Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chair of our subcommittee, for the leadership he has shown on this bill. I want to thank our staff, particularly our staff director, Ms. Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Walter Hearne, Tammy Hughes and Randy Cogga, who is a detailee working with us. I also want to thank my own staff, Mike Malone and Scott Nance, who have done an outstanding job. I also want to thank Chairman Young for his assistance, and Ranking Member Obey for providing an allocation that is workable. And I want to thank Chairman Istook, as I said earlier, for working with us. Although we disagree on some of the funding levels and provisions included in this bill, our views have generally been incorporated in the bill. The bill provides for $18.5 billion in discretionary budget authority, $148 million higher than fiscal year 2002, a relatively modest number. This bill provides $3.128 billion for the Customs Service, $127.3 million above the President's request. This will allow the Customs Service to meet their homeland security needs as well as address other issues such as modernization of their antiquated import data system known as ACE. The bill provides $185 million to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, $30 million above the President's request, in order to handle the additional workload related to the training of Transportation Security Agency personnel. The bill adds $32 million back to Treasury law enforcement agencies that was cut in the President's budget for unspecified nonpay inflation costs. I intend to work with the chairman to add back funding to all Treasury agencies that were forced to take this cut. The bill provides close to the full funding amount for the IRS which will enable them, Mr. Chairman, to increase compliance efforts and continue to modernize their business systems. The bill, in addition, provides $246 million, $40 million above the request, for high intensity drug trafficking areas, and $55.8 million, $15 million above the request, for the counterdrug research and technology transfer programs at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. For the General Services Administration, the bill includes $606.4 million for the construction of Federal buildings. I would like to point out that $177 million is included to construct a new census building in Suitland, Maryland, and $45.5 million for the continued consolidation of FDA. In addition to the $400 million included in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental bill, this bill provides an additional $200 million for election reform administration. I want to thank our leaders, including Speaker Hastert and Chairman Young, for their commitment to include this important funding. I would observe, however, Mr. Chairman, that this funding, should the authorization bill pass, will be very substantially inadequate, and I will be seeking supplemental funds in the event that the election reform authorization bill passes prior to us completing conference or completing the final passage of this bill. The bill also includes several provisions that benefit Federal employees, including language that provides Federal employees with its comparability adjustment comparable to that of the military. This adjustment is 1.5 percent higher than the President's request. Although most of this bill is supportable, there are some issues in the bill that I disagree with. For the first accounts program, which attempts to provide access to those who are ``unbanked'' in this country, the bill provides restrictive provisions that may ruin the program. I am hopeful that we will drop those in conference. Although the bill provides $4 million for the program, $2 million above the fiscal year 2002 level, these provisions may severely limit the ability of the Treasury Department to have a successful program. These limitations seem to have been developed without full information, in my opinion, about their impact. I am also concerned about the committee's elimination of the savings bonds program's $22 million marketing budget. To have a program to sell savings bonds without the ability to market them, in my opinion, does not seem to make sense. I also continue to be concerned with the lack of information received from the Office of Homeland Security. This bill includes $24.8 million for that office, despite our frustrations with the limited amount of information provided to this committee. Let me speak to that for 1 minute, Mr. Chairman. I asked the representative of the White House who testified on this budget whether or not he could tell me how this money was to be spent. He said he could not. I asked him had he put this money together and had he planned this budget. He said he had not. I asked him had he discussed this matter with Governor Ridge as to how these funds were to be spent. He said he had not. Notwithstanding that fact, Governor Ridge refused to testify before our committee. I want to say in fairness to Governor Ridge, I believe that was under the instructions of the White House and, furthermore, Governor Ridge did make himself available to the committee for discussions. But it was an item that we should have had hearings on, we should have had testimony on, and we did not. I continue to believe that the director of that office, Homeland Security, should testify within the regular committee hearing process so that we can exercise our constitutional right of oversight. On balance, however, Mr. Chairman, this bill is an improvement from the President's request, and despite some disagreements with its contents, I ask my colleagues to support it in its current form. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time, and I want to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who everybody knows I feel very highly, about one of the fairest chairman I have ever served under, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), one of the most able Members I have served with. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and want to highlight funding in two critical areas. First, this supplemental appropriations bill gives us $400 million reasons to complete our work on election reform as soon as possible. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) were critically important in making sure this money stayed in this bill. Appropriators from both sides of the aisle on both sides of the Capitol have done their job. They recognize that we must upgrade our election systems. They recognize that the disenfranchisement of an estimated 6 million voters in November 2000 offends our democratic values, and they recognize that real reform costs money. Now we must finish the job and pass the election reform conference report that authorizes the expenditure of the funding. Election reform conferees are making progress in resolving the differences between the House and the Senate bills, and I hope this supplemental appropriation bill and the $400 million it provides for election reform adds urgency to our negotiations. We must not delay. Secondly, I want to note the $150 million that is provided for the Fire Grant Program through FEMA, bringing the fiscal year 2002 total to $510 million. I note that some $3 billion-plus had been requested by local fire services and emergency responders throughout the Nation, but this is a significant step forward. Every day we ask our firefighters to risk their lives to protect our homes, our businesses and our children. With this additional funding, Mr. Speaker, we say to them we recognize and appreciate their sacrifice and want to ensure they can do their jobs as safely and effectively as possible.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I was not going to get into this, but I want to thank the chairman of the committee. As the chairman knows, I have great concern about LaPlata, Maryland, that was struck by a tornado some months ago, and literally two-thirds of the town was obliterated, knocked down, along with almost a thousand homes destroyed. I was hopeful that there would be some additional funds in this bill. That was not possible. But I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, with whom I talked during the course of the conference, for their assurances that during the course of the next weeks that we will address this problem. I want to be able to assure the folks of LaPlata that we have not forgotten them and we are going to assist them as soon as we possibly can; and I thank the chairman for his assurance on that and working with me to accomplish that objective, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey) as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 439, which pays tribute to my friend, Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Women's Caucus. Lindy Boggs is an outstanding individual whose service in the U.S. House of Representatives has made a lasting and positive contribution to this great institution. Her dedication to public service, especially in improving the lives of women, children and the underprivileged, has touched the lives of many--and is a testimony to her impeccable character. I had the distinct honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee with Lindy after I was elected to Congress--and I can truly say she is one of the most proactive and effective Members I have had the privilege of serving with in Congress. Lindy's remarkable career is one of many firsts. In 1973, she became the first women elected to the United States House of Representatives from Louisiana. And by the end of her tenure in 1991, she became the longest serving Congresswoman from the South. Lindy was the first woman to chair a national political convention, leading the Democratic convention of 1976 that nominated President Jimmy Carter. Her dedication to the advancement of women led her to help found the Congressional Women's Caucus in 1977, which is still active today as an instrumental bipartisan force in Congress that promotes key legislation to advance the rights of women. She was a leader in creating the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, and chaired the Crisis Intervention Task Force. Since retiring from Congress, Lindy served as United States Ambassador to the Holy See from 1997-2001. Her life long dedication to public service exemplifies the devotion, integrity and leadership that have characterized her personal, family and political lives through the years. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 439, in tribute to Lindy Boggs. Her valuable contributions in Congress and her fierce advocacy of women's rights are an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time and I rise in opposition to the rule. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in the last rule talked about a missed opportunity. This is another missed opportunity. We say, all of us, most of the people that I have heard say that the act of moving overseas to avoid participating in supporting the government, our defense, our fight against terrorism, our homeland security is an act which they condemn. Each and every one of us have said that. The American public thinks that that is an unpatriotic effort. The average person in the street is not going to move to Bermuda. The average person in the street is not going to move to some far-off place so that they can avoid taxation. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in the debate on the last bill said, ``Well, we're changing that. We're changing the death tax, which is why most people move overseas.'' The average taxpayer, who does not have any liability for the death tax, has to pay a FICA tax, the average working guy, and 50 percent of them pay more FICA tax, Social Security tax, than they do income tax. They cannot move overseas to avoid that and, in fact, they do not. They pay their fair taxes. They do not want to pay more than their fair share, but they pay their fair share. But what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is speaking to and what this amendment speaks to is saying that we are not going to tolerate in America people who earn their money here, become rich here, successful here, to move overseas to avoid participating in continuing to make this country strong and free. We ought not to miss that opportunity. I would tell my friends in this body that this amendment was adopted overwhelmingly and bipartisanly in the Committee on Appropriations. Reject this rule. Adopt a new one. Let us pass the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us deserves our support, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for working together. I also want to congratulate both Liz Dawson and Mark Murray, as well as the other members of the staff who worked on this bill. There are too many good provisions to discuss them all. One of the best, however, is funding for all the new Capitol police officers that the agency can recruit and train next year; a total of 288 more. We certainly hope that the police can reach this goal and bring the force to a total of 1,454 sworn personnel. As our challenges of security have increased substantially, we need this complement of personnel to carry out their duties not only in terms of the security to the building and the people who visit and work here, but also with respect to the safety of those officers. Our Capitol police have faced tremendous challenges since September 11. They worked 12-hour shifts, 6 days a week for months. Now they are losing officers to other agencies, especially the Transportation Security Administration, which offers, frankly, more money and benefits. In fiscal 2002, the Capitol police have already lost to other agencies over twice the number lost, on average, in the last 3 years. They will lose more unless we act. Fortunately, this bill includes key provisions of the retention bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I cosponsored, and which the House passed on June 26, including a 5 percent pay raise in the fall. It also includes a tuition reimbursement program, expanded specialty pay, and recruiting bonuses. As a matter of fairness, the bill makes whole those officers adversely affected during the recent period of heavy overtime by limits on holiday and other premium pay. In addition, it provides for the cost-of-living adjustment of 4.1 percent in January. This restores roughly $350,000 that the officers earned in premium pay but were not paid. To these, the bill adds new provisions to encourage recruitment and retention, including authority for premium pay in lieu of overtime and enhanced professional training. With these provisions, Mr. Chairman, we intend to assure Capitol police officers that we value their service and we hope that they will stay. We want to encourage those young men and women who seek a career in law enforcement to seek a position with the Capitol Police. Another excellent feature is the authorization of a student loan repayment program for the House. The Committee on House Administration met Wednesday and approved regulations so the Chief Administrative Officer can have the program in place as soon as we pass this bill. This program will help Members, committees, and officers recruit and retain qualified employees. It is needed, in my opinion, to enable the House to stay competitive with other agencies, including the United States Senate, which already has such a program. In this vein, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the work of our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is seated to my left. She has promoted this program tirelessly. The gentlewoman introduced a bill last year to bring this program to legislative branch agencies that did not have it. I understand the Architect, the last major agency without it, is certainly of significant interest to her, to me, and I think to the House. I am hopeful that as we move forward, and we expect to have a colloquy on this issue, to include them as well. I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and others to provide appropriate authority for the Architect, and I thank her for her strong leadership in this area. This bill also includes language authorizing a program to facilitate employment in the House of persons with disabilities. As a sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, this is a particularly important provision to me, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for including it in the bill. I thank Ms. Dawson for her hard work on this program as well. This bill also funds, of course, all legislative employees, including the police, and extends to them the same 4.1 percent COLA that executive branch employees will receive next January. It funds the same $100 cash transit benefit for participants in that program. Federal employees in the legislative branch deserve parity on these important benefits. In addition to funding fire safety work in the complex, the bill calls for studying ways to beautify the power plant in conjunction with the needed capital improvements. Now, when I say beautify, I am working very hard, Mr. Chairman, with this committee and other committees to ensure that the south capital gateway to our capital is as impressive as are the other gateways to our capital. The power plant does not enhance that at this point in time. And as a good neighbor, we ought to work towards that end. Finally, last year's bill included a provision ending the Architect's employment of temporary workers for long periods without benefits. While implementing the provisions, the Architect of the Capitol faced several technical obstacles to carrying out the original intent and sought our assistance. The technical correction in this bill requires the Architect to make employer contributions for benefits for AOC employees directly to entities designated to receive such contributions. Those corrections are included in this bill, and I appreciate again the staff's help on accomplishing that. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will meet the needs of the legislative agencies in the coming year. The subcommittee staff, and I have mentioned Liz Dawson, but Chuck Turner, Mark Murray, Mike Malone, Tim Akin, of the office of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and many others, including agency budget officers, have done an excellent job. I also would be neglectful if I did not mention my own staffer Mike Harrison, who has worked so diligently on this bill, and others. And I would urge an ``aye'' vote. I will speak later on it, but I also want to speak to the Moran amendment, which I think will be a very important addition to this bill and which I hope passes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and extraordinary efforts on behalf of all of the employees of the legislative branch. I know her deep concern for the Architect's office, which is a sort of hybrid of the legislative branch. I appreciate very much the gentlewoman giving credit to a lot of other people, but she has been the spark plug on this issue and the engine behind it. I wanted to also say that Liz Dawson of our committee was extraordinarily helpful in getting us to this point, as well as the other staffers that were mentioned. And more importantly, I know that the employees of the House and of the Architect's office and others on Capitol Hill appreciate the gentlewoman's work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am going to support the underlying bill, as I know the ranking member and certainly the chairman will. I will speak at greater lengths on the substance of the bill, which is excellent, and I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) working with us. Mr. Speaker, we are in an environment that is very dangerous. It is an environment in which secrecy in the marketplace has undermined the confidence of investors. It has undermined the confidence of the investors to the extent that the market has plummeted, and millions of people have lost very substantial amounts in their 401(k)s, their Keoughs, and other savings plans. One might say, well, that is interesting. What does it have to do with this bill? What it has to do with this bill is that we ought to be in an environment of making sure that investors, in this case taxpayers who invest in America, know what is happening with their tax dollars, and know what is happening with those around them in terms of contributing to the war on terrorism, to homeland security, to education, to health care, to the welfare and greatness of this Nation. That is what the Moran amendment seeks to do. Very frankly, self-respect, if nothing else, should compel us to adopt the Moran amendment. Self-respect to the extent that the House says to one of its committees, produce a report, in this case, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, not a Democrat. Notwithstanding that request, and notwithstanding the fact that the Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a study about tax absconders, tax dodgers, that report is being kept secret. Mr. Speaker, we ought to oppose this rule and put the Moran amendment back in this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. The gentleman and I were very much involved in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. No one who was involved in the passage of that act could not know Justin Dart. No one could possibly miss the incredible contribution he made to the passage of that most significant civil rights legislation in a quarter of a century. The gentleman from New York was a key part of the leadership in passing that bill in this House, as was Steve Bartlett, my Republican counterpart, who was assigned by his leadership, Bob Michel, to work with me, I was assigned by Speaker Foley, to work on this bill. Both of us knew that we owed Justin Dart an incredible debt. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of loss, as well as a sincere appreciation, that I come to the floor to commemorate the passing on June 22 of a dear friend, a personal hero, and a truly extraordinary human being. For nearly 5 decades, Justin Dart, Jr., was one of the world's most courageous, passionate and effective advocates for civil and human rights. He was perhaps best known, as I have said, as the father of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the landmark civil rights law signed by President Bush that opened the door of equality to millions of our disabled brothers and sisters. Many called him properly the Martin Luther King of the disability civil rights movement. He thought of himself, however, in more humble terms, simply as a soldier of justice. But the undeniable moral clarity of his life's work, the inspirational, persistent march for equal treatment, respect and human dignity invites such comparisons. Dr. King famously said, and I quote, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Justin Dart understood that truth and he acted on it, devoting his life to fighting discrimination, empowering the disabled and comforting the dispossessed. Justin Dart was born to privilege, the son of a wealthy industrialist who was a close adviser to President Reagan. His grandfather founded the Walgreen's drug store chain. Yet underachievement characterized his early life. He attended seven high schools and broke Humphrey Bogart's all-time record for demerits earned as a student at the elite Andover prep school. Then, in 1948, his life changed forever. Just 18 years of age, he contracted polio which left him in a wheelchair for the next 52 years. He did not grieve. In fact, he said, and I quote, ``I count the good days in my life from the time I got polio. These beautiful people not only saved my life, they made it worth saving.'' What an incredible statement for a man struck down in the early prime of his life, serving the rest of his life in a wheelchair. That life was dramatic testimony to the ability he had while some looked at him as having a disability. Justin went on to earn bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Houston, where he organized an ``Integration Club'' at the then all-white institution. He wanted to become a teacher, but the university withheld his teaching certificate because of his wheelchair use. In 1963, he started Japan Tupperware and, in just 2 years, the company expanded from three employees to 25,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Justin took severely disabled Japanese out of institutions and gave them paying jobs. It is also in Japan that he met his wife of 39 years, Yoshiko Dart. What an extraordinary person she is as well. In 1974, Justin and Yoshiko moved to Texas where they immersed themselves in disability activism; and then in 1981, President Reagan appointed him to be vice-chair of the National Council on Disability. In that position, Justin Dart helped draft a national policy calling for civil rights legislation to end discrimination against people with disabilities, an action which laid the foundation for the Americans With Disabilities Act signed on July 26, 1990. In the 1980s, Justin also served as head of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People With Disabilities, and chair of the Congressional Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of People With Disabilities. However, despite his various positions and duties, the high point of his 5 decades, 5 decades in the civil rights movement, was the passage of the ADA. As the lead House sponsor of the ADA, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and a few others, I saw firsthand how Justice crisscrossed the country, at his own expense, building grass-roots support for its passage. As a matter of fact, in the last 16 years of his life, hear this, Justin Dart, on behalf of ADA implementation and ADA passage, visited every State in the Union at least five times. This man in a wheelchair, struck down by polio at the age of 18, in the last 16 years of his life visited every one of the 50 States at least five times on behalf of the cause that was his life. Its enactment was singular testimony to his ability, his passion, and his determined spirit. Fittingly, President Bush presented Justin with the first pen he used to sign the ADA into law during a ceremony on the South Lawn. Eight years later, President Clinton awarded Justin the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor, remarking that Justin had ``literally opened the doors of opportunities to millions of our citizens by securing passage of one of the Nation's landmark civil rights laws.'' Mr. Speaker, the great American humorist Will Rogers once said, ``It is only the inspiration of those who die that makes those who live realize what constitutes a useful life.'' Justin Dart, Jr., has left a legacy of lives touched and hearts changed. We are the beneficiaries of his love, his compassion, and his devotion to equality. It now falls to us, Mr. Speaker, all of us, to carry on the fight and to realize Justin's vision of a revolution of empowerment. That is precisely what we owe the memory of this wonderful man. Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere condolences to Yoshiko, his daughters, and his entire family; and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution but, indeed, to do more than that: to keep the faith with this brave and decent human being, humble almost to a fault, giving credit to all around him for that which was accomplished. But all of us knew that in the final analysis, the moral leader of our effort, the inspiration for our work was this great and gentle man, Justin Dart, Jr.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 482, legislation that honors one of baseball's finest players, and one of America's finest citizens, Ted Williams. I also want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey for offering this fitting resolution. Mr. Speaker, Ted Williams was respected by his peers, admired by his successors, and adored by his fans. His work-ethic was second to none, and he toiled day in and day out, dreaming that one day people would see him and remark: ``There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.'' His wiry frame and pure talent earned him the nickname ``The Splendid Splinter,'' and Ted Williams never failed to live up to that reputation on the field. Williams is best remembered for batting .406 in 1941. In the sixty years since that tremendous season, no one has approached the milestone. That 1941 season typified Williams' supreme devotion to the sport of baseball. Before the final day of the season, Williams had secured a .400 batting average. Yet he refused to sit out that day's double- header, playing both games and batting 6 for 8, raising his average 6 points. Ted Williams' dedication to the game of baseball was evident as he continued to excel at an age when most ballplayers would have long since hung up their cleats. At the age of 40, he added his sixth and final batting title to his long list of accomplishments, becoming the oldest player to ever lead the league in hitting. Williams was also a master of dramatic finishes, as he closed out his career in Fenway Park with a home run in his last at-bat. It was a fitting end for Boston's greatest and most beloved baseball player of all time. While Teddy Ballgame will always be remembered as a baseball player, some of his greatest accomplishments came off the field. Williams' devotion to baseball was matched only by his devotion to his country. He acted as a true role model and hero during a time of war, sacrificing three years in the prime of his career to serve in the United States Marines in World War II from 1943-1945. Seven years later, he again left the baseball diamond to serve his country, this time in the Korean War. And even though his time in the military undoubtedly cost him some of his best playing days, he never regretted his service. In fact, Williams often counted his enlistment as a Marine as one of his greatest accomplishments. In addition to his heroic sacrifices as a Marine, Williams will be remembered as the first Hall of Famer to have the courage to insist upon the inclusion of Negro League stars in Cooperstown. And we will be forever grateful to Williams for his generous support of the Jimmy Fund, a local charity that aids the fight against cancer. Mr. Speaker, when Ted Williams passed away on July 5th, America lost a baseball legend. But we also lost a man with courage, dedication, and desire rarely equaled. It was these qualities that allowed Ted Williams to accomplish his lifelong goal. For when Ted Williams, the Splendid Splinter, passed away, there was one phrase that was on everyone's lips: ``There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many others. He has been extraordinarily helpful in getting the election reform legislation to the place it is now. I think this motion he now makes, and it is supported by both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and myself, is an important one; and I want to thank him for that. Mr. Speaker, in the 20 months since our last national election, the American people have seen the very best and very worst that democracy has to offer. The disenfranchisement of millions of Americans who fell prey to unreliable, outdated voting machines as well as the wide bipartisan support in the Congress for the Federal election reform will hopefully change that. Members on both sides of the aisle have spoken eloquently and sincerely about safeguarding our most cherished democratic right: the right to vote and to have one's vote counted. Yet our work is not done, for who among us would accept election reform that fails to ensure the privacy and independence of millions of eligible voters at the ballot box? None of us, I would argue, because the right to exercise the franchise under conditions that afford privacy and independence is intimately American and bound up in what it means to be a free and equal citizen in a democratic society. Yet in thousands of polling places across the country, voters who are physically, visually, or mentally challenged enjoy less privacy and independence when they exercise their sacred right to vote than do other voters. That is why I urge all Members to support this important motion to instruct offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). It is fair and it makes sense. It recognizes, as most of us do, that the election reform conference report should combine the best of the House-passed Help America Vote Act with the Senate-passed bill. To that end, the gentleman from Rhode Island's motion instructs the House conferees to agree to section 101(A)(3) of the Senate amendment to the House bill. This section states that by January 2007 voting systems shall be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters. Make no mistake about it, I am proud of the Help America Vote Act. I am proud of the work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I and so many others, including the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and others, helped us achieve. But we have not finished the job yet, Mr. Speaker; and we need to do that. We need to pass this motion and then hopefully the conference will become even more energized than it has been. We are late, not too late, but we are late in passing a conference report that incorporates, as I said, the best of the House bill and the best of the Senate bill. We need to pass election reform. We need to pass it in the next 3 weeks if at all possible. We need to tell the States the resources they will have available to make their machines not only accessible but accurate as they count every American's vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this very, very important motion to instruct.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have had the honor of serving with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) on the Committee on Appropriations for many years now. We saw the parade of Members from both sides of the aisle, all sorts of ideologies, come and give the gentlewoman a hug. They gave her a hug not for her, although she appreciated it; they gave her a hug for themselves. She is an historic leader of this House, an historic leader of her State, and a great American. She loves this country, and the great news is her country loves her. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is a person of great depth, of great intellect, of great ability, who is as humble an individual as I know, as effective an individual as I know. And, Carrie, all of us will miss you in the day-to-day operations of this body. But as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) indicated, we know that you are not going. We think you are probably going to be coming here regularly to visit family. Who knows? But we certainly want to say to the gentlewoman that we thank her. We thank her for being her, for being our friend, for being such a great Member of this House. She has brought honor to this House, she has brought humanity to this House, and she has brought great service to her district.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was traveling on official House business and missed rollcall votes 283 and 284. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on rollcall 283 and aye on rollcall 284.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, This GOP drug bill is nothing but a candy- coated placebo that fails to cure the problems faces by million and millions of senior citizens who are struggling every single month to pay for life-saving prescription drugs. The American people are just not going to swallow it. If the FDA approved a drug that was this untested and unreliable, there would be an outcry across this great Nation for immediate congressional investigations. Three words say it all: It won't work. This ideological plan--which depends on private insurance drug only policies--even has insurers scratching their heads. As Bill Gradison, our former Republican colleague in this House and the former head of the Health Insurance Association of America, recently said: ``I'm very skeptical that `drug only' private plans would work.'' There's no guarantee insurers will offer drug only policies. There's no guaranteed monthly premium. There's no defined benefit for seniors. There's no guaranteed access to the drugs you need. The only guarantee in this bill is that it would provide inadequate coverage. Everyone of us knows that the Republican party really wants to privatize Medicare. This bill is the first step. A few years ago, the majority leader even told the Chicago Tribune that he ``deeply resents the fact that when I'm 65, I must enroll in Medicare.'' In sharp contrast, Democrats want to create a plan under Medicare that's affordable, guaranteed, universal, and voluntary. The only argument that our Republican friends can muster against the Democratic plan is cost. But these are the same folks who voted to give Enron $250 Million, who voted to give a handful of other corporations billions more, who voted to eliminate the estate tax on the wealthiest estates in the country. Vote against this shameless drug bill. Let's adopt a plan that gives seniors the drugs they need and deserve.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, he went to the insurance industry and what does Bill Gradison say, a Republican, not a Democrat, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, retired, what does he say? A member representing the insurance agency, he says this bill will not work. That is what Bill Gradison says, and the shame on this democratic body is that an issue that all of us agree is so critically important will not be fully debated consistent with the principle that Mr. Solomon enunciated in 1995 when the reformers took over this House. How sad it is, how sad it is that we come here at this hour to debate one of America's most important issues, affecting millions and millions and millions of people. All of us, all of us have heard the lament of those individuals, be they female or male, who cannot pay their prescription drugs. It is our duty to reject this rule and to have a full and fair debate, consistent with the Solomon principles.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. There may be no more serious issue that we consider on the floor of this House this year. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) that just spoke said why it was so important. She is right. This issue is critically important to the women that she mentioned, critically important to the individuals that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) mentioned, and I would say critically important to the citizens that every one of the women on this side of the aisle represent and came and said they were concerned about and, therefore, are not supporting this rule. The gentlewoman from Connecticut said she was polite to those people, and she was. But I suggest to the gentlewoman that this rule is not polite. This rule denigrates the importance and seriousness of this issue. When your side took over in 1995, Gerald Solomon, the then-chairman of the Committee on Rules, said this, ``The guiding principals will be openness and fairness. The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a pre-determined outcome. From now on the Rules Committee will clear the stage for debate and let the House work its will.'' You have, of course, retreated from that statement. You have not honored the seriousness of this issue. The gentlewoman from Connecticut who the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says wrote this bill will not have the opportunity to defend this bill against an alternative that can be fully debated as to whether or not the seniors to whom she refers will, in fact, be protected. The gentlewoman served with Bill Gradison. Bill Gradison for those who are relatively new to the House was a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one of the senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and then Bill Gradison left here, and he went to head up the Insurance Industries Association in this country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's greatness derives not only from our commitment to tolerance and a profound belief in the separation of church and state but also from the fact that we have always been, and hopefully will always be, a Nation of faith. Our Declaration of Independence which we celebrate 1 week from today avowed, and I quote, ``firm reliance on the protection of divine providence.'' Every one of our 43 Presidents has said a prayer or invoked God during their inaugural address. And our Pledge of Allegiance has included the phrase ``one Nation under God'' since 1954, harkening back to, 100 years prior to that, the remarks of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg address. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the acknowledgment of a power greater than ourselves or the state was somehow unconstitutional, notwithstanding the language of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed, not by the state, not by the majority, but by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what we acknowledge when we say ``in God we trust.'' That is what we acknowledge when we say ``one Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.'' I adamantly disagree with this misguided decision which runs counter to our cultural and historical traditions. I have high hopes that upon reflection that either the Ninth Circuit itself or the Supreme Court will reverse this erroneous and harmful decision.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his remarks. I want to thank him for his leadership on this bill and so many others. Before I reference the specific provisions of this bill which are very, very important, I hope all of our colleagues are pleased with the work of our Committee on House Administration, which is charged with the responsibility of working on matters that deal with Members, visitors, and staff and which deal with other issues of how this institution and our offices are maintained and operate. I hope they are pleased, because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have found a common cause in working together without political considerations, without partisanship. It is an honor and a privilege to serve with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) on this committee. As the ranking Democratic member of a committee, sometimes one does not feel included. That has never been for one second the case on this committee, where we work as colleagues and, more than that, as partners, in most cases, in lockstep in trying to accomplish objectives that we think are good for this House and good for this country. As I say, it is an honor and a privilege to serve with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). Mr. Speaker, since last year's attacks, Capitol Police officers have faced extraordinary challenges. For months after the attacks, most worked 12-hour shifts, 6 days a week so Congress, the people's House, the United States Senate, and the Capitol could continue to operate. The 12-hour shifts may have eased, but Capitol Police still confront extraordinary challenges. Unfortunately for Congress, its staff and visitors, Capitol Police officers also confront extraordinary opportunities. Now, I say that is bad news for us, because we do not want to lose them, but it is a testament to them. As trained law enforcement professionals, Capitol Police officers are always in demand by other agencies. In these times of heightened security, demand for trained personnel has probably never been higher. As a result, the Capitol Police is losing trained officers at an alarming rate. In just the first 8 months, Mr. Speaker, of fiscal year 2002, the Capitol Police have already lost 78 officers to other law enforcement agencies and have three more departures pending. This is more than double the number lost on average to other law enforcement agencies during the last 3 years. If this rate continues, the Capitol Police will, by fiscal year's end, have lost 122 officers to other agencies; 242 percent over the 3- year average. This does not even count separations for other reasons. This attrition comes as the police strive to raise manpower to recommended levels, to respond to heightened security concerns, and demands for their services. One Federal agency in particular, Mr. Speaker, the new Transportation Security Agency, is attracting trained officers from the Capitol Police and elsewhere to serve as sky marshals and airport security officers. TSA offers compensation that can exceed the average Capitol Police officer's pay, and I want my colleagues to hear this and digest it: TSA is offering salaries that can exceed the average Capitol Police salary by 80 percent or more. An 80 percent pay increase is tough for anybody to turn down. There is no doubt that TSA's work is vital, but the security of the Capitol is vital, as well. Congress has a duty to ensure the Capitol Police can attract and retain the people needed to make the Capitol safe. This is why the chairman and I introduced H.R. 5018. The bill authorizes a 5 percent pay raise for fiscal year 2003 for officers through the rank of captain. Raises for higher-ranking officers will be discretionary with the Police Board. This gives officers who may be thinking of leaving a reason to stay. We want them to stay. We are proud of the service they give. We are respectful of their training and of their abilities. We want to send a strong message that we value their service. Mr. Speaker, the bill also increases from 6 to 8 hours the amount of annual leave earned per pay period by officers with at least 3 year service. As a matter of fairness, the bill authorizes the Board to make whole those officers adversely affected during the recent months of heavy overtime by limits on premium pay. This will restore to officers roughly $350,000 that they earned but did not receive due to these limits. The bill also authorizes extra pay for officers in specialty assignments, as determined by the Board. It lets the Board hire experienced officers and employees at salaries above the minimum for a particular position when needed and justified. It authorizes, as well, a tuition reimbursement program for officers taking courses on their own time leading towards a law enforcement- related degree and authorizes bonuses upon completion of such degrees. This will give officers opportunities for professional improvement, which should lead in turn, it is our hope, to a more rapid advancement. For Congress, this will create a more educated and better Capitol Police force. The bill authorizes bonuses for officers and employees who recruit others to join the force, potentially turning the entire agency into active recruiters. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as important as these tangible benefits are, we recognize that there are intangible aspects that make any job more interesting, helping to persuade veterans to stay and others to seek the position. The bill encourages our chief to deploy officers in innovative ways, maximizing opportunities to rotate among various posts and duties, to be cross-trained for specialty assignments, and to utilize fully the skills and talents of individuals. More innovative management could greatly enhance the appeal and satisfaction of the job, making retention and recruitment easier. I am convinced that the chief understands that and has the skill and management capability to do just that. If done smartly, it would also make the Capitol more secure. Mr. Speaker, in the course of developing this bill, the committee reached out in many directions for guidance. I met with the new chief, Terry Gainer, and Assistant Chief Bob Howe, who offered very solid and important ideas. We received suggestions from other senior police officials. We received valuable input from the Fraternal Order of Police, representing the rank and file, and from numerous officers. We sought guidance from the Sergeant at Arms and Police Board. We also heard from individual Members concerned about the current attrition and who wanted to see it addressed. In addition, Mr. Speaker, both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have had the opportunity of talking to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations, which funds the Capitol Police, and his staff. They have also given very positive input into this process. Mr. Speaker, this good bill would reduce Capitol Police attrition and encourage recruitment. I thank the chairman, as I said at the beginning, for his leadership on this issue. We work as a team. It is a ``we'' committee, not a ``me'' or an ``I'' committee, and it is that because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). I thank him for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge the House to support the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but under my reservation I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman seeks to do is create an unfair advantage for the Republican negotiators in the conference. That is what he seeks to do. He executes fairness, bipartisanship, good process, and an opportunity to provide for the bipartisan consideration of this issue. The gentleman and I have been together oftentimes on these kinds of issues. He makes a mistake. The Committee on Rules makes a mistake. My colleagues, do not compound that mistake. Reject this rule. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I call upon Members of the House to have self-respect for this institution and for our rules and for our process. This is called a self-executing rule. It is an unfair rule. Let me read from the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the predecessor to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He said, ``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness. The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome. From now on, the Committee on Rules will clear the stage for debate, and let the House work its will.'' This is a self-executing rule. It executes fairness. It executes good process. It executes bipartisanship. It executes comity. It executes trust. It executes opportunity for partnership on this critical issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 30th anniversary of title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972. This legislation prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive Federal funds. It has been instrumental, in my opinion, in helping women get into educational programs where they had previously been underrepresented, such as the math and sciences. It has helped to encourage women to break job barriers and obtain careers, such as engineers, doctors and mathematicians, which in turn has diversified our workforce and infused our society with an energy and potential that had not been tapped for centuries. It is really incredible, when we think of this country and we think of how we excluded on the basis of gender so many talented people. I am the father of three daughters. And the concept that these incredibly talented, energetic people would have been excluded based upon their gender is despicable. We have come a long way in this country not only on gender but on race, ethnicity, and national origin. Title IX was a tremendous contributor to that progress. Perhaps the biggest achievement of title IX is the fact that it has leveled the playing field for men and women in sports. It mandates equal treatment for playing opportunities, access to athletic scholarships, equipment, facilities, and coaching. The numbers paint a powerful portrait. In the 30 years since title IX, the number of girls participating in high school sports has skyrocketed from 200,000 to almost 3 million, an 800 percent-plus increase. At the intercollegiate level, the number of participants is five times greater than before title IX was enacted. But what an appropriate thing it was to say we are going to treat people based upon, as Martin Luther King said, the content of their character or the abilities that they have. We said that in the Disabilities Act. We said it in title IX, how important it is for us to continually emphasize it is what people can do that we need to focus on, not their gender or race or disability, not some arbitrary and mostly capricious distinction that we draw. Clearly, the dated stereotype that women are not interested in athletics has been shattered as the door of opportunity continues to open. Title IX has allowed the desires and passions of millions of women to be realized. They participate in sports. They enjoy sports. They succeed in competitive sports. Competitive athletics have increased the academic success of young women and make it less likely that they will become involved with alcohol and drug abuse. The emotional and physical benefits women and girls gain from participation are invaluable. We know that physical participation is important, not only for your physical but also your mental capacities. At a time when many young women become critical of their appearance and grapple with eating disorders and low self-esteem, sports helps young women develop confidence and a positive body image. In the long term, athletic activities decrease a woman's chance of developing heart disease and breast cancer. So it is truly extraordinarily helpful. Mia Hamm, and what an extraordinary athlete. she is, the captain of the U.S. soccer team, which won the 1999 Women's World Cup, once stated, ``What I love about soccer is the way it makes me feel about myself. It makes me feel that I can contribute.'' She is part of the daughters of title IX who have paved a path for millions of female athletes to follow. Her statement hits the nail right on the head, as it highlights the selfconfidence and teamwork skills sports helped to develop and define. Title IX is, of course, not without its critics, but I think for the most part they are misguided. They blame title IX for eliminating some men's minor sports, but the reality is title IX provides institutions with the flexibility to determine how to provide equity for their students. A March 2001 GAO study found that 72 percent of colleges and universities that added women's teams did so without cutting any men's teams. In fact, men's overall intercollegiate athletic participation has risen since the passage of title IX. This truly was a win/win situation for men as well as and particularly for women. The complaint to be brought against title IX is that it does not go far enough, that the advancement for women in education and athletics, no matter how positive, must go further. As part of today's celebration of title IX, I would like to recognize Dr. Deborah A. Yow, the athletic director for the University of Maryland. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) is a crusty, conservative Member of the House of Representatives; a wonderful human being, a good-hearted human being, but not one that I perceive in the forefront of feminism in America, and I say that affectionately. He knows full well that I am closely associated with the University of Maryland. He came up and said, you know what, you have got a woman you ought to hire at the University of Maryland. She is a friend of mine, Deborah Yow, and is under consideration to be the athletic director at the University of Maryland. Now, at that point in time there were no women athletic directors at the level I-A schools. But the fact that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) came up to me and said Deborah Yow could do that job, I went back to my office and picked up the phone and called the then-president of the University of Maryland, who is now our new chancellor of our system, and told him, Britt, I have just talked to a person, this Deborah Yow must be extraordinary. Shortly thereafter, Deborah Yow was hired. She is now the athletic director, and of course we finished 10-1 in football and won the national basketball championship, under a woman athletic director. Those were men's teams; and we have won numerous championships in lacrosse and field hockey for our women's teams. Her sister is a major athletic leader in our country as well. Her outstanding career achievements serve to exemplify the important contributions made by women in the athletic arena, as well as to our entire society. In a male-dominated profession, 91.6 percent of athletic directors in Division I universities being men, Debbie has not only met the challenges of her profession, but she has raised the bar for all. Under Debbie's leadership, the Terrapins ranked nationally as one of the top 20 athletic programs in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report. The University of Maryland under her leadership has established an incredibly strong athletic program with exemplary student athletes, coaches and administrators. Mr. Speaker, in closing, in 1972, when the Congress and the country said we are going to make sure that everybody, irrespective of gender, can participate equally and achieve to the extent of their character and their ability, we made a statement and adopted a policy that has made America a better country. Title IX has truly made our country stronger.