Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, since last year's terrorist and anthrax attacks, Capitol Police officers have faced extraordinary challenges. For months after the attacks, most worked twelve-hour shifts, six days a week, to assure that Congress could continue its work. Such grueling shifts were required even with help from the District of Columbia National Guard, whose members stood watch with our Police for five months. The Guard has resumed its normal duties, and the twelve-hour shifts have eased, but Capitol Police still confront extraordinary challenges. Unfortunately for Congress, its staff and visitors, Capitol Police also confront extraordinary opportunities--to seek employment elsewhere. As trained law-enforcement professionals, Capitol Police officers are always in demand by other law-enforcement agencies. However, in these times of heightened security, overall demand for trained personnel has never been higher. As a result, the Capitol Police are losing officers at an alarming rate. As of June 1, the Capitol Police had already lost 78 officers to other law-enforcement agencies in fiscal 2002, and had three more such separations pending. This is more than twice the number lost on average to other agencies during the last three years. If this rate continues, the Capitol Police will by September 30 have lost 122 officers to other agencies. This does not include retirements and separations for other reasons. This tremendous attrition comes as Capitol Police strive to increase manpower to recommended levels. One federal agency in particular, the new Transportation Security Agency, is attracting trained officers from the Capitol Police and elsewhere to serve as sky marshals and other airport-security officers. TSA is offering compensation that can surpass the pay of the average Capitol Police officer by more than 80 percent. An 80 percent pay raise is tough for anyone to refuse. There is no doubt that TSA's work is vital. But the security of the Capitol complex is also vital. Congress has a responsibility to take every reasonable step to ensure that the Capitol Police can attract and retain the people needed to make the Capitol safe, so today, the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee (Mr. Ney) and I have introduced the Capitol Police Retention, Recruitment and Authorization Act. In addition to sundry authorization matters, the Act proposes a number of reasonable steps to reduce Capitol Police attrition and encourage recruitment. First, the bill would schedule 5 percent pay raises for each of the next five years for officers through the rank of captain. Raises for higher-ranking officers would be discretionary with the Capitol Police Board. This provision would give officers who may be considering leaving the prospect of regular increases for the foreseeable future. The bill would also increase from six to eight hours the amount of annual leave earned per pay period by all officers with at least three years' service. Second, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the bill would authorize the Board to make whole officers adversely affected during the recent months of sustained overtime by the limits on Sunday, holiday and other premium pay. This provision will restore to the officer roughly $350,000 that they earned but could not receive due to those limits. The bill authorizes extra pay for officers in specialty assignments as determined by the Board, and lets the Board hire experienced officers and employees at salaries above the minimum for a particular position, as needed. Third, the bill also provides important new benefits for officers. It authorizes establishment of a tuition-reimbursement program for officers taking courses on their own time leading toward a degree in law-enforcement field, and authorizes bonuses upon completion of such degrees. This will give officers ongoing opportunities for professional improvement, which should lead to more rapid advancement. For Congress, it will create a more educated and better Capitol Police force. To help provide manpower needed to avoid the punishing overtime of recent months, the bill authorizes bonuses for officers and employees who successfully recruit others to join the force, encouraging the entire agency to become recruiters. It allows the Board to employ retired federal law-enforcement officers without reduction to their annuities, and temporarily extends the mandatory retirement age from 57 to 59, but only through fiscal 2004, by which the Police intend to reach full strength. Finally, the bill recognizes that as important as these tangible benefits are, there are other, less tangible aspects that can make a job more interesting, and help persuade veterans to remain and others to seek it. The bill encourages the Chief of Police to deploy officers in innovative ways that maximize their opportunities to rotate among the various posts and duties, be cross-trained for specialty assignments, and generally to utilize fully the skills and talents of individuals. This will do much to enhance the appeal and satisfaction of the job, and make retention and recruitment easier. If done smartly, it will also make the Capitol, and those who visit and work here, much more secure. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments because I think we agree on that issue. The important issue will be that we do this right, and to that extent I agree with my friend.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I may be in a small minority in this House, but I just heard the majority leader say that this was to be done on the recommendations of all the standing committees, with reference to this consolidation, effective by July 12. We are going to adjourn next Friday, presumably, on June 28. We are going to come back on July 9 or 10 from our July 4 break. As I compute it, therefore, that leaves about 9 legislative days to consider the consolidation of agencies which have under their aegis almost $39 billion in expenses and have over 160,000 Federal employees. I have great reservations about what I perceive to be a rush to judgment on this issue. Do I believe we need to organize well to confront those who would undermine our country? I do. Do I believe that reinventing and reassessing the operations of the government on a periodic basis are necessary? I do. Do I believe, however, that in the face of threats, that we ought to do something that we might not otherwise have done? The answer to that is an emphatic no. Now, I may well support this effort, but I think it is a serious effort. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is seated here. He participated in a major effort, not to redeploy one of our largest departments, the Internal Revenue Service, but to reorganize it internally and to make it run better. He and I had some disagreements on that, but ultimately we all supported that effort and he did great work. But he will tell my colleagues that that one department, substantially less than 160,000 people, with no cross-jurisdictions because it was one department, was a complicated effort that needed time to effect. I would hope that everybody in this body would take this responsibility very seriously and give it the time necessary to effect an end that in a year from now or 10 years from now we will be able to look back on and say we did our work well, we did it thoughtfully, we did it carefully, and we did it well. Mr. Speaker, let me also observe that I have great concerns about the general waiver that is accorded to the Secretary of the Department in this legislation with reference to protections of Federal employees incorporated in law, in other words, not rule or regulation, but passed by this Congress, signed by a President of the United States, to ensure that our Federal employees have the kinds of protections and benefits that we believe were necessary not only to recruit and retain those Federal employees but to treat them fairly within our system. The legislation, as I understand it, that has been proposed by the President gives to the Secretary the power to waive those. I do not think that we ought to do that, and I hope that we do not do it. I will be focused on that as we move along in consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this time to express some caution as we approach this weighty and difficult task.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Ney), and he has done an extraordinary job and, I think, leads our committee the way every American would want him to lead the committee, and that is in an open and constructive way, and I thank him for that. I also wanted to focus on the sponsor of this particular motion to instruct. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is an extraordinary Member of this House. He is probably as well grounded in the law as any Member of this House. He is also a colleague of mine in participating in the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. He is a vice president of that international organization of 55 countries, respected internationally for his fairness and for his focus. I want to thank him for his leadership, not only in the State of Florida, but I want to thank him for his leadership in this Congress. He was the one who raised most pointedly the issue of funding for 2002. It was his leadership that allowed some of us to work with him and, I might say, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), to get the funding. So much of the year is gone, but the $450 million which is in the supplemental is now subject to authorization, and that is the key. We have to pass this legislation so that we can get that money to the States. So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for the leadership and the strong voice he has been on behalf of election reform in America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I want to, at the outset, thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) as the chairman of the Committee on House Administration has been absolutely critical, along with the staff of our Committee on House Administration on the majority side and the minority side, absolutely critical to getting election reform to where it is right now. It would not be nearly as far along. We passed this bill last December. Frankly, we could have passed it a year ago July, but there was some controversy on our side of the aisle, some controversy on side of the aisle of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and we needed to work with our members. We came to the floor in December, and over 360 Members of this House voted for this legislation. The instructions which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) seeks do not in any way, as the chairman has indicated, undermine the thrust of our legislation, which was to get election reform in place as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Senate took 4 months to pass its legislation after we passed our legislation. We have now been in conference for over a month now, and we are not moving quickly enough. We need to get this conference completed, we need to get this bill to the floor, we need to pass it, and we need to have States start implementing it. Mr. Speaker, the effort to correct the problems that surfaced in the 2000 election has been a Herculean and often difficult one. But, then, of course, most worthwhile efforts are such. Today we are closer than ever, in my opinion, to enacting the most comprehensive voting reform legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The motion that I am supporting today is intended to ensure that, as Congress enters this final critical stage of election reform, we remember that reform delayed is reform denied. The motion before us will ensure that delay of essential reforms will not be an option. The bill that we passed through the House did not have these extraordinarily long times, this safe harbor, this 2010 provision, this 2006 provision, this 2008 provision. The chairman is absolutely right. We understood that time was a problem and we needed to give States a reasonable time in which to implement. Very frankly, I think the House bill as it reads continues to be a reasonable bill, and I would hope as it reads we could adopt it. That is a little short of what the gentleman wants; but it is, I think, a reasonable place for us to be. This motion would instruct House conferees to insist on section 504(A) of the House-passed version of H.R. 3295, which requires States to be in compliance with commonsense minimum standards for the administration of elections no later than November 2004. Americans do not want a repeat of the election of 2000. I do not mean the result; I mean the process. Every American believes, President Bush has said correctly, every American has the right to vote; but that is an empty right, a specious right, an ineffective right, if that vote is not counted and counted accurately. The motion also instructs the House conferees to disagree to the safe harbor provision of section 104(B) of the Senate amendment to the House bill. I believe that section undermines election reform. I am opposed to it, and I will oppose it in conference. I would hope that the Senate conferees upon reflection would support us in that effort. That provision would delay enforcement of the minimum standards until as late as 2010, three Presidential elections away. In my view, that is unacceptable. Can States meet the 2004 deadline? Yes, they can. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) said States need to be anticipating. In fact, my State, Florida, Ohio, whose Secretary of State has been extraordinarily helpful in getting us to this point, are all looking at what we expect and what this law will require. If they are sitting on their hands, twiddling their thumbs, they are not acting on behalf of the American people. They ought to be getting right now ready to implement this legislation, as they expect it to be passed. Will there be compromises along the way? Of course. That is the nature of legislation. That is the nature of a conference. But if there is a Secretary of State, if there is an election official, if there is a registrar who is not moving towards the reforms that this bill will require, that passed with some 363 votes out of 435, and passed 99 to one in the United States Senate, then those election officials are derelict in their duty. So I say to them this day, through all my colleagues and through, Mr. Speaker, you, I say to them, through the Speaker of this House, start working now, if you are not far along in the process already, so that when we pass this legislation, hopefully within the next 30 days, you will be ready; you will be ready to vindicate the most important right of every citizen in democracy, and that is the right to vote, the right to have that vote counted, so that voter will participate in making policy and vision for America. We must provide that Congress delays no more. We in Congress must complete our work on election reform soon, soon, and give States sufficient lead time to meet their obligations. I urge my fellow conferees on election reform to immediately begin the important work of reconciling the House and Senate bills. My chairman and I do not disagree on substance. This day we disagree on the process of the expectation. But I want to reiterate as I close, without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), this legislation would not be where it is today. Without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), we would not have gotten it the floor as we did. Without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the House bill would not have been as good as it was and is. And, frankly, it looks better than it looked before the Senate passed its bill, he says with some degree of pride and vindication. Although much work remains, both the House and Senate bills are nearly identical in their basic goals, to give States the resources to improve their election systems and establish minimum standards, assuring ease of voting and accurate tabulation of results and, yes, that there are not cheats. No one wants fraud. No one wants fraud in the election system; no one, on either side of the aisle. So we must address that issue, but we must address that issue in the context of what the purpose of this bill is, to facilitate the exercising of the democratic franchise; to facilitate people being recognized as eligible voters; to facilitate the accurate counting of those votes; and to facilitate the will of the majority maintaining in this, the greatest democracy the world has ever known. If we do not, we will lose a historic opportunity to strengthen our democratic system at home, while, Mr. Speaker, in lockstep 435 Members of the House, 100 Members of the Senate and every American works to defend this democracy against foreign enemies and those who would undermine it from without by terror and violence. But let us not here at home undermine democracy by failing to act and acting quickly to vindicate the vote for every American.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii, who is one of the senior Members of this House and who has seen, I think, over time, the development of title IX, the enactment of title IX, and the impact that title IX has had. I certainly associate myself with her remarks, that while we are obviously pleased at the progress that has been made, we ought not to believe that everything that can be done or should be done has been done. Mr. Speaker, this month, as we have said, 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. I have one grandson, but I have 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. The best athletic team that we had participate in the Summer Olympics in Rome was the girls softball team. Those young women were the best in the world. Watching women's basketball now, and the Mystics are doing very well, as the gentlewoman may know, in Washington. I think we have won six or seven straight, the best start we have had in the Women's Professional Basketball Association. I am old enough, I hate to admit, to remember the women's basketball game when there were three full courts and three back courts, as if women could not run from one end of the court to the other end of the court. It was one of the dullest games I have ever seen. And not only was it dull for the spectators, it was dull for the players. Now, of course, we see the incredible athleticism the women display in playing basketball, clearly, frankly, as good as the men. The difference being the men are bigger and, therefore, with a 10-foot basket, have an advantage. 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. Just think of Venus and Serena, two extraordinary sisters, the two best tennis players in the world, the Williams sisters. Clearly there is not a man on this floor, period, that would want to play them with any consequence to losing because we clearly would lose badly. 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. My oldest daughter played 4 years of varsity basketball in high school in the Catholic Girls League here in Washington, D.C., which is an extraordinarily good league. 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 self-confidence 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. Part of the problem lies with the larger of the men's sports, such as football and basketball, which consume a majority of men's total athletic budget. 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. I have told this story before, and I am not sure if the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) have heard this story. 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 1-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, let me thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for focusing on this historic event. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a trusted, long-time friend who, for nearly half a century, has been a true champion for working men and women and the cause of organized labor throughout the State of Maryland and our great country. For 12 years, from 1989 until his retirement in 2001, Edward A. Mohler served with distinction and effectiveness as the President of the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO). Ed not only was re-elected to that post three times, but also was one of the longest-serving executive officers of a state federation in the entire AFL-CIO. Before being elected president by his fellow trade unionists, he was elected as Secretary-Treasurer of the state federation, serving in that position from 1977 to 1989. It's clear to anyone who has observed Ed Mohler over the years that the legacy he leaves as a lifelong, dedicated trade unionist is one of concrete accomplishment that will endure for years to come. In the State Capitol in Annapolis, where I worked with him while serving as the President of the Maryland Senate, Ed was instrumental in helping organized labor achieve legislative gains in the areas of workers' compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, and collective bargaining rights. Ed also played an important role in passage of the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Act, prevailing wage legislation, pension and salary increases, protections for health care workers, and right-to-know protections for public safety workers. In more recent years, Ed has helped lead the fight to defeat anti- worker initiatives such as right-to-work legislation and so-called ``paycheck protection.'' During his 24-year tenure as an executive officer of the state federation, Ed not only helped drive organized labor's policy agenda but also strengthened its administration. For example, Ed believed that the interests of working men and women would be much better served if the state federation maintained a permanent presence in Annapolis. As a result, the state federation moved from rental space in Baltimore to its current headquarters at the House of Labor on School Street in Annapolis, providing Maryland workers with both convenience to the State Capitol and prestige. But, then, Ed always understood that the cause of organized labor-- ensuring workplace fairness and social justice--could best be advanced through our political system. After being hired as a cable splicer in 1957, Ed joined the Communications Workers of America, Local 2336, and immediately plunged into union activism and political campaigning. He has worked in political campaigns on behalf of Democrats at the local, state and federal levels, including the presidential campaigns of John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. More recently, Ed was elected to serve as a delegate at the Democratic National Conventions in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Ed was immersed in union activities and political campaigns that advanced the interests of working men and women. He was elected as chair of political activity for CWA, Local 2108, and then served as chair of the Committee on Political Education (COPE) for the Washington Metropolitan Central Labor Council. Between 1968 and 1977, the year in which he was elected Secretary- Treasurer of the state federation, Ed worked as an organizer, legislative agent and staff representative for AFSCME International and Council 67. In that capacity, he conducted numerous organizing campaigns and was a strong advocate for public employees, beginning the fight for collective bargaining rights for state and higher education employees in 1974. While working men and women have been the subject of many harsh, unthinking attacks over the years, Ed Mohler has always recognized that the immutable truths that lie at the core of the American labor movement--fairness, justice, dignity and morality--never go out of fashion. And that's a tremendous professional legacy to leave for this and future generations of workers. As Samuel Gompers, the first president of the American Federation of Labor, said more than 100 years ago: ``To protect the workers in their inalienable fights to a higher and better life; to protect them, not only as equals before the law, but also in their health, their homes, their firesides, their liberties as men [and women], as workers, and as citizens; to overcome and conquer prejudices and antagonism; to secure to them the right to life, and the opportunity to maintain that life; the right to be full sharers in the abundance which is the result of their brain and brawn, and the civilization of which they are the founders and the mainstay. . . . The attainment of these is the glorious as mission of the trade unions.'' Ed Mohler has helped keep that ``glorious mission' on course for nearly half a century, bettering the lives of working men and women. For that, we offer our heartfelt thanks, and wish him and his family-- his wife Barbara, and his sons and their families--the very best in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of working men and women in the State of Maryland and throughout the entire country, I want to thank a stalwart trade unionist who has dedicated her life to improving the lives of others. But before I recount the many accomplishments and long service of Margareta A. Crampton, the director of the Committee on Political Education (COPE) for the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL- CIO for more than 20 years, I want to add a personal note. Margareta is far more than a political ally. She is a trusted friend and staunch supporter who has been by my side since I first decided to run for Congress in 1981. In fact, when my predecessor in Congress, the late Gladys Noon Spellman, suffered a heart attack that left her unable to complete her term, Margareta was one of the first people to come to my law office to encourage me to run in a special election to fill that seat. I can only hope that I've served my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District as well as Margareta has tended to the needs of working men and women in Maryland and the American labor movement over the last 40 years. Margareta began her union career in 1960 with the Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco International Union, serving as chief steward and shop representative. Recall that what today is rightly natural and commonplace--women working in positions in virtually every sector of our economy--was not the norm 40 years ago. Women faced many barriers in the workplace. Discrimination was often open and too often tolerated. But Margareta, and the women of her generation, through force of character and the will to succeed, overcame the many hurdles placed in their paths. They proved that women could perform any job well. And it's because of their hard work that women in the labor movement, as well as other types of employment, have made such tremendous strides in our society--and continue the fight for the equality, justice and fairness that they deserve. After 19 years at the Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco Workers International Union, Margareta moved in 1979 to the Graphic Arts International Union, serving as the financial recording secretary and membership reviewer. During the 1960s and 1970s, she was an active member of the Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), Local 2, and became the first woman to be elected First Vice-President of her local in 1974. She served as chair or co-chair of numerous committees in her local, including the educational committee, the COPE committee, and the organizing committee. She also served as the chair of the Young Trade Unionists No. 2 from 1969 to 1984, and as the recording secretary of the Young Trade Unionists No. I from 1970 to 1973. In 1980, Margareta was appointed as the Director of COPE for the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO, and earned a well- deserved reputation through the years as a determined advocate for all workers and a gritty political organizer. She has worked on numerous political campaigns at the local, state and national levels, and it's more than fair to say that her unrelenting work across the state on behalf of working families built enduring relationships between the labor community and elected officials at all levels of government. Margareta's boundless energy helped her balance her dedication to improving the lives of working men and women, with her love and devotion to her children, Brenda and Philip, and her grandchildren. And as she enjoys semi-retirement, she should do so with the knowledge that her efforts over the last 40 years have changed and improved people's lives, and that her labor continues the activism, stretching all the way back to notables as Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth and Mary Harris ``Mother'' Jones--who understood that labor fairness was rooted in morality and inspired by the American quest for equality, justice and fairness. As Mother Jones said many years ago: ``The cause of the worker continues onward. . . . The future is in labor's strong, rough hands.'' That future, today, is much brighter for working men and women, in large part due to the hard work of trade unionists like Margareta Crampton. To her, we owe a deep gratitude and offer our thanks and deep appreciation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we continue on what I call the fiscal irresponsibility rampage that the majority party is on. I want to say at the outset to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), I do not know what the exact numbers are, but let me tell the gentleman something, 100 percent of the people who live in my district will be adversely affected by the interest rates that he will drive up by his race towards deeper and deeper and deeper deficits. That is what will happen to everybody in his fiscal irresponsibility rampage that this committee is on and the Congress is pursuing. It is popular, of course, to get up here week after week and vote for tax cuts. Of course. It is easy. It is also irresponsible. As we have $314 billion in debt this year facing us and trillions of dollars in the years ahead, is it responsible fiscal leadership? It is absolutely not. Not with the record surpluses turning into deficits in less than one year of this administration. Not with the Federal Government expected to run a budget deficit of more than $300 billion spending 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses; not with a House majority violating its repeated pledge not to raid the Social Security surpluses; and not with the Treasury Department's practically begging Congress to raise the debt limit before June 28, which they have refused to do. Do Democrats support marriage penalty relief? Of course we do. It is the fair and right thing to do. But why this bill and why now? There is only 2 weeks left before the 4th of July break and we have not considered one of the 13 must-pass appropriations bills. Furthermore, fully 70 percent of the marriage penalty provisions of this GOP bill will not take affect until 2006 and most till 2011, as the previous speaker said. Is this legislation more important than defense? Is it more important than homeland security? Is it more important than prescription drugs and a host of other pressing issues so we can affect 2011? I think any commonsense response to that is, of course it is not. The truth is this bill will cost more than $63 billion over the next decade. And every last cent, every last cent of that $63 billion comes out of the Social Security surplus. Worse yet, in the second decade of this century, when the baby boomers begin to retire in full force, the cost of this bill is estimated to be $330 billion out of Social Security revenues. The bill is nothing but an exercise in demagoguery. I urge the Members to vote no, to vote yes on the substitute, vote no on the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentlewoman from Indiana for cosponsoring this resolution which expresses, I think, profound thoughts. We do not often express profound thoughts on the floor of this House. Sunday will be Father's Day, and I will be blessed on Sunday. On Sunday two of my daughters, two of my granddaughters, and one of my grandsons will be at my house, and we are going to have a wonderful time. They are coming on Saturday. They will spend the night there. We will have a good time Saturday night and have dinner together. My oldest daughter, who lives in Illinois, will not be there, but we will talk on Sunday. She will call and she will say, ``Dad, I love you, and I wish you a happy Father's Day,'' and nothing better will happen to me that day or any day. We lost Mom 5 years ago. Mother's Day was a special day at our house as well. This resolution, as I say, articulates profound thoughts. As I was in the cloakroom, I heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) speaking. Tom Osborne is a special person in this body. Few of us, perhaps maybe none, have had the opportunity to be a father figure, not necessarily a biological father, obviously, but a father figure, someone to whom young men looked for guidance, for discipline, for direction, and for a sense of responsibility. Tom Osborne, as all of us know, is one of the great football coaches in the history of America. So it was appropriate that he spoke and leads the effort on this resolution, because I know an awful lot of young men who perhaps did not have a dad at home, or did not have a dad that cared as much about them as we would have hoped he would have, looked to Tom Osborne for the growing of character that a father ought to give a son or a daughter. So I congratulate the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for the literally scores, hundreds, of young men, whose lives you have made a difference in. Mr. Speaker, on page 2 of this resolution it says something very important: ``Whereas, the promotion of responsible fatherhood should not, 1, denigrate the standing and parenting efforts of single mothers whose efforts are heroic.'' That is so true. I know the gentlewoman from Indiana knows that to be the case. Young women, middle-aged women whose partners, in producing the greatest blessing of life, a child, do not participate in the raising of that child. This resolution says that not only is that good for the fathers, but it is absolutely critical for the children. Study after study shows us that there is nothing better for a child in the world than a stable family, than two parents caring for that child and giving that child direction. It goes on to say that ``this does not in any way lessen the protection of children from abusive parents.'' What a tragedy, that God gives to some a child, and they abuse that child and abuse that gift. ``Or cause women to remain in or enter into abusive relationships.'' Some of us know about that, and it is appropriate that we say that, that certainly a two-parent family that creates an abusive relationship is not a relationship in which children ought to be raised. It is a serious problem confronting our society; and as we consider this resolution, we look to the ``responsible'' in the reference to ``fatherhood,'' responsible towards the child and responsible towards the mom. Lastly, it says that ``we do not want to compromise the health and safety of a custodial parent.'' I rise in support of this resolution because of its importance. We can appropriate all the money we want; we can have all the programs we want; we can have Head Start, we can have Chapter 1; we can have the CHIP program for child health; we can do all of those things, and nothing, nothing, nothing will be important, as important as two parents caring for that child they brought into this world. I doubt, and I hope there is not a parent in this body or in this country that can hear the ballad that is so poignant, so compelling, the ``Cats in the Cradle.'' Those of my colleagues who remember the ``Cats in the Cradle'' song about the young man, the young man who asked dad to go out and play ball, the young man who asked dad to read the book, the young man who asked dad to spend a little bit of time with him. Dad is too busy. Dad is probably like some of us. He thinks things are too important, and he will be with his son a little later. And of course as that song continues, as my colleagues will recall, the dad gets older, the son gets older, and the dad says to the son, son, let us spend some time together. Of course by that time the son, like his dad when he was his age, has become preoccupied. For those of us who have lived for some period of time who were very active when our children were young, who thought our lives were very important then, we perhaps look back and lament that we did not spend the time with our children that we should have. It is important not only that all of us urge fathers to be responsible, urge them to be engaged, but as well to urge ourselves to be the best possible parents we can, for nothing, nothing can be more positive for this country than that. Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight in support of House Resolution 442 which calls upon fathers around the country to use this Father's Day to reconnect and rededicate themselves to their childrens' lives. This coming Sunday, June 16th, 2002, millions of Americans will celebrate Father's Day. As a nation we set aside this day to recognize the tremendous impact that fathers have on the lives of children, as well as the stability of families. As the father of three lovely and intelligent women, I know first hand the remarkable challenge, work and dedication it requires to be a good father. It is through fatherhood that I live my most valued, joyful and reward moments. On Father's Day, I would like to commend those who have fulfilled their responsibility as a father by providing materially for their families, as well as playing vital roles in the lives of their children, such as nurturer, moral instructor and mentor. However, it is important for our society to take note that many children will face a void on Father's Day because they have no one with which to celebrate the occasion. Today, an estimated 17 million children are living in households without a father. This makes the United States the world leader in fatherless families. Children, on average, achieve more when they have involved, responsible, and committed fathers. A study released in May 2001, by the U.S. Department of Education, clearly shows how a father's active involvement in their child's education is particularly important for academic achievement, as measured by receiving mostly A grades and not having to repeat a grade. In fact, research shows that children with absentee fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, to commit a crime and to abuse alcohol and drugs. And, they have a five times greater chance of living in poverty and are more likely to become pregnant as a teenager. The social implications of this reality are staggering. Action is needed to stop these vicious cycles of poverty and teen pregnancy. I believe it is important to reinforce the values that all Americans share: hard work, self-discipline, and personal and family responsibility. I support meaningful legislation that will help make both parents responsible for taking care of their children, such as improvements to the interstate enforcement of child support, as well as media awareness campaigns to promote responsible fatherhood skills. It is important for society to send a clear and strong message to parents--especially teenage parents--that they must be responsible for their children--and I will continue to support and promote such initiatives. It is my great pleasure to stand here tonight with my colleagues to reinforce the importance of responsible parenting and to commend fathers who have had a positive and lasting influence on the lives of their children.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3297. The Public Safety Officers' Benefit program was created in 1976 to assist in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians. But it is much more than a tool for attracting and keeping qualified public safety officers. It is a way of doing what is right by the men and women who selflessly risk their lives every day to protect each and every one of us. The death benefit provides a one-time, lump sum payment of $259,038 payable to the surviving spouse, children or parents of a public safety officer killed in the line of duty. H.R. 3297 makes a common sense, and compassionate, change, allowing for an individual named on a life insurance policy to receive the benefit if a deceased officer leaves no surviving child or spouse. Policy officers, firefighters and EMT's put themselves in harm's way every day without stopping to consider the race, religion or family life of the people they are attempting to save. We owe it to them to do the same as we provide much-needed financial assistance to the loved ones they leave behind. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, The National Mental Health Association's, NMHA, powerful vision for our country is to be a just, humane and healthy society in which all people are accorded respect, dignity and the opportunity to achieve their full potential free from stigma and prejudice. Today, June 6, 2002, Americans are rallying on Capitol Hill to send Members of Congress a clear and unified message: Mental Health Parity Now! We must do more than simply hear what they are saying; we must persevere until we make it a legal reality. Passage of a Mental Health Parity Bill would be a major step toward realizing the vision of the NMHA. Specifically, it is my hope that this Congress will pass the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2002, which will address the critical need of assuring that insurance coverage for physical ailments and mental ailments are comparable. Mental illness is real and widespread, but fortunately it is often very treatable and manageable. Unfortunately, a parity amendment to the fiscal year 2002 spending bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which was passed by the Senate, failed in conference on a party-line vote. The amendment would have closed the loopholes of 1996 Mental Health Parity Act and given true parity to the American people. Instead, Congress extended the existing flawed mental health parity provision up until December 31, 2003. This leaves this important issue in pressing need of a resolution. Over 54 million people in the United States experience some form of mental illness in their lifetime, but many go without the much-needed treatment a mental health professional could provide. In fact, almost half of the people of our nation with severe mental illness never seek or receive treatment. This in large part is due to stigma. Throughout our nation's history, we have viewed mental illness with ignorance, fear and misunderstanding. We would not stand by while insurance companies put up barriers to cancer treatments, nor should we turn our backs on those suffering from mental health problems. Many health insurers opposed to parity laws are concerned that overall health care costs will be significantly increased, due in part to the fact that treatment is sometimes more expensive and longer lasting than many physical ailments. However, access to mental health care often reduces medical claims for physical illness. Recent studies show that full parity can be implemented without causing siqnificant cost increases for managed care. In states that have enacted parity laws, many consumers use mental health care more efficiently. In the great state of Maryland, after a small rise of less than one percentage point in the first year of parity, mental health costs held steady in year two and declined in year three. As millions of suffering Americans go without medical assistance, it costs the nation upwards of $150 billion each year. Vital human capital is lost and medical bills skyrocket as ailments worsen until even more expensive management is inevitable. The most damaging effect, however, is the pain and suffering that untreated individuals and their loved ones must endure. The events and the aftermath of September 11 have exemplified the need to provide mental healthcare to all sectors of the population, including our youngest generation. Children, who are exposed to violent and threatening experiences, such as the September 11th attacks, may need special attention in order to heal emotionally. If a child with a mental health problem is left untreated, the results can be devastating. Victims may repeatedly relive a traumatic event, which can cause anxiety and depression, impair concentration and learning and ultimately perpetuate a cycle of aggressive or violent behavior. This vicious cycle can be lessened by strengthening families through programs and understanding, breaking down misconceptions of mental illness and providing people access to mental health professionals and vital treatment. All of these factors will help give millions of Americans the opportunity to recover and live healthy and productive lives. I am proud that Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I were successful in securing $20 million in funding for fiscal year 2002 for the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative, administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Presently, we are working to secure an additional $50 million for fiscal year 2003 to continue this highly-regarded program. I would like to commend the National Mental Health Association and the other organizations and individuals here today, who are pushing for mental health parity. This call for parity in the coverage of costs for mental and physical ailments through insurance programs merits our serious attention. Let us make their vision a reality in the 107th, Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, if the American people ever wondered how so-called compassionate conservatives define shared sacrifice, I hope they are watching the debate today. With our Nation battling the evil of terrorism, both at home and abroad, with the Federal Government on course to run a deficit outside of Social Security of $314 billion and with the Republican Party plundering our Social Security surpluses in direct violation of its own pledge not to do so, now, now is the time our friends in the GOP believe to bestow billions upon billions of dollars on a few thousand Americans. This is not about all Americans. This is about the wealthiest Americans, the billionaires in our country, by permanently repealing the estate tax, a reaffirmation of their leave-no-heir-behind philosophy. Yet we cannot get a vote on increasing the minimum wage. Yet congressional Republicans just passed welfare legislation that would force mothers of young children to double their work week. Yet congressional Republicans drag their feet on extending unemployment benefits for thousands of Americans who lost their jobs after September 11, and at the very same time, they try to give Enron and a handful of other corporations billions of dollars out of the Federal Treasury. The plight of the wealthy has always been the top of the GOP agenda; and with today's vote, the Republican Party reality ought to rename itself the ``free lunch'' party. The whip said that he is against taxes, this is an evil tax. The whip believes every tax is evil. The fact of the matter is if someone wants to buy an aircraft carrier, if they want to buy a school lunch for a poor child, if they want to have a Head Start seat for a child who needs a hand up, then we need to pay for it in this generation. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was talking about. It feigns support for fiscal responsibility, but it then enacts a budget-busting tax program. It claims that it supports education, but then shortchanges programs with the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act by $90 billion, and it pretends to support Social Security, but then brings this bill to the floor, a bill that would cost $109 billion between 2003 and 2012 and more than $1 trillion in the decade after 2012, precisely when the baby boomers retire in full force. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this substitute. It is fiscally responsible. It is good policy, and it exempts 99.7 percent of the American public from the estate tax. It is a good bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I address the class, I suppose, of 2002 of the United States House of Representatives Page School. I want you to think of your status, 280 million fellow citizens. I do not know how many millions of 10th and 11th graders, 16-year-olds that we have in America, but clearly it ranks in the millions. There are but a few of you who have been given the opportunity, the honor, the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives. I know that every one of us who has the opportunity to be selected by their neighbors and friends to serve in this House feels the awesome honor of that privilege. I hope you share that with them. I hope you share the realization of the very special knowledge that each of you has received and understand how very unique your experience is relative to so many millions of young people in America. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) has pointed out that you have served as pages in this House and served your country in that capacity in a historic year, in a year in which America was attacked here on its very homeland. That has not happened since 1814. Think of that. That was even before you were born. It was so long ago, it was before I was born. America had felt invulnerable, safe. The trouble and violence for the most part at least from an international war status was somewhere over the waters and far away, and we found that it was not. You, your parents, your relatives, your friends and your neighbors felt more vulnerable than they had in the past. As so many have said, America was changed and our concerns were heightened. Those who attacked us were relatively young people who cared passionately about an objective. We think very, very wrongly and indeed evilly, but they cared a lot about something. What I hope and what I think all of us hope is that you, too, care passionately, care passionately for this country, for its principles, for its processes. Those of us who have traveled the world know that almost everybody looks to America as a very, very special place. Some do not like us; but even in that dislike, they are somewhat in awe of this longest- standing democracy on the face of the Earth. Why has it been so long- standing? Because its people love it. Its people care for it. Its people sustain it. You are the people. We the people. We call this House in which you have served the People's House. We are elected every 2 years. It is kind of a pain in the neck to run every 2 years, but let me tell you what it does: it keeps you in touch. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do. They wanted those of us who serve on this floor to be in touch, to hear the passions and the fears and the aspirations and hopes of your parents, and of you. I want to congratulate you because you were selected because you are some of the most outstanding young people in America, which is to say in the world. Who in a short period of time, just as some Members of this House who served in the blue coat brigade that you have been a member of, serve now in the House of Representatives. Some of you will serve in the House and in the Senate and Governors; and yes, perhaps even one of you will be President of the United States. But the probability is most of you will not be that, but you can serve very well. Take with you this experience. Take with you this knowledge of how much the Members who serve here care about our country, how hard they work. I hope you have been surprised at how hard they work. I was when I first went to the Senate at the age of 27 in the State of Maryland. I hope you take that home to your classmates, your families and friends, so they will feel better about this democracy and this country. We have asked God to bless America, and God does. God blesses America through the service of each and every one of us. And to the extent that you become ambassadors of our democracy, to all our people, our country will be a stronger and better place. And those who attack us will surely fail. Godspeed, and thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Karen Hosler, an outstanding reporter at the Baltimore Sun. Over three decades, Karen has chronicled the political system from small town Maryland to the Nation's Capital, with the Sun as her outlet since 1977. She and I have traveled through Maryland state and national politics together, although on different sides of the street as reporter and politician. We both graduated from the University of Maryland, albeit a number of years apart. After a short stint as a staffer on Capitol Hill, she began her career as a journalist covering county government and politics at a weekly newspaper in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, the Prince George's County News, shortly after my own career in politics had begun in that county as a state senator. The first time that we met I was a little bit less than friendly to the new reporter at the Prince George's County News. I was frustrated by an unbalanced story written by her predecessor just before the election. But Karen held her ground and we embarked on a relationship based on respect for the other's role in the democratic process that eventually would become a friendship. Three years later, she joined the staff of a historic daily newspaper in Maryland's capital city of Annapolis, the Capital. Karen covered state politics, including the governor and the state legislature, for the Capital from 1974 to 1977 which matched my election to the presidency of the Maryland State Senate in 1975. She was always a tough interrogator of a politician. She asked the hard questions that we didn't always like to answer, but she always got it out of us. Karen asked not just what but why. She took her responsibility as a reporter very seriously and her readers were the better for it. They were better informed and better able to make judgments about their representatives, their government and its policies. In 1977, Karen joined the Sun, one of our country's preeminent newspapers. She began at the Sun where she originally started her career--covering local government. Two years later, she was back in Annapolis covering politics and state government. In 1983, Karen moved from Annapolis politics to national politics-- after four years on the state political beat, Karen was assigned to cover the Maryland congressional delegation on Capitol Hill. I had been elected to Congress in a special election two years before. For the next twenty years, she reported from Washington for the Sun from numerous vantage points, while I worked hard to represent the Fifth Congressional District well, and our paths crossed often. After five years of following the congressional delegation she moved to the White House. Five years later, in 1993, she was back on Capitol Hill as the national congressional correspondent. I was in my fourth year as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus. In 1998 she became the acting Deputy Washington Bureau Chief directing national, international and Washington regional coverage until January 1999, when she returned to the national political beat. Now, after thirty years of outstanding political reporting at all levels, Karen is leaving her friends and colleagues in Washington to join the Sun's editorial board in Baltimore. Karen will bring to the Editorial Board a perspective shaped by three decades of observation and analysis of every level of government. Thomas Jefferson, who both used the press to proselytize and suffered under opponents' vicious attacks delivered through newspapers, said the following: ``. . . were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that the press is an essential cog in democracy's engine, without which our country would not enjoy the quality of government and freedoms it has. It is the men and women behind the newsprint who perform the vital role of examiner of government and act as a crucial source of information for citizens. Without the hard work and intellect of reporters and editors the vaunted principle of the freedom of the press would surely wither and die. Karen Hosler, as one such reporter, has contributed immensely to educating the citizenry on local, state and national politics throughout her career at the Baltimore Sun. I have great respect for Karen, the journalist, who through her political reporting has done more than her share to keep our democracy vital. And, as her friend, I wish her great success in the exciting new challenge on which she now embarks. I wish Karen Hosler the best of luck in her new position at the Sun, where she will have a broader opportunity than ever before to shape opinion and inform her readers.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute in advance of this Monday's Memorial Day celebrations to the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives while serving our country in the armed services. Memorial Day, originally founded as Decoration Day in 1868, is the one day a year that all Americans pay their respects to those killed in war. The day's rituals are rooted in the tradition established by family members and friends who gathered in cemeteries to adorn the grave sites of loved ones who had died in battle with flowers, ribbon, and memorabilia. Today, we continue that tradition and gather as a country at important places of remembrance, such as Arlington National Cemetery or the World War II Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France, to demonstrate our appreciation and acknowledge the sacrifice of those who lost their lives in our perpetual fight to maintain our freedom and sovereignty. This unique holiday is a time to reflect on what those who have died sacrificed on our behalf and give tribute to their selfless spirit. On November 11th, we laud our veterans for their bravery and dedication to duty. We hail our Independence on the 4th of July. On Thanksgiving Day, we give thanks for all that we have. The last Monday in May, however, is set aside to mourn those who died on the battlefield defending our Constitution, our country and our way of life--although we should certainly not confine our recognition to this one day. We see this recognition and appreciation carried out in acts around the country, such as that of the 1,200 soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry who place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery and patrol the Cemetery without cessation throughout the weekend to ensure each flag remains standing; or that of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts who place a candle at each of the approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights. Throughout the country, our landscape is embedded with powerful symbols and monuments that reflect our heritage. These symbols strive to keep us aware of all of those who have come before us. In our busy lives however, we often take our veterans and war heroes for granted. But I believe most Americans would agree that their valiant efforts should always be at the forefront of our collective memory and we should be careful to observe this important day to honor our fallen countrymen. September 11th emphasized the importance of words like liberty, freedom and justice. We lost a tremendous number of men and women through an act of cowardice that caught us off-guard. And as so many had done before them, our nation's service men and women responded to our nation's call in the wake of that attack with fervor. In Congress, we are working to support our troops abroad and strengthen America at home. The Department of Defense Authorization bill that recently passed the House of Representatives authorized over $7 billion to combat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The bill also included pay raises of 4.1 percent or more for military personnel, over $10 billion for military construction and family housing projects, and extended pay for certain reservists. It also mends a disparity for military retirees who have not been able to receive their retiree pay as well as their disability pay. This bill will help improve our defensive readiness and improve the quality of life for all our active duty and veteran service men and women. The fallen heroes who acted selflessly throughout our history in the face of tyranny and oppression fought a foe that we are still fighting to this very day. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers--and this is the basis of all human morality.'' All American's can learn from the bravery and courage of our lost soldiers. I urge my Colleagues to take a moment this Memorial Day and appreciate the freedom we have by remembering our fallen heroes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Tom Davis and I have introduced a bill to provide the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police with the same locality pay adjustments as other Federal employees. In the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress included a bill called the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act. The purpose of the Act was to improve officer retention within the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and U.S. Park Police. The Act's aim was to improve officer retention by raising the Uniformed Division and Park Police pay scales so that they were equivalent or similar to other pay scales in the Metropolitan area. However, Section 903 of the Act froze the rate of locality pay the employees of the Uniformed Division and U.S. Park Police receive at the level in effect in the year 2000. This freeze in locality pay has caused the Uniformed Division and Park Police pay scales to lag behind the compensation scales of other agencies competing for the same workforce. In the Washington, DC Metropolitan area, Officers of the Uniformed Division and the U.S. Park Police are currently locked into a locality rate of 9.05%, but the standard locality rate for U.S. Government employees in the Washington area is 11.48%, a difference of 2.43%. By fixing this problem, the median salary of an Officer with thirteen years of service would increase by $1,375 per year. Mr. Speaker, this bill, in essence, unlocks the freezer door, opens it up, and allows the locality pay to thaw to normal levels. At a time when the Uniformed Division and Park Police are trying to increase morale and maintain top rate officers, this bill is a small but significant signal that Congress cares about their welfare. This bill fixes what I consider an unfair technicality and provides them with equitable locality pay.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Clara Barton, a true visionary in American history, once stated: ``I have an almost complete disregard of precedent, and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things have always been done. I defy the tyranny of precedent. I go for anything new that might improve the past.'' Her motivation as well as her devotion to humanity led Clara Barton to found the American Red Cross in 1881. Today we celebrate the 121st anniversary of the American Red Cross, which is one of the most renowned charitable organizations in our nation. It is made up of over a million Red Cross volunteers who provide much needed relief services to families, communities and countries around the world in times of crisis. When unexpected disasters hit, the Red Cross is prepared. For example, the American Red Cross coordinates the collection of blood and ensures that the safest blood is available to save the lives of our armed service members and lives in over 5,000 hospitals across the country. Internationally, the Red Cross has been active in helping millions of people fight malnutrition and communities gain access to such basic and vital needs as safe drinking water. Each year, the American Red Cross quickly responds to more than 67,000 disasters, including transportation accidents, house fires, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes. One instance of the Red Cross's exemplary and timely response to a disaster was after a lethal tornado tore through my District in Southern Maryland on April 28th. Without delay, the Red Cross was on the scene to provide help after one of the fiercest tornado disasters ever on the East Coast. Approximately 230 Red Cross volunteers poured in from across the nation to join 100 local volunteers. They worked tirelessly to help community members in their time of need by quickly erecting shelters and administering food, clothing, emergency medication and grief counseling. As I walked through the streets of La Plata, stepping over the wires, rubble and debris of the once vibrant community, it was evident that there was a lot of work ahead for residents to overcome this tragedy. Fortunately, as a result of help from service organizations like the Red Cross, government officials and agencies, and citizens, it is clear that La Plata will rebuild and come back stronger than ever. The Charles County Red Cross Chapter is a shining example of the dedication of the Red Cross, and why La Plata will persevere and once again thrive. The same evening that the tornado completely wiped out the Chapter building and all of their resources in La Plata, the Red Cross leaders and volunteers set up a temporary Disaster Operation Center in a vacant store building in Waldorf. Since 1917, the county's Chapter has been instrumental in providing disaster preparation and care services. The Chapter plans to rebuild, just like the La Plata community will rebuild, and continue to dedicate time and energy to the citizens of La Plata. The American Red Cross, since it was founded, has been instrumental in relieving the suffering and the saving lives of our local, national and international communities. And thus it's with great gratitude and honor that I commend the American Red Cross today on its 121st anniversary. On behalf of the citizens of the 5th Congressional District of Maryland, who were affected by this most recent natural disaster, as well as the millions of Americans whose lives have been bettered by this wonderful organization, I wish it only the best in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her departure at the end of this month for a teaching position in the Empire State, we rise to thank Dr. Christine Greer Ehrenberg for her exemplary service to this House. For the past four and one-half years, Dr. Ehrenberg has served as the Director of the House of Representatives Child Care Center. Since 1985, the Center has provided outstanding preschool and educationally enriching care for children of Members and staff of the House, enabling parents to work free of worry about their children's welfare. We are grateful to Dr. Ehrenberg, and her dedicated staff, for making this possible, and for the many improvements which she has initiated and implemented for the Center during her tenure. Christine is only the second director of HRCCC. When she arrived in 1997, she brought a wealth of experience in the educational field. Her direction of the Center, and her guidance to those who oversee it, have been invaluable. But we are supremely confident that the greatest beneficiaries of Christine's talents and efforts, by far, have been the children enrolled in the Center. Christine's has not always been an easy job--the events of the dreadful morning of September 11 come immediately to mind, together with the logistics of relocating the Center, once permanently to its current location, and once temporarily. But despite difficult circumstances, Christine always kept the Center on an even keel and moving in the right direction. Through her work here, Christine has earned the respect and gratitude of dozens of House families whose children started their educational careers at the Center. We join them in thanking Christine for her tireless efforts in their behalf. We wish Christine and her husband Dale all the best as they set out for New York State. May they always look back fondly upon their days with the House, as we surely will.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his comments and to tell him that I look forward to working closely with him for the strongest possible bill we can report back to the House and the Senate in a very short period of time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, our conservative friends must have checked their compassion at the door when they put this bill together. Make no mistake, government assistance is not a free meal. If you receive assistance, in my opinion, you have the responsibility to work, if you can. Work builds self-esteem, increases independence and strengthens our families, our communities and our society. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported bipartisan welfare reform in 1996. But this Republican bill is a step backwards. It sets up unrealistic requirements, it fails to provide necessary funding and it imposes an $11 billion unfunded mandate on the States. This bill would double the number of required worker hours for mothers with children under 6. However, it would flat-fund assistance for child care even though 15 million eligible children today go uncovered. It is nice to talk about opportunity, but if you do not have the necessary child care, you will not be able to avail yourself of those opportunities. This bill, in my opinion, discriminates as well against legal immigrants, prohibiting States from using Federal funds to assist them, not giving them the choice, the option, in Federalism. It even would eliminate education from the list of activities that count toward work requirements, and it would flat fund temporary assistance to needy families. I ask my Republican friends, where is the compassion in that? You voted a few months ago to give Enron $250 million in corporate welfare and a handful of major corporations billions of dollars more, and now, now you want to crack down on a single mom who is trying her best to work and still take care of her kids. That is not common sense. It is not compassionate. It is not even conservative. It is, however, shortsighted and punitive, and, therefore, may well be consistent. I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill.