Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas said they must have been out of their minds. Of course it was his side of the aisle that included this provision. Remember that, I say to the gentleman, and tell them that. Mr. Speaker, we are here today for one reason and one reason only: to indulge the GOP in its pavlovian policy prescription for every occasion: tax cuts. The GOP sold its tax cuts last year by telling the American people they were overcharged. Democrats fought for and are still for affordable tax relief. But we knew the projected surplus might never materialize, and we were right. Mr. Speaker, $5.6 trillion the President said we had; he came down to us now and says we have $.6 trillion. The President's own budget says the tax cut was the single biggest factor in erasing our surplus. So is the GOP here to say they made a mistake, to say, let us stop the raid on Social Security and Medicare? Of course not. With deficits projected every year for the next 10 years and an unchecked raid on Social Security and Medicare, the GOP proposes a bill that would deplete an estimated $7 trillion from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. I asked Secretary O'Neill that yesterday, whether $4 trillion to $7 trillion was the accurate figure, and he said he thought it probably was. Just as the baby boomers become of age, to take Social Security, we are doing this to them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this demagogic, reckless, irresponsible piece of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for being such a great sport and a representative of such a great team with such a great coach with Mike Davis, their coach handling himself so well. We are proud of the job he did. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago President Bush and congressional Republicans promised us that we could have it all. They said we could afford the largest tax cut in a generation and still be able to invest in domestic priorities, strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and pay off our publicly held debt. When we Democrats questioned whether we could afford the President's $1.7 trillion tax cut, and that is absent the additional interest we have to pay, which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) talked about, and still pay down the debt, our Republican colleagues responded there was a danger in paying off the publicly held debt too quickly. Well, worry no more because we are not in any hurry to pay off any debt. In fact, we are in a hurry to incur a lot more debt. The OMB now projects that our national debt, which includes publicly held and intergovernmental debt, will approach $7.8 trillion by the end of 2007. That is $275 billion more debt than was projected at the beginning of last year. Just this month after congressional Republicans again rebuffed the request of the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, to increase the statutory debt limit of $5.59 trillion by $750 million, the administration was forced to borrow Federal employee retirement funds to ensure that the government meets its obligations. In other words, Federal employees' pension dollars are now funding government. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) spoke of that earlier in his remarks. Do Members remember the last time that happened? It was back in 1995, and the GOP was blocking an increase in the debt ceiling in an attempt to get President Clinton to sign their budget. Treasury Secretary Rubin used the same short-term device that Secretary O'Neill is using to avoid a default. How did congressional Republicans respond? They reprimanded him. They threatened to impeach the Secretary of Treasury, and former Speaker Gingrich derided the tactic as ``looting.'' The gentleman referred to stealing Social Security funds. Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, said that what Bob Rubin was doing so we would not default in the payment of the monies that the richest Nation on the face of the earth owed, that he was prepared to say that he was looting the Treasury. I have not heard one Republican come to this floor and say that Secretary Paul O'Neill is looting the Treasury. Now, I represent 58,000 Federal employees. I do not think we ought to be doing this policy; but frankly, we have an obligation to pay it back, and I think we are going to do that. But the fact of the matter is if Secretary O'Neill did not do it, this government would default on its debt. If that happened, the finances of the world would be put at risk. Republicans, when Secretary O'Neill did it, neither criticized the administration for doing precisely the same thing that Secretary Rubin had done, and which sent them in orbit 7 years ago, nor accede to an increase in the debt ceiling. In other words, they do not want to make sure that we do not default, and they do not want to raise the debt. That is the definition of irresponsibility. That is the definition of pretending you are doing something when you are doing just the opposite. My good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said it exactly right. If we defaulted, interest rates would skyrocket. Average people, no matter how deeply their taxes were cut, could not afford their mortgage payment, particularly if they were an ARM, an adjustable mortgage. They could not afford to buy consumer goods with interest because interest rates would skyrocket. That would be an irresponsible policy, but it is the policy that we are pursuing today. In what can only be described as a perverse twist, House Republicans intend to bring legislation to the floor in 2 days that will make last year's tax cut permanent and drive us even deeper into the fiscal ditch. Mr. Speaker, I am not a Blue Dog; but I support much of what the Blue Dogs support, particularly as it relates to fiscal policy. Why? Because it is fundamental that if we do not manage our finances responsibly, we will not manage anything else responsibly. In just 15 months, our Nation has experienced the worst fiscal reversal in the history of the world; $5 trillion in projected surpluses have evaporated. Think of that. President Bush stood at this podium 12 months ago in February of 2001 and predicted, he said he was assured we were going to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. We said you better be careful. That is a long projection to make. You ought not to mortgage the farm based on what you think your income is going to be 6, 7, 8 years from now. A month ago President Bush came to that same podium, presented a budget, and lo and behold the surplus he now projects over that same 10 years is $1.6 trillion. That is $4 trillion less. What he does not factor into that is because we have less surplus and are going into debt, we are going to have an additional $1 trillion in interest. We heard the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) talking about that, which means we have lost $5 trillion in 12 months. I wish Ross Perot would start having infomercials on that issue. It is critical. We cannot operate this great Nation with our responsibilities to our own citizens, and in the international community, operating as fiscally irresponsibly as that. Five trillion dollars. Our debt is climbing again, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, our on-budget accounts will be in deficit every year for the next 10 years, producing a total on-budget deficit of nearly $2 trillion. Now, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) talked about our policies in the 1990s. They are instructive because in 1992 we had a $292 billion annual operating deficit. We could not, nor should we have sustained that. So we came in in 1993, and we adopted a program. It cut spending deeply and it raised taxes. Some people would say that is an awful thing to do. What does raising taxes mean? I do not mean raising them in terms of increasing them. It means this generation is committed to paying for what it buys. My position is if we do not want to pay for it, we ought not to buy it. I do not mean that we ought not to buy an aircraft carrier that we can amortize over 40 years. It is like buying a house, you mortgage it and pay it over time. We ought not to be paying for salaries that are used this year with borrowed money. That is how New York went bankrupt and we had to bail them out. We need to be responsible. There is an extraordinary American sitting on the floor with us. He is the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the greatest football coaches in the history of this country. He taught his young people fundamentals. He did not teach them to make some hail Mary pass, he hoped that would happen from time to time. What he taught them was how to block, how to tackle, how to run, how to watch what the other fellow was doing, how to learn your plays. He taught the fundamentals. He was convinced if those young people knew the fundamentals, they would win games. Because, as Gary Williams knows, as Coach Smith knows, if you teach young people the fundamentals, they will win games because they will do it right. And sometimes, yes, they will do something spectacular. But a nation, a nation needs to pay attention to its fundamentals as well. Do any of my colleagues in this Chamber remember what the majority leader said last July? I talked about the President 12 months ago. Last July the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), majority leader of this House: ``We must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either Social Security or Medicare; and if that means foregoing, or as it were paying for tax cuts, then we will do that,'' said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). We are now some 9 months later. On Thursday, we are not going to do that. In our budget that we passed, not with my vote, just a few weeks ago, we did not do that. We preached fundamentals, but we are not playing fundamentals. And the losers will not be, frankly, any of us who sit on this floor. It will be our children and grandchildren, and it will be the fiscal integrity of this great Nation. That promise turned out to be as empty as the GOP's lockbox stunt last year. The rally is that the Republican tax cut is the single largest factor in erasing our surpluses. Do we need to pay for the war on terrorism? Absolutely. Is it going to cost us more money than we expected? Yes. Should we follow that policy? Of course we should. We are in lock step with our President in confronting those who would undermine our security and safety in this land, and, very frankly, in other lands as well. However, the Social Security and Medicare surpluses which were critical, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said, and would not be touched, are in fact going to be used 100 percent. I have some other things to say about this policy, but I want to close with this. David Stockman in 1981 became director of the Office of Management and Budget. He came in with a roar, like March, I suppose, and he was going to see that this budget was balanced. In fact, Ronald Reagan, when he signed the Reagan program in 1981 said the budget is going to be balanced by October of 1983. Or perhaps it was 1984. In any event, it did not happen. Mr. Stockman, of course, was the director of OMB the same year I was elected to Congress. His mandate, sell President Reagan's supply side economic program. President Reagan assured us, as I said, that by fiscal 1984 we were going to balance the budget. We did not. Instead of producing increased revenue, the Reagan tax program threw us into fiscal freefall. The budget deficit, just under $79 billion in 1981, exploded until, as I said before, peaking at $290 billion in 1992. As David Stockman himself later admitted, and I quote, David Stockman, OMB director, ``I knew that we were on the precipice of triple digit deficits, a national debt in the trillions and destructive and profound dislocations throughout the American economy.'' David Stockman, in his book, looked back on his service with lament because he knew where we were going. My friends, it is clear where we are going if we continue to pursue these policies. What the Blue Dogs are saying is that we need to work together, not Republicans and Democrats, but 435 of us, elected by our people, to responsibly manage their country, their dollars, their hard-earned wages. We need to commit ourselves to doing that. I commend the Blue Dogs for their leadership on this most critical fundamental responsibility of this Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his telling of the story of Juan Dixon. Frankly, all of the young men on that team have faced adversity at one time or another. All of us have. As a matter of fact, Coach Williams' dad died shortly before the final tournament, and they overcame that. They overcame it as a team, they overcame it as individuals, because as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) said, they had a great deal of courage and a great deal of a sense of purpose, and what a joy it is. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. She did mention something that really does bear focus, and that is the extraordinary academic achievements of the University of Maryland. In the final analysis, obviously, although the football team was extraordinarily successful and the basketball team, and indeed, the entire athletic program under our athletic director, Debbie Yow, one of two women who leads an NCAA-1 team in the athletic department in that division, has done an extraordinary job, but as well, Dan Mote, the president of the University of Maryland and his predecessors as president of the University of Maryland have brought it up academically so that it is one of the finest academic institutions in the country as well; and I think it reflects the balance between the mental and the physical that the Greeks, of course, and the Olympics tried to reflect. So I thank the gentlewoman for focusing on that point. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would only add that when FSU joined the Atlantic Coast Conference in football we all took it roughly, because they are all so good; and as the gentleman knows, Maryland had one of its best years in football ever, finishing 10 and one in the regular season. And, of course, because FSU lost to Tennessee, it came down to the Orange Bowl and taught us how to play football, a very excellent team. Of course, we returned the favor by taking Steve Spurrier up to Washington, as the gentleman knows. But I thank the gentleman for his comments. The resolution, in addition to congratulating the Terrapins, congratulates all 65 teams, as my colleagues know, for their participation. Because it is the quality of every program that really makes March Madness such an extraordinary athletic event, exciting the entire country and indeed, much of the world, that knows about basketball, so that this resolution congratulates all who participated. Along that line, I mentioned the fact of the three teams that were extraordinarily able teams that we beat to get to the finals; but I did not mention UCONN, the University of Connecticut under Coach Calhoun, also an extraordinary team. Mr. Speaker, frankly, if I took another half an hour or another hour, I could not, by virtue of words, exceed what the Maryland Terrapins have done by their actions; but there is somebody who would like to add some words, I see. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding we have more time on the clock, so I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), of Montgomery County, which has a major campus of the University of Maryland in her district, and she is right beside the University of Maryland at College Park.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his leadership in facilitating, as I said, this resolution coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Baltimore City, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, of course I not only will not object, but will enthusiastically support this resolution. But I rise, as everyone I am sure in the Chamber can understand, with great pride in 12 young men and Coach Gary Williams, who had an extraordinary season; who won the national championship for the first time in the school's history; who won the Atlantic Coast Conference championship for the first time in 22 years; who beat teams who had won 15 national championships in Kentucky, in Indiana and in Kansas; who overcame personal adversity as well as they played throughout the season; who went 15 and 0 at home, one of the first times that any team has done that in Maryland's history, and in doing so, crowned an extraordinary history for Cole Field House, which is now going to be closed, at least for the basketball team, who will play in a new arena next year. All in all, it was an extraordinary season for extraordinary young men and for an extraordinary coach. Gary Williams has coached for 30 years now, 24 years as a head coach. He has a winning record of great proportions and is clearly recognized as one of the great coaches of basketball in America. At this time, if I might, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). I might say that the gentleman and I have the privilege of representing Prince George's County in which the University of Maryland at College Park is located.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Continuing under my reservation, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and thank him for providing for such a rapid consideration of this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3694.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the boxing great Muhammad Ali once observed, ``Champions are not made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them, a desire, a dream, a vision.'' Thus, it is with great pride, Mr. Speaker, that I rise tonight, a 1963 graduate of the University of Maryland at College Park and a current member of the University system's Board of Regents, to congratulate the men's basketball team and a fellow alumnus, Coach Gary Williams, for realizing their dream 8 days ago: winning the 2002 national championship, the first in the university's long history. Too often perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we imbue athletic competition with a seriousness beyond its significance. However, anyone who watched these 12 Terrapins this season observed the qualities that carried them to the mountaintop: hard work and determination, teamwork and skill, and an unbending will to win that allowed them to overcome virtually every obstacle. Those are lessons for life as well as success in sports. After the Terrapins had won their game with the Indiana Hoosiers in the title game on April 1, Washington Post columnist Thomas Boswell wrote, ``This was not just a great Maryland team. In time, it will be seen as a champion among champions.'' Who could argue with that? There was the school record for wins in a season, 32, the fourth consecutive season with 25 wins or more. There was the undefeated home record of 15-0 at Cole Field House in the last year of play in Cole Field House. What a way to end a run. There was the second straight appearance in the Final Four and the ninth straight appearance in the NCAA Tournament under Coach Williams, and there was the first Atlantic Coast conference regular season championship in some 22 years. The path to preeminence, however, of course was not paved with ease. There was a heartbreaking loss to Duke University in the Final Four last year. There was a season opening loss and an unexpected defeat in the ACC tournament this year. There was personal hardship off the court, as well. The national championship, Mr. Speaker, was never a coronation. The Terrapins faced and defeated perennial basketball powerhouses Kentucky, Connecticut, Kansas, and then Indiana. Collectively, those teams won over 15 national titles. In hindsight, it was fitting to win the championship on that road. Difficulty and adversity vest victory with an even greater sense of accomplishment. No one will ever claim that these young men and Coach Williams failed to earn the title ``champion.'' The Terrapin team, led by senior guard Juan Dixon, who overcame incredible adversity in his life, losing his two parents when he was just a teen, Juan Dixon took their loyal fans through the peaks and valleys of competition, and we shared their deep disappointments, but yes, we shared their final joy, as well. Juan's superb shooting and defense were as crucial to this team's success as was Steve Blake's ballhandling and passing ability, Lonnie Baxter's powerful inside game and rebounding, Chris Wilcox's fierce blocks, and Byron Mouton's energy, hustle, spark, and extraordinary defense. It is a tribute to this team's depth that practically every member, every nonstarter, entered the game and we picked up points, be it Tahj Holden; Calvin McCall; Andre Collins; Drew Nicholas, an extraordinary young guard who would have started on any other team in the country; Ryan Randle; Earl Badu; and Mike Grinnon, 12 extraordinary young people. The Terrapins would actually increase their lead when those young people filled in for our starters. This championship, of course, is the ultimate tribute to the architect of the men's basketball program, Gary Williams. There can be no doubt, Gary is one of the finest coaches in college athletics today, but that was true regardless of the outcome of last week's final championship game. Gary has been a winner wherever he has coached, amassing an extraordinary record of 481 career wins in 24 years. He was a winner at American University, Boston College, and Ohio State University before returning to his alma mater and becoming the champion. Gary was not alone, of course. He was ably assisted by Dave Dickerson, Jimmy Pastos, Matt Kovarik, and director of basketball operations Troy Wainwright. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, the contributions of Dr. Deborah Yow, the university's athletic director, one of two women in America who head up a major program. In her 8 years in that position, she has laid the groundwork not only for this national championship and an Orange Bowl appearance by the football team this year, but also for a national all-sports ranking in the top 15 percent of the NCAA Division One institutions. Again, Mr. Speaker, I know that all the Members of the House join me in congratulating the University of Maryland Terrapins for a championship hard won and well earned. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me observe that the University of Maryland now becomes one of five teams in history to have a team that won both the National Football Championship and the National Basketball Championship. Gary Williams, Maryland Terrapins, thank you, thank you for a great year and for great examples.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on April 30, Dr. Donald N. Langenberg, who has served as chancellor of the University System of Maryland for more than a decade, will retire after a lifetime of service to higher education. Dr. Langenberg has left a mark in academe as few others have. As chancellor of the University System of Maryland, he has overseen the emergence of a nationally recognized public university system, with top-ranked programs, unprecedented levels of state funding, and extraordinary increases in grants and contracts to conduct research. As the first chancellor of the University of Illinois at Chicago, he was instrumental in creating a campus now known for its quality and diversity. His leadership at the National Science Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania, the National Association of System Heads, and other academic groups has contributed to an era of extraordinary growth and vitality in American higher education. Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of Maryland's K-16 Partnership for Teaching and Learning, he led the state toward an education system that will provide students a seamless transition from preschool to the college years and beyond. His work as chair of the National Reading Panel helped disseminate groundbreaking research and bold recommendations about the bedrock of education: teaching children how to read. Dr. Langenberg has also contributed enormously to his academic field of physics, conducting research into experimental condensed matter physics and materials science. His earliest research was concerned with the electronic properties and Fermi surfaces of metals and degenerate semiconductors. A major part of his research career was devoted to the study of superconductivity, particularly the Josephson effects and nonequilibrium superconductivity. He is perhaps best known for his work on the determination of certain fundamental physical constants using the ac Josephson effect. A practical consequence of this work was the development of a radically new type of voltage standard that is now used around the world. One of the major publications resulting from this work is among the most frequently cited papers published by the Reviews of Modern Physics during the 1955-86 period, and has been dubbed a ``citation classic.'' The work has also been recognized by the award to Dr. Langenberg and his co-workers of the John Price Wetherill Medal of the Franklin Institute. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Langenberg is the author or co-author of over one hundred papers and articles, and has edited several books. In addition to serving as Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation from 1980-1982, he has held predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. He has been a visiting professor or researcher at Oxford University, the Ecole Normale Superieure, the California Institute of Technology, and the Technische Universitat Munchen. In addition to the Wetherill Medal, he has been awarded the Distinguished Contribution to Research Administration Award of the Society of Research Administrators, the Distinguished Achievement Citation of the Iowa State University Alumni Association, and the Significant Sig Award of the Sigma Chi Fraternity. Dr. Langenberg has served as advisor or consultant to a variety of universities, industrial firms, and governmental agencies. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, is President of the National Association of System Heads (NASH), and is Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Education Trust, Inc. He is a member of the Business-Higher Education Forum, a partnership of the American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business intended to foster communication among national business and education leaders. He has been President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Chairman of the Board of the National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges (NASULGC), and President of the American Physical Society (APS). He also recently concluded ten years of service on the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and is the immediate past Chairman of the Presidents' Council of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). Mr. Speaker, in addition to serving the larger public through his work on various boards, Dr. Langenberg has also served in quieter, though equally profound ways. Both through his example and through individual mentoring, he has helped develop key academic leaders for the University System of Maryland and for higher education in general. By serving as an advisor to people of talent and ability, Dr. Langenberg has helped many institutions find exceptional faculty, provosts, and presidents. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Langenberg's lifetime of achievement and service will be celebrated on April 20 at a special retirement gala that will raise endowment funds for the Langenberg Lecture and Award, two efforts to continue his vision of education as a life-long journey of the human mind. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House join me in thanking Dr. Langenberg for nearly 50 years of service in higher education and I rise to congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, there is so much chicanery in this Republican budget resolution that it would make even an Enron auditor blush. Our Republican friends are not happy with the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office. They say, we will just write a budget using the administration's far rosier estimates. Did not House Republicans demand 7 years ago that the Clinton administration use CBO estimates? My, what a difference. Nor is the GOP happy with what the 10-year budget projection would reveal: A stunning loss of $5 trillion in projected surpluses, largely due to last year's tax cut. No problem, we will just write a budget with a 5-year projection. It just disappears like magic. Everyone in this Chamber knows that the shorter projection is an attempt to conceal the cost of making last year's tax cuts permanent, an estimated $569 billion. This resolution includes one purposeful evasion after another. But there is one thing our Republican friends cannot hide: The fact that their budget will raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds every year for the next 10 years, for a total of $2 trillion. Last year, the majority leader offered these reassuring words: ``We must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either Social Security or Medicare, and if that means foregoing, or, as it were, paying for tax cuts, then we will do just that.'' They did not. They are not. That promise has turned out to be as empty as the GOP's lockbox. This budget resolution, Mr. Chairman, is as irresponsible and as dishonest as were the Enron financial statements. And, tragically, the consequences of its adoption could be as negative. Let us reject this resolution. Mr. Chairman, there's so much chicanery in the Republican budget resolution that it would make even an Enron auditor blush. Our Republican friends are not happy with the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office. They say, ``We'll just write a budget using the administration's far rosier estimates.'' Didn't House Republicans demand seven years ago that the Clinton administration use CBO estimates? Nor is the GOP happy with what a 10-year budget projection would reveal--a stunning loss of $5 trillion in projected surpluses largely due to last year's tax cut. No problem, they say. We'll just write a budget resolution with a five-year projection. Everyone in this chamber knows that this shorter projection is an attempt to conceal the costs of making last year's tax cut permanent-- an estimated $569 billion over 10 years. This resolution includes one purposeful evasion after another. But there's one thing our Republican friends cannot hide: the fact that their budget will raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds every year for the next 10 years for a total of $2 trillion. Last year, the majority leader offered these reassuring words: ``We must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either Social Security or Medicare and if that means forgoing or, as it were, paying for tax cuts, then we'll do that.'' That promise turned out to be as empty as the GOP's lockbox stunt. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is as irresponsible and as dishonest as were the Enron financial statements. And the consequences of its adoption could be as negative. Let us reject it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and difficult road to campaign finance reform. But it has been a road well worth taking. With the adoption of this package of technical amendments, the legislative branch will have worked the people's will and taken an important step forward in taming the influence of special interests. I commend the other body for moving expeditiously on Shays-Meehan. I urge the President to sign immediately this landmark legislation. The technical amendments before us, with the exception of one, are just that: Technical. They simply correct minor drafting errors and clarify provisions of Shays-Meehan that this House overwhelmingly passed on February 13. These amendments will help ensure that this historic reform legislation achieves its central purpose: Banning unregulated soft money donations to the National parties. The foes of Shays-Meehan have lost the battle in Congress. But they are determined to continue the battle on a new battleground, the Judiciary, and they are apparently determined to do whatever it takes to become lead plaintiff. Under our system of laws, that is their right. To help them gain standing, one amendment before us authorizes any member of Congress to challenge this legislation. Supporters of Shays- Meehan are confident the legislation will withstand Constitutional challenge, just as it withstood legislative challenge. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Shays-Meehan to be sent to the White House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I certainly join the chairman of the Committee on House Administration in strong support of this funding resolution, which I think is appropriate, and I congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member, as well as the other body for the process that they have adopted to proceed on this matter, which I think will be efficient and effective. Mr. Goss. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest possible support for the passage of this resolution, which will provide urgently needed funds to support an unprecedented bipartisan and bicameral inquiry. This joint congressional inquiry, involving the Members and staff of both the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has several critical tasks: first, to review the events and the actions of our Government leading up to the terrorist attacks of last September; second, to ascertain accountability within our Government for the management of counterterrorist and homeland security functions, focusing specifically on our intelligence mechanisms; and third, to ensure that our Government is properly informed and prepared with accurate and timely intelligence to stop current and future terrorist attacks against our Nation and our people. This joint inquiry is being handled on an urgent basis by the leadership of both parties in both Houses and with the full cooperation of the relevant agencies of the executive branch. This inquiry is critically important to enhancing our Nation's security against the threat posed by global terrorism and to strengthening public confidence that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are fully prepared to defuse the terrorist threats that now confront our Nation. I want to thank the Ranking Member for her participation and her counsel in structuring the joint inquiry with the other body. I also want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Ney and Mr. Hoyer of the House Administration Committee for their close cooperation and advice in moving the joint inquiry forward on an expedited basis.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER. Further reserving my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the minority whip. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I take this time to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Administration for an explanation of his unanimous consent request.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution to authorize a ceremony to present a Congressional Gold Medal to former President Ronald Reagan and to Nancy Reagan. I regret that President Reagan will not be present for that ceremony. H.R. 3591, enacted in the last Congress as Public Law 106-251, authorized presentation of this gold medal to our 40th President and our First Lady. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was a strong leader, both substantively in terms of policy and symbolically in terms of the image he projected to the American people. He was a significant figure at a critical point in time in our history. Ronald Reagan was clearly an effective advocate for his views, and he retained the affection of the American people throughout his Presidency. President Reagan was skilled at representing the office of the Presidency as well as his policies. He was an individual, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has said, simple, unassuming, profound in some ways and a thoroughly decent human being. I want to take this opportunity as well to salute Nancy Reagan his wife, an active First Lady and a devoted spouse both in the White House and in the difficult days since she has coped with the former President's tragic Alzheimer's disease. Nancy Reagan has been a tireless proponent of programs to prevent alcohol and drug abuse as well. Mr. Speaker, I may disagree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) in terms of some of the policies and some of the reasons for what has happened in America. We will have those kind of differences appropriately. But what neither of us disagree on and what we both agree on is that Ronald Reagan is in fact a decent human being who cares greatly about his country, who cares about its people, who cares about freedom, and who cares about justice. He was a leader of significance, as I said earlier, a leader who made a difference, a leader who set before the world an image of freedom, a leader who was prepared to commit himself to the defense of freedom and, as a result, in my opinion, gave to those who would undermine freedom in the Kremlin and other places in the world second thoughts. In the final analysis, I am convinced that Gorbachev, the leader of Soviet Union, looked at his people and said, Ronald Reagan, the Congress, the American people are prepared to pay the price of defending freedom and are not going to let it go by default. We cannot compete, I am sure Gorbechev said, with a President, a Congress and a people with such resolve. As a result, I think, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has pointed out, shortly after the Reagan Presidency, communism was certainly in retreat, the Iron Curtain came down, the Berlin Wall, which he asked to be torn down, in fact was torn down. So although during the course of his Presidency I differed on some policies and, frankly, agreed on others, but what we all can agree on is that this was an American who served his country well, an American who gave of himself, of his philosophy, of his intellect, of his devotion to country. Americans and America and, indeed, the world benefitted by that contribution. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise with my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), in support of this most appropriate use of the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the concurrent resolution. I was pleased to serve with Jerry Solomon during 18 years of my service here in the House that we overlapped. He was a passionate advocate of the positions he held. He was a Marine, in the best tradition of the United States Marines, of which he was a member until the day he died. He was a fighter for the issues that he believed in, but he was also a friend. He had a good word for almost all on this floor and even in passion and anger he could turn to you with a smile and with a wink and say, we differed on this issue but we serve the American public, and we shall do so together. It was enjoyable to serve with Jerry Solomon. It was appropriate that the bill, of which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) spoke, was passed, because Jerry was such a fighter, not only for that facility but for veterans generally. And he was a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan, whom we just set aside a time to honor. So I am pleased to rise on behalf of this measure and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), in the consideration of H.R. 3789, which names, as she has pointed out, a postal facility after Congressman Roncalio. I am sure that the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) will speak of Mr. Roncalio. It is interesting that the gentlewoman and Congressman Roncalio were of different parties, but represent a State that has a distinction of having a representative who really is like a United States Senator, in that they are elected statewide. Mr. Roncalio was an outstanding member of this House, ran for the United States Senate unsuccessfully, but the people of Wyoming did not want to lose his service and reelected him for another three terms to the House of Representatives. So we on this side of the aisle are very pleased to join the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the subcommittee and full committee in supporting this appropriate recognition of his service to Wyoming and his service to the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot guarantee that, I would say to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and ask unanimous consent that as a member of the Committee on House Administration, that he may control that time.