatorial appointment to choosing replacement Members from lists submitted in advance by sitting Members. Without discussing the merits of either of these ideas, it suffices to say that they are clearly unconstitutional. It would require a constitutional amendment to fill a House seat in any manner other than by direct election. The resolution before us today is intended to facilitate the use of the existing constitutional framework. We must make the special election process work better, and work faster. H. Res. 559 would request the States to re-examine their laws governing the conduct of special elections to the House. It does not require them to do so. It does not force them to change their laws, but it is intended to remind them of the potential disadvantages of their failure to do so--the loss of representation in the House for an extended period of time in the event of a future national catastrophe. Special elections to the House are normally conducted pursuant to provisions of State law and regulations. We have not made uniform statutory requirements for special elections, preferring to leave it to the States to choose methods which reflect their unique politics and culture. One size does not necessarily fit all. However, the preamble of H. Res. 559 notes the ultimate constitutional authority of the Congress over the conduct of all congressional elections. The provisions of article 1, section 4 state that `` . . . the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.'' Congress does have the power to pass a national statute governing the conduct of special elections. Such a statute would not be easy to draft, however, and might be opposed by States which prefer to use their own approaches. We would like to avoid this option, if possible, but it remains on the table. Congress also has the power to pass and send to the States for ratification a constitutional amendment providing for some different method of filling vacancies. The problem with this approach is that it is extremely difficult and time-consuming and could take years, and there is no consensus on which method of filling vacancies to use in any such amendment. While special elections are conducted by States, this is clearly a national problem and challenge. If enough States fail to elect new Representatives quickly, the House might find itself controlled for a time by a much smaller group of Members, unrepresentative perhaps geographically or ideologically of the American people. The disruption to the legitimacy of the Congress and to the political and legislative process would be extraordinary. The average time for the filling of a vacant House seat in the event of a Member's death, according to the Commission on Continuity in Government of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, is approximately 125 days. In my own case, having been elected to the House in a special election in 1981, it was 89 days. In some States the process of replacing a deceased or resigned Member can take as long as 6 months. In the event of a catastrophe resulting in the deaths of many Members of House, it will be essential to replenish this body as soon as practicable to ensure that the House remains a body representative of, and responsive to, the American people. We simply cannot wait for States to react using existing laws which have not been seriously examined in decades, and which, of course, were never intended to be used in a time of emergency. The result of such laws will be that some States will remain unrepresented as the House, the Senate, the President, and the country take necessary actions to respond to, and to move beyond, such a future crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly in the interest of the States to ensure their full and continued representation as quickly as possible, just as it is in the interest of the House to move as quickly as possible back to a full complement of Members deliberating once again with the broadest possible range of views. I believe that it would be appropriate for the committee with jurisdiction over congressional elections, the House Administration Committee, to hold hearings on this subject during the next Congress. We can then evaluate any actions taken by the States in response to the 9/11 crisis, and to this resolution, and get a broader picture of the actual mechanics involved in conducting such elections. We need to remind ourselves that, in the event special elections occur in large numbers, whether under current laws or new ones, that they may not be occurring under ideal circumstances at some future time. There may be problems printing the ballots, setting up the polls, or completing many other steps incident to the proper conduct of an election which are complicated enough during normal times, as we have seen yet again recently in the state of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this resolution sounds an alarm to the States that they have a pivotal role to play in ensuring the stability of our constitutional system. I urge all Members to support it, and all States to respond favorably to it. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership on this issue. I believe that the States will be responsive and will come up with ideas that hopefully will accomplish the objective of ensuring that in the event of a catastrophe we can replace Members of the House lost in such a catastrophe so that the people's business can be done in this, the people's House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) may control the remainder of the time allotted to me, and that he may yield time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Let me begin by recognizing the outstanding leadership of the gentlewoman from Florida. I am not objecting. She is a close friend. She is a close friend. I am a strong admirer. She has had an extraordinary career in this House, State senate, in the Legislature of Florida and her community. The cause of election reform has no greater advocate. She has been motivated not just by a conviction that it is good public policy, but also by firsthand experience of the indignities a voter can face. When registration rolls are improperly maintained, when provisional ballots are inadequate and voting equipment is so obsolete it fails to register duly cast votes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, I can think of few Members of this body, perhaps the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) come to mind, but few Members who are as qualified to speak on election reform in uniquely moral, constitutional and American terms than my friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). Mr. Speaker, in less than 4 weeks this Nation will hold its first Federal elections since the November 2000 debacle. Mr. Speaker, I will include the balance of my remarks, but I want to say this. I want to say it to all the Members of this House, Mr. Speaker. We took a historic step last year in December and passed overwhelmingly election reform. Over 350 Members of this body voted for that. Some 5 months, 6 months later, the United States Senate passed a bill 99 to 1, passed it in April. April has come and gone. May has come and gone, June, July, August, September. Now we are in October. We are in a new fiscal year. The 107th Congress is about to end, and, Mr. Speaker, we have yet to pass election reform. We have yet to pass the bill that arguably had the greatest impetus coming out of the 2000 election of any issue in this land, and that was ensuring that every American not only had the right to vote, but would be facilitated in making that vote, and that their vote would be accurately counted. Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of optimism that we are going to pass this bill. I continue to have optimism, but the hour is late. This motion is absolutely appropriate, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for making it. We have been working in private, difficult sessions, tried to iron out differences. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, we have agreement on 90 percent of this bill's major points. Mr. Speaker, it would be tragic, but more than that, it would be disgraceful, if this House and the Senate adjourned sine die without passing this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, since September 5, I suppose, when we reconvened here, maybe it was the 4th, we have done little. We have not passed any appropriation bills. The end of the fiscal year came on September 30 and went. We passed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. We are going to pass another continuing resolution tomorrow, but we have not done anything of substance, Mr. Speaker. Neither this body nor the other body has passed any legislation of significance in the past 25 days. Mr. Speaker, we will debate next week the issue of war and peace. We will debate how we extend the blessings of democracy and protect people from those who would visit terror and death and destruction upon them, their families, and their countries. Mr. Speaker, as we do so, let us hope that we also pass a piece of legislation which will say that in the world's greatest democracy that believes that all men and women are created equal and that in this Nation every one of them is entitled to have their voice heard and that in a democracy, that that voice is heard through the ballot box. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you, I hope that I, I know that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) will work as tenaciously and vigorously as we know how to ensure that we will vindicate that right in legislation; in legislation which will extend to the States resources to give us the best technology possible, resources to provide training for those who administer our elections, resources to educate our voters, and requirements that we have a statewide registration system so that a voter does not come to the polls and hear, oh, I am sorry, we cannot find you on the list; and by the way, we cannot get through to the central office on our phone. I hope this will be legislation which will ensure that everybody, irrespective of the disability with which they are challenged, will be able to cast their vote and cast their vote in secret; legislation which will say that that person that comes to the poll will get a provisional ballot; and legislation which will say and guarantee that election officials will be able to say to individuals, if the technology permits and an individual makes a mistake and that vote may not be counted, do you want to correct it? Do you want to correct it so that your voice in this democracy will be heard? I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time; but much, much more importantly, I thank her for the courage, the conviction, and the time that she has spent through more than 5 decades of public service to make this a better country. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by recognizing the outstanding leadership of the gentlewoman from Florida, for whom the cause of election reform has been motivated not just by a conviction that it is good public policy, but also by firsthand experience of the indignities a voter can face when registration rolls are improperly maintained, when provisional ballots are not available, and when voting equipment is so obsolete it fails to register duly cast votes. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I can think of few Members of this body-- Representative Brown and Representative Hastings come to mind--who are as qualified to speak of election reform in uniquely moral terms as Representative Meek. Mr. Speaker, in less than 4 weeks, this Nation will hold its first Federal elections since the November 2000 debacle. Nobody can predict with certainty how smoothly those elections will go. After almost 2 years studying what went wrong in November 2000, I am convinced that confidence in this Nation's election system will not be restored until this Congress enacts meaningful national standards, and offers State and local authorities the resources to improve their election infrastructure. I am pleased to report that Congress is on the threshold of doing just that. Thanks in large measure to my colleague and good friend from Ohio, Chairman Bob Ney, we are closer than ever to enacting the most comprehensive package of voting reforms since the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Reform that will require States to offer provisional ballots to all voters whose registration materials have been mishandled by election officials. Reform that will require States to maintain statewide, computerized registration lists to ensure the most accurate, up-to-date rolls and minimize the number of voters who are incorrectly removed from the voter rolls. Reform that will reward States for retiring obsolete voting machines--especially the notorious punch cards machines and their dangling chads--that prompted this Congress to act in the first place. Reform that will require voting systems to be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, and allow them to vote privately and independently. Reform that allows voters to review and correct their ballots before they are cast. Reform that does not weaken any existing voting rights laws, includes meaningful enforcement, and ensures that every vote counts. Mr. Speaker, this motion is intended to ensure that we on the Conference Committee complete our work prior to October 1, 2002. Given the extraordinary progress the Conference Committee has made in the past 14 days, there is no legitimate reason we cannot meet that deadline. Indeed, given the larger context in which we operate, I would submit that this congress has a moral obligation to enact election reform before we adjourn: Mr. Speaker, over the last year this country has committed vast resources to ridding the world of those who would employ the tools of terror to destroy systems of government that derive their legitimacy from the ballot box. In just the past few weeks we in Congress have been challenged to contemplate the use of overwhelming military might to bring to heal one of the great despots of the past 50 years, a figure whose utter contempt for democracy and the people he rules is the only reason he has held power for so long. As we consider such profound measures to extend democracy where it does not now exist and strengthen it where it is fragile, we have an urgent responsibility to do the same at home. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is a friend of education. Also, he is the chairman of our subcommittee. What I think most of us feel on the Committee on Appropriations is our Republican colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations want positive investment in our country. They are not the problem, but the leadership of the Republican Party is the problem. Frankly, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget this year and in past years is the problem. Now, let me tell my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, about education. The irony is that my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, would stand and say, look what we have done since 1995 on education. What we have done on education is, under the leadership of Bill Clinton, he said, I am not going to sign bills that underfund education. What were those bills? Let me read them to the Members so in the future the Members will know, because I know if the gentleman knew this, he probably would not have made this representation. The Republican bill offered to this House in 1996 was $5 billion under the President's request. That did not end up that way. In 1997, the Republican bill offered $2.8 billion under the President. In 1998, it was a Presidential election year. The Republican leadership, wanting to elect its own, came in with a bipartisan bill. It was just $191 million under the President. However, in the next year, it was over half a billion dollars over the President. In the year 2000, the Republican bill was $1.4 billion under the President; and in 2001, it was $2.9 billion under the President. By the way, the bills were not as harsh as the budget. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, over the last 8 years we have been generous to education, and we have in fact said not only are we rhetorically going to leave no child behind, but we are going to fund programs to seek that end. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) put up a chart here, it is now over there, but essentially it shows 15 years of activities of the Committee on Appropriations, and more importantly, the House committee, in passing appropriation bills. Over those 15 years, we have averaged 12.2 bills passed before the end of the fiscal year. That is a 93 percent average. That is an A. This year, we are at 38 percent. That is a miserable failure; not the responsibility of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) or others who chair the appropriations subcommittees, but it is the fault of a divisive leadership that wants to talk about being for programs but does not want to fund those programs; not only that, does not want to debate them on this floor. This month of September we have not considered one appropriation bill on this floor, notwithstanding the fact that September 30 is at the door. I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will vote for this continuing resolution, but like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I will also call to account those who put us in a position of being unable to debate the priorities of this Nation on this floor. Like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I do not want my patriotism or concern for the security of this Nation to be called into question by this President, who is our leader and who ought to bring us together, not drive us apart.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so proud of that which he has done in his budget and his bill, why does he not bring the appropriations bill to the floor? Why does it languish for the last 8 months in committee? Why do they say to me we do not have the votes for the bill on our side of the aisle if what he says is so true?

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of Christopher Reeve's 50th birthday, I would like to recognize his unfailing courage, strength, and faith as he has worked to overcome paralysis. Not only has Christopher Reeve put a human face on spinal cord injury, but he has become a leading advocate for medical research, better care for people with spinal cord injury and for increased quality of life for the more than two million Americans living with paralysis. After graduating from Cornell University in 1974 and studying at Julliard, Christopher Reeve made his broadway debut opposite Katherine Hepburn in A Matter of Gravity. Best known for his star role in Superman and its many sequels, Christopher Reeve has dazzled the big screen and stage in numerous productions, such as The Bostonians, Street Smart, Speechless, Noises Off, Above Suspicion, The Remains of the Day, and most recently, Rear Window. He made his directorial debut with “In the Gloaming” in 1997, which received five Emmy nominations and published his autobiography, Still Me in 1998, which spent eleven weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List. But beyond his experience within the entertainment arena, Christopher Reeve has achieved great success in a new and much more challenging role: a survivor of spinal cord injury who is working toward a medical miracle. Christopher Reeve has become a beacon of hope for all people with spinal cord injury and paralysis. The recent news reports about his medical progress has been an inspiration for not only those living with paralysis, but also for the medical research community. For the first time since his accident in 1995, Christopher Reeve is able to wiggle his fingers and toes, experience sensation in his body, and tell the difference between hot and cold—something that the medical community did not believe was possible in someone so far removed from the initial time of his accident. Christopher Reeve's recovery and recent scientific evidence show that there is hope for those living with paralysis. At research centers in the United States, Europe and Japan, new techniques of rigorous exercise has helped an estimated 500 persons with paraplegia and limited sensations in their lower bodies to walk for short distances, either unassisted or using walkers. While the results of these new methods are quite miraculous, the limits of what physical exercise can do for patients remains grossly understudied. While each person and each injury is unique, and some people recover spontaneously, an estimated 200,000 Americans are living with spinal cord injuries that have not improved. Which therapy or combination of therapies will work for each persons is unknown. Today 2 million Americans are living with paralysis, including spinal cord injury, stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, ALS and spina bifida. We need research to see how these new interventions work on the entire population of individuals living with paralysis. Tomorrow, I will join my colleagues in introducing the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act of 2002, which seeks to further advance the science needed to help those living with paralysis take that next step and at the same time build quality of life program in the state that will further advance full participation, independent living, self- sufficiency and equality of opportunity for individuals with paralysis and other physical disabilities. Those living with paralysis face astronomical medical costs, and our best estimates tell us that only one-third of those individuals remain employed after paralysis. At least one-third of those living with paralysis have incomes of $15,000 or less. And over the past 20 years, overall days spent in the hospital and rehabilitation centers for those living with paralysis have been cut in half. Christopher Reeve's recent triumphs in overcoming paralysis prove how close we are to achieving major breakthroughs for people who have paralysis. The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act of 2002 will ensure that the federal government does its part to help the more than two million Americans with paralysis who are still waiting for their own breakthroughs. As John F. Kennedy once said, “The stories of past courage can define that ingredient—they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul.” Since Christopher Reeve was injured, his tireless efforts to walk again, coupled with his faith, passion and commitment to improve quality of life for others living with paralysis, make him an inspiration to us all. Happy Birthday, Chris.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate her and thank her for the extraordinary job that she has done over the last 18 months on this particular issue. She has been tireless in her efforts to promote the assurance that every American not only has the right to vote but that every American will have their vote counted correctly. I also want to mention two of my very good friends and colleagues on the floor, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), two members from Florida who firsthand experienced and their constituents experienced the difficulties of voting in November of 2000. I also want to recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), our chairman, who has done such an outstanding job getting us to this point. Without his measured and effective leadership, we would not be where we are. I want to go back to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) because as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and vice chair of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform she has tirelessly advocated that the 107th Congress keep its eye on the prize and pass meaningful, comprehensive election reform. Mr. Speaker, in only 42 days this Nation will hold its first Federal election since November 2000. Nobody can predict with certainty how smoothly those elections will go. Certainly we experienced a primary in Florida that did not go well. After almost 2 years, studying what went wrong in November 2000, I am convinced that confidence in this Nation's election system will not be restored until this Congress enacts meaningful national standards and offers State and local authorities the resources to improve their election infrastructure. I am pleased to report, as the chairman has said, that Congress is on the threshold of doing just that, thanks in large measure to my colleague and good friend from Ohio (Mr. Ney), whom I have already mentioned. We are closer than ever to enacting the most comprehensive package of voting reforms since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, reforms that will require States to offer provisional ballots to all voters; reforms that will require States to maintain state-wide computerized registration lists to ensure the most accurate, up-to-date rolls and minimize the number of voters who are incorrectly removed from the rolls; reform that will reward States for retiring obsolete voting machines, especially the notorious punch card machines and their dangling chads; reforms that will require voting systems to be accessible to all individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind; reforms that will allow voters to review and correct their ballots before they are ultimately cast. We call that second-chance voting. Every voter ought to be assured that their vote is correctly cast and will be accurately counted. Reform that does not weaken, let me reiterate this, reforms that do not weaken any existing voting rights laws and includes meaningful enforcement; reform that ensures military and civilian voters who live and work overseas are able to vote and have their vote counted. Mr. Speaker, this motion is intended to ensure that we on the conference committee complete our work prior to October 1, 2002. Given the extraordinary progress the conference committee has made in the past 14 days, there is no legitimate reason we cannot meet that deadline. I know the chairman shares my view on that. Indeed, given the larger context in which we operate, I would submit that this Congress has a moral responsibility and obligation to enact election reform before we adjourn the 107th Congress. Mr. Speaker, over the last year, this country has committed vast resources to ridding the world of those who would employ the tools of terror to destroy systems of government that derive their legitimacy from the ballot box. In just the past few weeks, we in Congress have been challenged to contemplate the use of overwhelming military might to bring to heel one of the great despots of the past 50 years, a figure whose utter contempt for democracy and the people he rules is the only reason he has held power for so long. As we consider such profound measures to extend democracy where it does not now exist and strengthen it where it is fragile, we have an urgent, moral responsibility to do the same at home. I urge adoption of this motion. I congratulate the chairman for his support of this motion and last week's motion to urge us to complete our work. This motion is timely. Passage is late, but it is never too late to do the right thing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to Mr. Jeff Ludwig, senior vice president of Nai Michael Cos. As a result of his personal initiative to become a community emergency response team member, Mr. Ludwig was able to assist the community of La Plata, Maryland in constructing a new Town Center after it was hit by a powerful tornado in April 2002. After President Bush's State of the Union Address in January, Mr. Ludwig responded to the President's call to volunteerism by signing up for the Citizen Corps to become a member of the new emergency response group. He took advantage of online training manuals and completed his course, despite the fact that the Homeland Security Program had not yet begun to train citizen volunteers. This motivation prepared him to assist his community on April 28. It also makes him one of the first citizens corps community emergency response team leaders to take actions in the Nation's history. When the tornado struck La Plata, Mr. Ludwig teamed up with the Facchina Group to create a plan to build a temporary Town Center. Not only did he help initiate this plan, he put in 18 hour days on the construction site, attacking problems, maintaining worker morale, and even buying dinner for the crew. The project was completed in eight days under his strong leadership. Mr. Ludwig's votunteerism is a strong symbol of the impact dedicated Americans can have on their communities in times of crisis. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join me in thanking Jeff Ludwig for his commitment to his community and congratulating him on his tremendous successes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of National POW/ MIA Recognition Day. Many of the ideals and beliefs that form the backbone of our nation continue to flourish in large part because of the great perseverance and dedication of our nation's armed forces. Unfortunately, as we all know, during war and even smaller armed conflicts there inevitably are troops killed, as well as troops captured by enemy forces or who become missing in action. It is important that communities regularly honor not only those brave soldiers who risked their lives and were killed, but also remember those who became either missing or prisoners of war. We must show them and their families the appropriate appreciation for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend and preserve the democratic principles held so close to the hearts of all Americans. About one year ago, on September 21st, President G.W. Bush declared that day as National POW/MIA Recognition Day. By establishing a national day of recognition, we have ensured that this country will formally honor every year those soldiers who were captured by the enemy or fallen missing in battle while serving their country. The establishment and observance of a day of recognition for our prisoners of war and those missing in action is of great importance for the estimated 43,000 retired servicemen who were previously missing or held prisoner and who fortunately were able to return to the United States. It is just as important for the families and loved ones of those who remain unaccounted for or possibly are still in captivity. Throughout our nation's history the men and women of the armed services have courageously risen to the call of duty ignoring whatever trepidation they may have for their own safety and security. While the numbers who have perished in the line of duty is a tremendous loss, there are also astounding numbers of those who continue to be listed MIA or as POWs. Our friends and our neighbors, and even some of our elected officials, are former POWs or were listed MIA during their service. More than one-forth of the American soldiers held prisoner in the past five US conflicts were released by the enemy and returned to the United States again. World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War era, Operation Desert Storm, and the Kosovo campaign all resulted in soldiers listed as MIA or POW. Records show that approximately 143,000 Americans were captured and interned during those conflicts. This number includes 81 women seized on Guam or in the Philippines during World War II, and 2 during the Gulf War. Of these 143,000 American soldiers approximately 125,200 have since been returned to United States military control. That leaves almost 20,000 souls unaccounted for from America's 20th century wars and armed conflicts. As our country wages the war on terrorism and we debate whether to go to war against Iraq, it is more important than ever to remember past sacrifices made by the men and women of America's armed forces. It is crucial to the continued high morale of our military and the peace of mind of missing soldiers' families that we offer our support--we must be clear that their loved ones' efforts were not in vain. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, the people of Maryland and citizens around the country to celebrate and honor those who have selflessly dedicated their lives to serving their country and have, as a result, been either imprisoned or remain missing. This country owes a debt of gratitude to the current and former POW and MIA soldiers of the United States armed forces.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Corporal James Victor Arnaud and Deputy Elizabeth Licera Magruder. These two officers lost their lives in the line of duty on August 29, 2002. Corporal Arnaud was in the Army for twenty years before retiring and joining the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office. He resided in North Beach, in Calvert County, Maryland and he served as an officer for 13 years before his tragic death. Corporal Arnaud was an excellent officer and he was posthumously awarded the rank of sergeant for his service. He is survived by his wife, Theresa, two children, Jamey and Michael, and two grandchildren, Joseph and Jacob. Deputy Magruder graduated from the Southern Maryland Criminal Justice Academy on May 3, 2002. She recently bought a house in Clinton, Maryland and is survived by her husband, Derwinn, and her son, Devin. Deputy Magruder loved her job and strived to help other people. Both of these officers were shot to death while working overtime to serve an emergency psychiatric court order. Serving court orders is considered a routine duty for officers to perform. However, this tragedy reminds us of the terribly high risks that a law enforcement officer faces while doing even routine tasks. Local law enforcement officers like Deputy Magruder and Corporal Arnaud have such a strong sense of duty to their community that they willingly put themselves at risk every day that they are on the job to protect our lives and make our communities safer. This dedication to duty makes law enforcement officers an integral part of a community's strength. This is a true meaning of the word ``hero.'' A person who is determined to help others, even if it means sacrificing their lives. Local law enforcement officers have the courage to guard us, the compassion to help us, and the strength of spirit to do their job, even though they are rarely praised. Corporal Arnaud and Deputy Magruder are a part of this tradition, and they gave their lives in the course of a routine day. We shall not forget them; their bravery and sense of duty are certainly worthy of praise. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the sacrifices of Corporal James Arnaud and Deputy Elizabeth Magruder.