Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, if I could have one wish today, I would wish that hardworking Americans could take 5 minutes out of their busy schedules and watch this ridiculous Republican charade occurring right now on this House floor. They would be outraged, as I am. The President has not signed even one of the 13 must-pass appropriation bills that fund everything from the Department of Defense to Federal spending on transportation, education and health care. Not one. This House has failed to consider, let alone pass, even one appropriations conference report. Not one. Yet, with just 11 days left in the current fiscal year, with eight appropriation bills still to be considered by this House, we are dithering on a blatantly political and utterly meaningless resolution on the permanent repeal of the estate tax. Does the GOP have an ideological predisposition to mismanage? Or has it been hijacked again by the faction that Newt Gingrich called, and I quote, ``the Perfectionist Caucus''? Those are Newt Gingrich's words, not mine. We have already passed a permanent repeal of the estate tax, a repeal that benefits, as my friend from Wisconsin has said, a few thousand wealthy families at the expense of millions, not once but twice. So why this resolution and why now? Here is why. Because the Republican leadership has made a commitment to put the Labor-HHS- Education spending bill on the floor next. But it knows that if it does at current funding levels that eliminate or cut crucial education, labor and health programs, its moderates will vote it down. You do not have the votes. It is hard to be sympathetic with the GOP's plight because it precipitated this budget debacle by passing its fiscally irresponsible budget. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget blames the Senate. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget knows full well, if he is honest with the American public, that nothing that the Senate has or has not done precludes this House from acting. We have deemed his budget to be in place. The problem he has is, his side does not want to vote for the budget that he put in place. It was a charade when we passed it--I did not vote for it--and it is a charade months later on this very day. So what do we do? We fiddle while Rome burns. We fiddle on silly resolutions like this that are patently political and purely political and solely political. The leader is on the floor. What a shame. What a shame that we fail to do the business of the American public and fiddle while our budget and fiscal posture in America burns.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Historically Black Colleges and Universities and their proud history of educating African- Americans for 165 years. The contributions of HBCUs to this country are of such significance that it has become tradition for the President to proclaim a week in September as Historically Black Colleges and Universities week. This year the observance is taking place of the week of September 15th. In the early part of the 20th century, HBCUs offered educational opportunities to blacks when most schools would not admit them. But even as the doors of other higher education institutions have opened to black students over the past few decades, HBCUs continue to offer a quality education to thousands of young Americans. The first black college, now known as Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, was made possible by a Quaker philanthropist named Richard Humphreys who bequeathed $10,000 to establish a school to educate African-Americans. The school was founded as the Institute for Colored Youth in Philadelphia in 1837, almost 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation would free the South's slaves. The University has since outgrown its original mandate and now offers degrees in more than 30 disciplines for people of all races. Following the success of Cheyney University, over 100 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the United States have been established, educating people of all races in every discipline from liberal arts to medicine to business. It is important to note that while Historically Black Colleges and Universities comprise only about 3 percent of all colleges and universities, nearly 30 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded each year to African Americans are earned at those institutions. I am proud of the State of Maryland's part in this evolution of black higher education, and I am privileged to represent Bowie State University (BSU), the oldest of Maryland's four HBCUs. (The three other HBCUs located in Maryland are Morgan State and Coppin State, both in Baltimore, and the University of Maryland--Eastern Shore). Bowie State descends from the first school opened by the Baltimore Association for the Moral and Educational Improvement of Colored People in Baltimore in 1865. BSU now has eighteen undergraduate academic programs, sixteen graduate programs at the master's level and recently established its first doctoral program in Education Leadership. Some Historically Black Colleges and Universities are facing financial hardships and several have closed during the past few years. The Federal Government must recognize that the contributions made by these institutions have not occurred in a vacuum benefitting only a small segment of the population. Rather, the entire country has gained from the educational opportunities they offer to African-American citizens and others. Congress and the President can acknowledge this by adequately funding the programs that support the efforts of these important institutions. The President has requested a four percent increase in funding for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges program and the Strengthening HBCU Graduate Institutions for fiscal year 2003. This increase will do no more than help the programs keep up with inflation. As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to see these programs receive more funding to help them continue their mission and tradition of educating African- Americans. Marion Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, said that ``Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it.'' Ms. Edelman's observation clearly illustrates how important HBCUs have been to America's black community and the Nation as a whole. Not only have they educated and improved the lives of individuals, but they have empowered those individuals to bring their knowledge back to their communities and improve the lives of others. And America is the better for it. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me this week in saluting the contributions of America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time, and for her leadership. She has been extraordinary since November 2000 working on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) who has done such yeoman work on this bill, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who has been very responsible for the disabilities provision in this bill. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by recognizing the outstanding leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters,) whom I mentioned, who has tirelessly championed the cause of election reform, as has the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). As chairwoman of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, of which I was a member, the gentlewoman from California held hearings all over this country to learn what ails our election system. Many of the recommendations of her committee are included in the bill that was drafted. As last week's primary in Florida confirms, the problems of the 2000 election will not go away until the Congress and the States enact meaningful national standards and offer States and local authorities the resources to improve their election infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I have said a lot of people worked hard on this legislation, and they have. But frankly, thanks in large measure to my indefatigable colleague from Ohio, we have made the progress that we have. We are closer than ever to enacting the most comprehensive package of voting reforms since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has been an unwavering advocate of reform, a strong proponent of the provisions that he believes are important to be in this bill; and frankly, expressing concerns about those provisions he thinks ought not be in the bill, but always focused on passing legislation that will assist the States and assist our voters in making our democracy even more perfect. He has been an advocate of reform that will require States to offer provisional ballots to all voters whose registration, for one reason or another, is not properly included on the rolls; 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 voters' rolls; reforms that will reward States for retiring obsolete voting machines, especially the notorious punch card machines and their dangling chads, that prompted this Congress to act in the first place. And I might add that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and others have brought to our attention as well the problems that the lever machines cause because of the unavailability of parts to repair those particular machines. This bill includes reforms that require voting systems to be accessible for individuals with disabilities, a cause that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) has been untiring in advocating to ensure all Americans, irrespective of disabilities, have access to the polling place, have a technology that they can use, and can cast their vote in secret. We thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his outstanding leadership. I want to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has been particularly focused on including nonvisual accessibility to the blind and visually impaired to allow them to vote privately and independently, and reforms that allow voters to review and correct their ballots before they are cast. I call that second chance voting. It is a critically important component of our bill because it will tell the voter that they voted for too many people, they did not vote for this position or that position, do you want to? So that the voter, when they leave the polling place, will have confidence that they have cast correctly a ballot which will reflect their views. This bill includes reforms that do not weaken any existing voting rights laws and includes meaningful enforcement and ensures that every vote counts. Mr. Speaker, this motion made by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is intended to ensure that we on the conference committee complete our work prior to October 1, 2002. Our chairman supports that motion, and given the progress the conference committee has made in the past 7 days, I am optimistic that we will meet that deadline. All of us have one person in this House to thank for that process, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). Frankly, without the gentleman's leadership and his chairmanship of this committee, we would not be as far along as we are. At the urging of the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, as well as the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, Members will be happy to know that the principal conference members and their staffs have been meeting diligently long hours to resolve the outstanding issues that remain. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning everyone sort of circled everyone; but I can assure Members there was honest, open, positive discussion occurring. Motions to instruct are often intended to urge conference members to head in directions they may not want. This motion directs us to move in a direction we want to move. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership and for this motion. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his commitment to the passage of this legislation. America will be a better place for this legislation having been adopted.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2002 I was unable to vote on rollcall 378. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2002 I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 380. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2002 I was unable to vote on rollcall 379. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time. I am pleased to join him and also my very close friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), in recognizing and remembering. As well, I am pleased to follow the remarks of my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). All three of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, have been in the forefront of focusing on the foreign policy of the United States. All three have focused on the extension of liberty and justice and freedom throughout this world. All three have focused on human rights and the recognition of the rights of individuals. How appropriate it is that these three leaders lead us in this remembrance. Mr. Speaker, none of us, none of us will forget where we were when we learned the news. None of us, I think, will forget those 84 minutes from 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, when the North Tower was struck, to 84 minutes later when the crash of the jet from Pennsylvania precluded the success of the terrorists in striking this Capitol. None of us, Mr. Speaker, will ever forget. In an instant on that Tuesday morning, now known simply as 9-11, the generation of Americans, this generation of Americans, suffered its Pearl Harbor. In an instant, or more accurately, I suppose, in 84 minutes, more than 3,000 innocent human beings, many of uncommon courage, were murdered by criminals of unbounded evil. Words, Mr. Speaker, cannot convey the depth of pain inflicted on this Nation and its people 1 year ago. The pain endures and will remain. Today we remember all those who were taken on that horrific day. Our thoughts and our prayers are with those who survived and those who lost loved ones, as well as with the brave men and women this very hour defending freedom here at home and abroad. In many ways, such unspeakable acts have clarified our purpose, steeled our resolve, and confirmed who we are. We are a peaceful, tolerant and compassionate people. The evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, lies throughout our great Nation. Since September 11 private charities have raised more than $2.4 billion, private charities, more than $2.4 billion to assist survivors. Former President Clinton and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole joined to raise $105 million to pay for college for the children and spouses of those killed or disabled. More than 3,000 people download applications for Americorps every week; more than 76,000 have requested Peace Corps applications; and more than 48,000 have signed up for Citizen Corps programs. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a generous, compassionate and giving Nation. Closer to home, Donn Marshall of Marbury, Maryland, refused to let the savagery of 9-11 define the life and loss of his beloved wife, Shelley. Shelley was an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency and she was one of the 20 Fifth Congressional District residents and 53 Marylanders who were taken from their family and friends by the mindless acts of savagery on 9-11. Rather than give in, however, to unblinking but justified anger, Donn has given his sorrow meaning. In tribute to his wife, Shelley, he established the Shelley A. Marshall Foundation, an irrevocable trust that funds children's story hours at public libraries, creative writing contests at colleges, and tea parties at nursing homes that bring senior citizens and high school students together. The aftermath of 9-11 has seen countless other acts, Mr. Speaker, of generosity, community and courage, in your district, Mr. Speaker, in mine, and in the districts of every Member of this House, which is to say in every corner of this Nation. From the local police officers and firefighters who raced towards danger at the Pentagon and Ground Zero in New York City, to the Facchina Construction Company in my district and those employees who completed their reconstruction work at the Pentagon 3\1/2\ months early, even after their La Plata headquarters was devastated and destroyed by a tornado just a few months ago, to the local artist in my district who raised $5,000 for the widows and children of firefighters from the sale of 9-11 T-shirts that he designed. Mr. Speaker, the terrorists who sought to break our spirit only fortified that spirit. Their barbarism reminded us of our inevitable vulnerability but also reminded us that we are a part of something much greater than ourselves. We are the land of the free because, Mr. Speaker, we are the home of the brave. More than 40 years ago President Kennedy stirred our Nation when he said that, ``The energy, the faith, the devotion that we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it.'' And he correctly concluded that, ``The glow from that fire can truly light the world.'' The fire of freedom, Mr. Speaker, forged the American character and it burns deep within our soul. The ashes of tragedy have rekindled that spirit; and one year later, the world must know freedom's light still burns brightly and its eternal truth shall never, never, never be extinguished. May God, Mr. Speaker, continue to bless and guide America as we continue our commitment to a just Nation and the defense and extension of freedom.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for yielding me this time. I saw the courage and conviction in their eyes. It reflected the courage and conviction of Joe and Thomas. It reflected the courage and conviction of their fellow Americans, their fellow citizens. They were not prepared, nor are they now prepared, to let those who would terrorize our institutions or our people flinch, retreat, or cower. It is appropriate that we honor these two men for their courage, for their commitment, and for their contribution to making America the greatest land on the face of the Earth. God blesses America. God blessed America through the lives of Thomas and Joseph.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Today, the representatives of the people of a grateful Nation will vote unanimously to honor Thomas Morris, Jr. and Joseph Curseen, Jr. We will do that by designating the Brentwood Postal Facility in their honor and in their names. Not too long ago, we renamed the headquarters of the Capitol Police for three Capitol Policemen that we lost at the hand of a terrorist, J.J. Chestnut, John Gibson, and Christopher Eney. Today, we do another appropriate act. We will rise together to recognize, as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois observed, average Americans doing very uncommon things. Not only will we honor Mr. Morris and Mr. Curseen, but we will honor their colleagues as well. We will honor indeed all of those who day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month and year-to-year perform their tasks courageously, conscientiously, effectively. They do so so that America can function. Frankly, every day America relies on the United States Postal Service. It relies on it for commerce, it relies on it for family ties, it relies on it for information. Joseph Curseen and Thomas Morris made sure that happened. After their deaths in October of 2001, I had the opportunity of attending their memorial service, and at that service I met their wives, Celestine Curseen and Mary Morris. I did not know either Joe or Tom, but I met their wives. And I can tell from them and the strong feelings they have for those they have lost the kind of men, not only that they have lost, not only that the Postal Service has lost, but that we as a Nation have lost, two extraordinary women in shared grief. Today we share their grief and we share their pride. We share their pride in those two men and in their colleagues. I visited the D.C. General Hospital, which was the site of the postal workers coming and being advised as to the risks they faced, the health consequences that might occur, and the prophylactic that they could take. I went down the line of those who were waiting for advice and counsel and I saw the courage and the conviction in their eyes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, we commemorate the 12th anniversary of the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act, the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We do so with pride, as we measure our progress. We do so with sadness, as we mourn the recent passing of Justin Dart Jr., the ADA's ``father'' and an indefatigable soldier of justice. And we do so with deep concern, as the courts continue to issue decisions that limit the ADA's scope and undermine its intent. Twelve years ago today, the first President Bush signed the ADA into law, hailing it as the ``world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities.'' As the lead House sponsor of this historic law, I knew it would not topple centuries of prejudice overnight. But I knew that, over time, it could change attitudes and change hearts, and unleash the untapped abilities of our disabled brothers and sisters. The ADA sent an unmistakable message: It is unacceptable to discriminate against the disabled simply because they have a disability. And it is illegal. The ADA, which enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, prohibits discrimination against the more than 50 million disabled Americans--in employment, in public accommodations, in transportation and in telecommunications. It recognizes that the disabled belong to the American family, and must share in all we have to offer: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self- sufficiency. Its first dozen years have ushered in significant change. Thousands of disabled Americans have joined the workforce, many for the first times in their lives. The ramps, curb cuts, braille signs and captioned television programs that were once novel are now ubiquitous. However, despite such demonstrable progress, the ADA increasingly has become a legal lightning rod with courts issuing narrow interpretations that limit its scope and undermine its intent. In its most recent term, for example, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of decisions involving the ADA, ruling against the claimant each time. In Chevron v. Echazabal, the Court held that an employer can keep a worker from filling a job that could be harmful to the worker's own health, even though the ADA itself only allows employers to deny jobs to those who pose a ``direct threat'' to other workers. Whether intended or not, this decision stands for the proposition that disabled Americans really cannot exercise independent judgment on what is best for them. Thus, Eehazabal perpetuates the paternalistic attitudes that the ADA sought to combat. In another devastating blow, the Court held in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams that a worker needed to show that her condition not only affected her on the job, but also prevented or restricted her from performing ``tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.'' Because the claimant in Williams had not sufficiently demonstrated how her disability limited her in performed tasks such as brushing her teeth, the Court said, she was not ``disabled'' under the ADA. Is this really what Congress intended when it passed the ADA? That a determination of ``disability'' would require courts to examine whether claimants can brush their teeth? The answer is obviously no. This decision has put disabled Americans who avail themselves of the law's protection in a Catch-22: They must demonstrate that their impairment is substantial enough so that it constitutes a disability under the ADA, but not so substantial that the claimant cannot do the job without a reasonable accommodation. In other recent ADA decisions, the Supreme Court has stripped state workers of their right to sue for monetary damages for ADA violations, and held that corrective or mitigating measures such as eyeglasses or medication should be considered in determining whether an individual is ``disabled'' under the law. The latter decisions have produced absurd results in lower courts, People with diabetes, heart conditions, mental illness and even cancer have been ruled ``too functional''--with corrective or mitigating measures--to be considered ``disabled.'' Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA and President Bush signed it into law. We intended the law to have broad application. In fact, any person who is disadvantaged by an employer due to a real or perceived impairment by others may bring a claim under the ADA. That's because, simply put, the point of the law is not disability; the point is discrimination. Justin Dart Jr., the gentle giant who worked tirelessly on behalf of the ADA and the disabled throughout the world, would no doubt agree. Perhaps best known as the father of the ADA, Justin passed away on June 22nd. For nearly five decades, he was one of the world's most courageous, passionate and effective advocates for civil and human rights. Many called him the Martin Luther King of the disability civil rights movement. But he though of himself in more humble terms--simply as a soldier of justice. I was fortunate to call him a dear friend. As we commemorate this 12th anniversary of the ADA today and pay tribute to a wonderful man who devoted his life to promoting justice and equality for others, let's recognize that our work is far from finished. The series of Supreme Court decisions on the ADA remind us of that, and command us to begin discussing possible legislative responses. We have come so far in the last dozen years. And we have poured a strong foundation for our house of equality, where Americans are judged by their ability and not their disability. Yet, the promise of the ADA remains unfulfilled today but still is within reach. It falls to us now to carry on the fight and to realize Justin Dart's vision of a revolution of empowerment. Let's not rest until the work is done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if this were campaign finance reform, the gentleman from Connecticut would have a sheet in our hands saying this amendment is a poison pill designed to undermine the Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It tries to send a reassuring message to Federal employees that their rights will be protected and their collective bargaining rights retained. I want to tell our Federal employees: Do not believe it. This language provides the President with a trap door to deny union representation to anyone in this Department if he determines that it would have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's ability to protect homeland security. In general, that is the law. Why add this? To provide the trap door to the Morella amendment. When the President removed collective bargaining rights of some 500 Department of Justice employees earlier this year, he said it was in the interest of national security. Yet most of those employees work in clerical jobs and have been union members for over 20 years. Last month I had the opportunity to question the deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management and I asked him in the last 20 years, in the last 50 years, could he cite me one or two or three instances where union membership ever in any instance at any time adversely affected national security? I got back a two-page letter with 11 pages of attachments. It does not cite one single incident where union membership had any adverse effect on collective bargaining. Mr. Chairman, this is a windmill that the Republicans are tilting at because they do not believe in collective bargaining. That is their right, but do not be fooled. This amendment undermines and is designed to undermine, I tell my friend from Connecticut, like a poison pill, the effect of the Morella amendment. Do not tell my Federal employees, do not tell the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that this is some benign offering simply to make it a little better and to give the President a little more flexibility. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, read the law. The President has that ability now, and the OPM sent me 11 pages of attachments citing instances where every President, admittedly in small instances, because this is not a problem, made such exemption. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, give the gentlewoman a fair shot. Do not play legislative games with her. Vote the Shays amendment down and then vote for the Morella amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I told my colleagues, I have an 11-page attachment here from the Office of Personnel Management where Presidents under existing authority, that is not adversely affected, have that ability. No one in this House wants to adversely affect national security. The point that I am making is that the Office of Personnel Management in direct response to my question cannot cite a single incident. Not one in the history of this country, or at least since we have had collective bargaining for Federal employees where national security was adversely affected.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we fought World War II. We went into Korea, we went into Vietnam, we went into Bosnia, we went into the Persian Gulf. We did not do this. We saw no need to do it, because we saw no threat from collective bargaining. My colleagues, support the Morella amendment. I agree with her, it does mean something. It says to our employees, we understand that your collective bargaining rights do not in any way, at any time, undermine our national security, for which we all will fight and for which we will all support legislation to protect it. I rise in favor of the Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that ``flexibility'' does not become a code word for favoritism. Furthermore, we must ensure that ``flexibility'' does not become a euphemism for gutting federal civil servants' rights. The federal civil service was created for a reason: to prevent arbitrary and capricious employment decisions based on politics and patronage rather than competence and professionalism. All this amendment does is tell the employees who will be working in the new department, ``If you will be performing the same job as you do now, you will be able to retain the right to collective bargaining rights.'' There is no doubt that certain reforms to our civil service are necessary, but stripping the rights of federal employees behind the curtain of homeland security is not the right approach. We have an opportunity to turn national tragedy into national triumph by demonstrating to the American people, particularly the generation just entering the workforce, that employment in the Federal Government is not only honorable and patriotic, but also rewarding. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that employees currently covered by the full force and affect of title 5 will have no adverse affect on our homeland security as it pertains to employment in this department. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20'h Anniversary of the Links, Inc.--Southern Maryland Chain Chapter. The Links, Inc., is an organization of nearly 10,000 women with 270 chapters located in 40 States, the District of Columbia, Nassau, Bahamas and Frankfort, Germany. Members are individual achievers who are making a difference in the communities and lives of African Americans and persons of African decent across the globe. The Links, Inc.--Southern Maryland Chain Chapter began in 1980 as an interest group led by the visionary Albertine T. Lancaster. After two years of community projects within Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's counties, the 26 dynamic women were installed into the Links, Inc. Today, President Sandra Billups and the Southern Maryland Chain Chapter have 30 members who continue to build links of service to those in need. The Chapter is strongly rooted in building friendships and volunteering their services to fill needs locally and globally. The work of these dedicated women has created financial opportunities and support to so many. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the dedicated, distinctive and diligent women of the Links, Inc.--Southern Maryland Chain Chapter for 20 years of outstanding service to Southern Maryland communities. The Links, Inc. continue to sponsor such projects as the Annual College Scholarship, African American Family Fun Fest, Annual Civic Luncheon, Project Lead: High Expectations and Tri-County shelters. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Links, Inc.--Southern Maryland Chain Chapter and the virtuous women that serve daily for their commitment to excellence and am honored to recognize their many contributions to making Southern Maryland a stronger, more responsive community.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous community spirit shown by the people of Charles County, Maryland. As my colleagues may know, a devastating tornado ripped through Southern Maryland on April 29, 2002 destroying the town of La Plata and creating a 24 mile path of destruction. Not only were homes and businesses leveled, but farms and government buildings were heavily damaged. Under the circumstances, you would think that a tornado of this magnitude would cripple an area. Not in Southern Maryland and particularly not in La Plata. Immediately following the tornado, the residents took to the streets to check on friends and neighbors. Once everyone was accounted for, the clean-up efforts began. Under the leadership of the Mayor of La Plata, William Eckman, and the Charles County Commissioners, directed by Board President Murray Levy, an immediate plan of action was put into place and countless hours were spent with residents and business owners, surveying each situation and assisting wherever possible. A ``People's Place'' was set up to offer a myriad of services ranging from food, water and shelter, to helping people find lost pets. Clothing and money poured into the area, but most of all people reached out to help their neighbors rebuild their lives. Volunteers came from across the States of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia to assist in removing debris left behind by this vicious storm. SMECO, Verizon and Maryland Department of Transportation had staff working round the clock to restore electrical power, establish valuable communication systems and clear the roadways. The Amish communities of Maryland and Pennsylvania donated much-needed manpower to get the Town of La Plata up on its feet again. The Charles County Chapter of the American Red Cross went into immediate action, once the tornado passed, even though their own building was destroyed. Mr. Paul Facchina had a ``mini business district'' set up for the business owners to get back up and running. The Charles County Chamber of Commerce offered office space and business services to companies in need and for days following the disaster local churches and other civic organizations offered food to the hundreds of volunteers. Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the ``worst of times, bring out the best in people'' and on behalf of the many, many grateful residents and business owners in La Plata, I want to say Thank You to all the volunteers who gave of themselves so unselfishly. A disaster occurred, and people came from all walks of life to help in any way they could. It did not matter how big, or how small a job, volunteers were available to lend a helping hand. This is the true spirit of America and it was shining bright and continues to beam forward in Charles County, Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's point. The point I was going to make is when the gentleman says we spend too much money, I agree with him. I am one of Democrats that voted on the balanced budget amendment. I agree that we need to live within our means. The point I want to make to my friends who are not on the Committee on Appropriations, is this is an OMB figure I read, it is not because we are spending more discretionary dollars. That is what we focus on because those are the bills on the floor. In the tax bills, it is not entitlement bills, et cetera, et cetera, where we are spending the real money and when we look at those figures, that is where the additional expenditures are occurring that the gentleman is concerned about, not in the appropriations process. I know it is difficult for Members who only get a chance to make their point only when we come to the appropriations process. So it is frustrating to say this is not the problem, but this is not the problem.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. A one percent across-the-board cut, small number. First of all, let me say to the gentleman something he did not say, the committee has already adopted the President's administrative cuts of $50 million across the agencies with the exception of the law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the law enforcement agencies because as the gentleman has pointed out, we are confronting terrorism here at home and around the world. But let me speak to the larger question that the gentleman, I think, probably does not know, and too many of our Members do not know this fact, the public probably does not know this fact either. In 1962, 40 years ago, this country spent 3.4 percent of its gross domestic products on domestic discretionary spending. That is what this is all about, spending on the Treasury Department, GSA building, the President's salary, expenses that we are talking about, 3.4 percent. The last year for which we have record, we are in 2002, for 2001, I tell the gentleman, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about exploding expenses, we spent 3.4 percent of GDP on domestic discretionary spending. Only one year I tell my friend, from 1981 through 1993, the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, only one of those years did we spend as little as 3.4 percent of GDP. All the rest of the years were either in the 3.5's or above or in the 4 percent of GDP. So I tell my friend, the Committee on Appropriations, which all the authorizers think is spending money willy nilly, is spending less money today as a percentage of GDP than we did in the Reagan and Bush years. So the belt has been tightened. That is important that the public understand that. I speak in strong opposition to this bill. It is so easy to come to the floor and say do 1 percent across-the-boards, or 2 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent. That is easy. What is tough is to come to this floor and say cut X or Y or Z because it is not as effective and efficient.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree with me that the items he has mentioned and, obviously, they go down the further the President is a past President; does the gentleman agree with me that the dollars he seeks to cut would not and could not be cut from those items?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I took the time in opposition, but I am not going to oppose this amendment. Number one, it is my understanding with the chairman, pursuant to the colloquy, this amendment will not be affected as it now reads by the conference committee. Why? Because we want to make sure that the program does not go dark, I say tangentially, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Walters says it is a program that has not worked, or recently has not worked, and he was, of course, an opponent of the program when it initially was adopted. That aside, let me say that one of the reasons I will not oppose it is because I believe the premise of the amendment is a premise that we all can share. The distinguished gentleman from Maryland already mentioned this, but I think it bears mentioning again, not solely for political purposes, although obviously it is a high-visibility item, but also because this company is seeking to do business with the drug media program. I mention Halliburton because it is a high-visibility company. Obviously the Vice President had some dealings with it. But it falls into the Ogilvy category. It is a company that has profited and continues to profit enormously from multiple contracts with the Department of Defense. In February of this year, Halliburton subsidiary KBR reached a $2 million settlement, very similar to the Ogilvy settlement, with the government amid criminal allegations of fraud, false claims and false statements. KBR was subsequently, notwithstanding that, awarded a 10- year unlimited cost contract with the Army. There were no amendments to preclude that. But the principle that the gentleman from Georgia puts before us is a very valid principle, and the principle is, if you want to do business with the government, play by the rules. We had an amendment on this floor that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) fought very strongly for that said if you want to abscond, if you want to dodge American taxes and dodge your responsibility and go overseas, to Bermuda or someplace else, then hey, we're not going to contract with you, we're not going to give you millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions in contracts. That is essentially the proposition that this amendment puts forward. I think it is a proposition frankly that the other body has sympathy with on both sides of the aisle. I do not think this is a partisan issue. I think the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct on that. Therefore, I have discussed this with the chairman, I think the chairman and I are in agreement, A, we are going to make sure that this program does not go dark. It may need to be made to operate more effectively and better so that it has the impact. We have spent a lot of money on it although we have cut the money, as you know, that was originally asked for by the President by some $10 million, but this is an important program. But we want to make sure that this program is conducted in a fashion that all of us can have faith and trust and is not advantaging those who have undermined their responsibility to deal fairly with the government and deal fairly and legally with others. In that context, Mr. Chairman, I will not object to this amendment, would hope that we could adopt it by a voice vote and then, working with the gentleman from Georgia and others, we will work in the conference to come to a conclusion that I think will stand for the proposition that this amendment stands for, and at the same time, protect the program that all of us feel is an important one.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would hope that not only the respect for these five former Presidents, unique Americans, but also an understanding of the important role they play in our country, would lead to Members opposing this amendment, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for reserving and giving me the opportunity to explain this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment frankly was brought to me just within the last 48 hours. It does, however, seem to raise an issue of significant importance and difficulty for a number of those in the shipping business. The problem apparently is that if a person has a ship repaired while on the high seas, that is not within the territorial waters of any nation, and those repairs are effected using non-U.S. parts, then they must fill out very substantial paperwork, and very substantial reporting requirements are implicated in that instance, so that we are causing a great burden to shipping companies that are U.S.- flagged. Obviously, we want shipping to be U.S.-flagged. We know that that is a difficulty. I have introduced this amendment to try to address that issue. Because I introduced the amendment as a ``none of the funds'' and it is, therefore, a very blunt instrument, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) that this amendment should not pass in its present form. Even if it were added to the bill, I would be in favor of dropping it in conference. Its purpose was solely to protect our ability to address this issue. It is, however, my understanding from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and his staff that they share the view that this is a problem and that they are going to look at that and look at it closely. I do want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for his attention to this matter and for his staff working with us to see if we can come to a resolution of this matter.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we passed on suspension a bill that passed overwhelmingly that allocated $10 billion. It was subjected to 40 minutes of debate on this floor last night. We voted. There were hardly any votes in opposition. This issue is so de minimis in terms of its dollars, any dollar is important, I understand that, but that it must be interpreted simply as either symbolic or annoying. The gentleman from Colorado projects this as a small amount of dollars but, relatively speaking, I will tell my friend, they are a relatively large number of dollars. In fact, they are 41 percent of the discretionary dollars from which this cut would have to be made, almost half. Now, why do I say that? Because pensions are given, salaries of those currently on board working for President Ford, President Clinton, President Bush, President Carter are not going to be cut, so that the remaining money will simply be cut from the $880,000 for all five Presidents, and Mrs. Johnson, the widow, who gets a very, very small sum and, therefore, the sum that the gentleman suggests, while yes, presumably a smaller sum of the whole, but because so much of the whole is already committed, that which remains, the discretionary dollars from which it is cut, it is a 41 percent cut. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are more Republican former Presidents, but let me tell my colleagues one that I speak to most frequently, interestingly enough, not a Democrat, but a Republican, for whom I have great respect and unlimited affection, and that is President Gerald Ford, who has used his resources, his position, his experience, his wisdom in a very positive way, as has President Carter, and as have all of the other Presidents. I will tell my colleagues that President Ford believes these kinds of amendments are, in effect, simply scratching former Presidents, as if somehow they are a problem fiscally for the country. Indeed, I look at them as just the opposite: a great resource for this country, that we spend some $3.3 million on, to allow them to be effective in their role, unique role, as former Presidents. So I would ask my colleagues to review this amendment in the terms of, A, it is a relatively small amount of money in the context of the dollars that we are talking about, even in this relatively small bill, but a significant sum in undermining the ability of former Presidents to travel and, frankly, when they travel on the private sector, my colleagues must understand, they travel at private sector expense, not a public expense, not at taxpayer expense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.