Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has done as much for counting every American as anybody in America and who has done as much for overseas voters as anybody in America working with our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), I thank the gentleman for his words. There are, frankly, not very many better legislators in this Congress than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). He has done some extraordinary work through the years, and I appreciate his comments. I want him to know what a positive partner, as I said at the beginning of this process, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State of Rhode Island.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Patricia Stonesifer will make a wonderful addition to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. Ms. Stonesifer has distinguished herself in numerous philanthropic, business, and public activities during her career, and I urge every Member to support her appointment. Ms. Stonesifer now serves as the co-chair and president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. At the Gates Foundation, she focuses on global health and education issues, reflecting her personal commitment to improving living conditions for peoples everywhere. Ms. Stonesifer also serves on the boards of the Vaccine Fund, established 2 years ago to combat preventable disease in the world's poorest countries, and that of the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnership, an organization working to fight the spread of AIDS in Botswana. She has served as a member of the American Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly's special session on AIDS. In her business career, Ms. Stonesifer has both served as a senior vice president at Microsoft, and operated her own consulting firm, so she knows business large and small. She serves on the boards of two publicly held corporations, the King County (Wash.) YWCA, and the Seattle Foundation. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Patricia Stonesifer will bring the right mix of philanthropic and business experience to the Smithsonian Institution. I urge the House to support her appointment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the operative clause of this resolution says simply that ``the House of Representatives honors and thanks the United States Capitol Police for their outstanding work and dedication during a period of heightened security that began on September 11, 2001.'' I trust that all members will support this honor for the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. They have certainly earned it. They continue to earn it at this hour, mere steps from this spot and all around Capitol Hill. Congress established the Capitol Police during the administration of John Quincy Adams. Ponder how different the world was then, and how different the job of providing security for the Capitol would have been then. In the last 173 years, the world has changed immeasurably, and so has the work of the Capitol Police. In modern times, the police have had to cope with emergencies, bombings and shootings, including the tragic 1998 murders of officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, that remain so painfully fresh in our memories. After that tragic event, Congress properly heightened Capitol security, adopting a posture that requires considerable additional manpower. Recent events have obviously underscored the need for more officers and greater security. Fortunately, additional resources are in the pipeline. Congress has appropriated money to fund all the additional officers the Capitol police can hire and train during 2002, and supplemental funds have been provided to address needs identified since September 11. Today, the Capitol police face evolving threats from those who, for whatever reason, wish our country harm. What was unthinkable only a few weeks ago, has been done. We must remain vigilant and prepared as we work to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. We will continue to rely on the Capitol police as the first line of defense for the people's house and all who work and visit here. The men and women of the Capitol police meet their challenges with courage and a level of professionalism not exceeded anywhere. Since the dastardly attacks of September 11, Capitol police officers have worked long hours under adverse conditions. These men and women clearly represent the best that America has to offer. I want to express my personal thanks for a job well done. Men and women of the District of Columbia National Guard now ably assist our Capitol police. Congress likewise owes the guardsmen and women thanks for their assistance, and for giving our police much- needed relief. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution. The police clearly deserve the honor. I applaud the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lee] for introducing it, the chairman [Mr. Ney], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], and of course my friend from Florida [Mr. Davis] for bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to adopt the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price): One minute is too short a time to substantively discuss obviously so important an issue. But I want to say that I reject the rationale of the gentleman from California who spoke immediately before me. I do not believe that a vote ``no'' will weaken the President. What a vote ``no'' will do is strengthen the process in this House. The American public elected 435, not 221 or 222, but 435 of us; and they expected us to come together, to work together, to reason together, and to produce a product. I believe had that process been followed, this product would be better. Like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) who spoke before me, I have supported Fast Track, PNTR, and NAFTA. Why? Because I believe that trade is an important aspect of the economic well-being of our country and of our workers. But I believe that this process needs to be open; and if so, it will be a better one. Reject this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to express my strong support of this resolution. Fortunately, it's not every day that the members of this House, and their staffs, must evacuate the House office buildings due to the presence of anthrax. Let's hope it never happens again. Steps are certainly being taken to ensure it never happens again. This House indeed owes a debt of gratitude to the General Accounting Office for making it possible for the people's House to continue its work during those two critical weeks. The chairman's resolution eloquently expresses the sentiments that should be expressed, and I urge all members to support it. As one whose office is in the Longworth Building, I spent considerable time working at the GAO. I found it to be a hospitable place, staffed by hospitable, dedicated Federal workers. I want to express my personal thanks to David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, for throwing open the doors of his agency to the House. I also want to thank Dick Brown, the GAO's comptroller and chief administrative officer, for spending many hours working to ensure the whole enterprise went smoothly, which it did. And I generally want to thank the dedicated employees of the General Accounting Office who were relocated, or otherwise inconvenienced, to accommodate me and my staff, and other Members and their staffs. Their sacrifice did not go unnoticed, or unappreciated. Mr. Speaker, we should note that as hundreds of us descended upon the GAO headquarters, GAO's own important work continued, despite the disruption. This is a grand tribute to the professionalism of GAO employees. The GAO's mission is to support the work of the Congress as our budgetary watchdog. The leadership and staff of the GAO can now say, with pride, that they have supported the work of the House directly as never before. This incident rightly belongs in the annals of congressional history. This resolution ensures it will be properly recorded. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the House express its gratitude to the GAO and its wonderful employees for allowing us to continue our operations during this time. I applaud the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, for yielding and rise, obviously, in support of this continuing resolution. This needs to be passed, but the issues that are being raised by Mr. Obey and others who have spoken with reference to what we need to do in the short term, what we need to do before we leave and go home after the first session of the 107th Congress, I know the Coast Guard was just discussed, great concerns. I represent obviously the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland is a coastal State, clearly concerns are raised. We have tankers going in and out. We do not know who gets off those tankers, gets in little rubber boats, brings items to this coast and to Maryland, to Delaware, in the Chesapeake Bay which may obviously pose dangers to many of the Federal facilities that are located therein. We cannot wait. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made that point yesterday very eloquently. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is in a difficult position, the chairman of our committee. We had three amendments in committee yesterday. The chairman of our committee wanted to back all three of the amendments and said so, that he was inclined to vote for the Obey amendment, inclined to vote for the Walsh amendment and inclined to vote for the Murtha amendment, but he did not because there is a constraint being imposed. Very frankly, that constraint will perhaps lead us to additional continuing resolutions because we may not finish our business in a timely fashion if we continue to delay that which I think we know we need to do. The issues raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Coast Guard being but one, the homeland security issues, that is critical, need to be addressed and they need to be addressed in the short term. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on these issues. I thank him for raising these issues on an item that is not controversial, but gives us an opportunity to say that we need to move on these and we need to move in the short term on these, and I am certainly hopeful, and I say to my chairman for whom I have, as he knows, unreserved respect and great, great affection. I think he is one of the finest Members of this body, and I would urge him to prevail upon those who will be making decisions to allow these amendments to be considered on the floor when we consider the Defense bill and its supplemental title, because I believe that considering these now is in the best interest of our country, the best interest of our security, the best interest of the safety of our people, the best interest of our confronting those who would terrorize this land and people around the world. I, therefore, believe that as we did in responding immediately to the Terrorist Act, we need to respond with as much efficiency and speed as we possibly can to these identified. I know the chairman and the ranking member agree on the objectives. That is the irony. It is not that we disagree with the objectives. We are just disagreeing on timing, and now is better than later. It is safer, more appropriate policy, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I had spoken generally about the amendments that we considered yesterday. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, I wanted to speak particularly about one item, and then mention three others quickly. First, New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, sustained a direct attack; but there is another institution in our country which has sustained a direct impact, and that is the Postal Service of our Nation. We have lost two postal workers to anthrax. They died as a result of anthrax inhalation. I attended a memorial service for those two gentlemen, Mr. Curseen and Mr. Morris, 2 days ago. In the Obey amendment, there is an item of $500 million to allow the postal department to respond: one, to make sure that we do not lose any more lives of those who serve us in the postal department; and secondly, to make sure that we have the resources necessary to make sure that the mail that goes through the Postal Service, before it is delivered to individuals, is in fact free of biological or chemical agents which would cause them harm. This is a critical component of the Obey amendment that, hopefully, will be made in order and we can offer. We cannot wait. From my standpoint, this is not enough money for the Postal Service. This is not, and I would stress, all of the money that they will need. The Postmaster General said they will need between $3 and $5 billion to respond to the events of September 11 and the anthrax scourge that has confronted the Postal Service and others. I would urge us to focus on this Postal Service money. Quickly, I would remark on the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a leader on behalf of the fire service. The Obey amendment provides an additional $150 million for the firefighters and emergency response personnel. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned the shortages around this country in the fire service in our major cities. I will tell my friends in this House, the fire service of the District of Columbia does not now have the capacity to respond to a major catastrophe in this city. We all hope and pray that does not occur, but we are not ready for it if it does. Two other items in the Treasury-Postal bill, we know that the northern border has been a relatively porous border. Canada is no threat to us, but terrorists have utilized Canada as an entry point into the United States. The Customs Department has told us that they need substantial additional funds. Unfortunately, they were not included in the President's budget, as submitted to us. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) did in fact add some money, but not enough to accomplish the objective. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) adds to the sum that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) added, so we can accomplish a more secure northern border across which we know when the millennium occurred on January 1, 2000, shortly before that, one of the terrorists came across trying to cause an explosion to occur in the Los Angeles airport. Coming south, they were caught. That border is such that we were lucky; and we need to beef it up substantially, and the Obey amendment does that. Lastly, we have talked about security at the Capitol. It is important and I support it. This is the center of democracy, but we need additional funds to secure our Federal facilities in which Federal workers labor daily on behalf of the American people. It is not that the terrorists seek to get to those individuals. They do not care who they are. What they want to get to is the Federal Government, and if we do not secure those buildings, we place our people at risk. The Obey amendment speaks to that objective, and I would hope that we can consider it as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, again I thank the ranking member for his leadership, for his efforts on behalf of these objectives. I know the chairman of our committee supports these objectives. He articulated that yesterday. He is dealing with constraints, and we understand that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as our nation moves forward from September 11, we know that the answer to profound loss and tragedy can only be found in faith and determination, Ours is a story of perseverance, of courage, of sacrifice. The American journey has not been paved by ease. Our quest for freedom, democracy and decency has never been free. Yet, we are strengthened by the fact that each generation of Americans prepares its place in history from the shoulders of those who preceded. Thus, it's with great honor that I pay tribute, on the occasion of his 86th birthday, to one of the greatest public servants in the history of our nation and a great American--Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr. Sargent Shriver's devotion to this nation--and humanity--sets an example for all to emulate and a high bar that only a few will ever hope to exceed. A native of the State of Maryland, and in fact a member of one of the Free State's founding families, Sargent Shriver has dedicated his life to improving the lives of others. A few years ago, Sarge was asked to explain his lifelong commitment to public service. ``I just feel my faith,'' he said. ``A life of service is like catching a disease. In a family it's passed on. . . . Our five children are all involved in service. It's in their veins.'' There is no doubt that this generation and future generations of Americans are the beneficiaries of his life of service. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1941, Sarge enlisted in the Navy, where he received the Navy Unit Citation and the Submarine Medal for service in both the Atlantic and Pacific. After World War II, Sarge accepted a position as assistant editor with Newsweek magazine. He later went into business with Joseph Kennedy, President Kennedy's father, and met Eunice, his wife of more than 48 years. Sarge then moved his family to Chicago, where he served on the Board of Education. In 1956, he was elected President of the Board, the youngest person to serve in such a position in any major American city. And in 1960, he joined the Presidential campaign of then-Senator Kennedy. After the election, he was asked by President Kennedy to create the Peace Corps and in March 1961 was appointed its founding Director. Sarge's vision for the Peace Corps was straight-forward and strong: ``to permit Americans to participate directly, personally, and effectively in this struggle for human dignity.'' In nearly six years at the Peace Corps, Sarge developed programs in 55 countries with more than 14,500 volunteers. Forty years later, the solid foundation that he created has only strengthened and expanded. Today, 163,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served in 135 countries. As CBS television commentator Charles Osgood said just a few weeks ago: ``Much has changed since 1960, but two things have not: Americans still pray for peace and they still join the Peace Corps.'' However, while Sarge is rightly identified as the founding father of this great American idea, his contributions to the Peace Corps do not tell the whole story. Sarge also served as the first Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Johnson. Then, between 1964 and 1968, he created VISTA, Head Start, Community Action, Foster Grandparents, Job Corps, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services. And, then, from 1968 to 1970, he served as U.S. Ambassador to France, before being nominated in 1972 to serve as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic Party's ticket with George McGovern. I dare say that few Americans have given so much to help so many. Yet, in the twilight of this incredible life, Sarge and Eunice continue to give. For example, Eunice is the Founder and Honorary Chair and Sarge the Past-President and current Chairman of the Board of the Special Olympics. To call this record of public service exemplary is a vast understatement. Words cannot adequately convey the decency and humanity that has been brought into the lives of millions worldwide through the work of Sargent Shriver--international lawyer, ambassador, humanitarian. His life's work shall live on long after this and succeeding generations have passed the torch of public service to their progeny. ``Serve, serve, serve,'' Sarge was known to say, ``because in the end it is the servants who save us all.'' Mr. Speaker, today I honor a great American and wish him only the best as he begins this, his 87th year of public service to the United States and the cause of humanity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of all of the Members of the House. It is not every day that Members of the House and their staffs have to evacuate their congressional offices due to an unseen but potentially lethal health hazard. In fact, as all of us know, it was unprecedented. Today, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I want to express my sincere thanks to David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, and all the dedicated employees of the General Accounting Office who were relocated or otherwise inconvenienced to accommodate Members and their staffs while House office buildings underwent precautionary testing for anthrax. Those employees' graciousness and patience demonstrated their teamwork and the fact that their important work was uninterrupted when thousands, I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, thousands of us descended on GAO headquarters, is a tribute to their professionalism and to their Americanism. It also reinforced our American ethic that, working together, there is little that we cannot do. Again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire House, I thank David Walker, all of the employees at GAO for their cooperation, their graciousness and their facilitation of the business of America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, who is doing such an outstanding job as the ranking member, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I thank Ed and Liz for the outstanding job they are doing. We are glad to have Liz Dawson with us. She is doing an outstanding job, and now doing an outstanding job with the security of our Capitol. I appreciate our former Staff Director's assistance as well. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a long time, but I want to talk about just a couple of things, actually three things that are in this bill with which I am very pleased. First of all, we are moving ahead on enhancing security in this complex. That is absolutely essential. I have been talking about that for some years. I appreciate the fact that the committee has now provided the Capitol police with all of the officers that they can train within the next year to fully fund the security requirements and the Capitol police in terms of their safety as well as the safety of this complex, both from a physical standpoint and from an individual personal standpoint. I do not mean us personally, but the individuals in the Capitol. It also restores pay parity of the Capitol Police with the Park Police and Secret Service. I think that is important, because we do not want to spend a lot of money training people simply to have them go off to other agencies. So I thank the committee for their efforts in that regard. Let me mention two additional provisions, and then I will cease. Both of these provisions are related to legislative branch workers. First, section 133 of the bill will finally end the practice of employing temporary workers for long periods without providing them access to the same valuable Federal benefits that permanent employees enjoy from the first days on the job. I think that is important as a personnel policy, and I think it is important, from a fairness point of view, to our personnel. The Architect now employs more than 300 such workers, mostly on construction projects. Many have been employed almost continually for years, and in some cases over 15 years, and still have not had benefits: no retirement, no health care. That is obviously, when one is 25 years of age, thought to be not of much consequence; when one gets to be 50 years of age and one looks back, it is of great consequence. These workers will now have access to benefits, and no new hires can work more than 1 year without getting them. Secondly, section 310 will ensure that the House telephone operators, who have played a key role in assuring continuity of operations during the instant crisis, will always receive the same annual wage adjustment ordered by House administration for all classified House employees. We found a discrepancy existed. I will not go into the reasons that discrepancy existed, but it is now resolved. There are a lot of other excellent provisions in this bill. I agree with the chairman and with the ranking member, this is not a controversial bill. It is a good bill. Again, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member and our staffs for working so hard to make it so. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill that every member should support. It fully funds a number of accounts, including the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service, key agencies that directly support the Congress. It fully funds the American Folklife Center in the Library, including the veterans' oral history project. It funds the new sound-recording preservation program. It provides needed funds to improve services in the law library. To enhance security in the complex, it funds all the extra Capitol Police officers that the department can hire and train during fiscal 2002. I've fought for over two years for enough police manpower to assure adequate security. A key measure of adequate security is deployment of a minimum of two officers on every door. We're not there yet, but this bill moves us in that direction and I hope we will move still further next year. The bill does restore pay parity for the Capitol Police with the Park Police and Secret Service Uniformed officers. The bill extends GPO's early-out/buy-out authority for 3 years, and funds a 4.6 percent COLA. The bill otherwise provides sufficient funds for the operation of member offices, committees, and the officers of the House. Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions that I want to mention in particular, both related to legislative-branch workers. It funds the same $65 transit benefit available in the executive branch for every legislative-branch agency. I especially want to compliment my friend from Virginia for making this a priority. I will work with Chairman Ney in House Administration to authorize the increased benefit promptly for House employees. First, section 133 will finally end the Architect of the Capitol's practice of employing temporary workers for long periods without providing them access to the same valuable Federal benefits that permanent employees enjoy from their first days on the job. The Architect now employs more than 300 such workers, mostly on construction projects. Many have been employed almost continuously for years, as ``temporary'' workers. Under my provision, these workers will have access to benefits, and no new hires can work more than 1 year without benefits. Second, section 310 will ensure that the house telephone operators, who have played a key role in assuring continuity of operations during the instant crisis, will always receive the same annual wage adjustment ordered by House Administration for all classified House employees. That initially didn't happen this year. Mr. Speaker, there are many other excellent provisions in this bill, far too many to list in the time allotted. Suffice it to say that it has been a joy to work this year with the gentlemen from North Carolina and Virginia, and with the able new subcommittee clerk, Elizabeth Dawson, all of whom I sincerely thank. I also want to thank Mark Murray, the minority subcommittee clerk, Tim Aiken of Mr. Moran's staff, and Roger Szemraj [``Shem-rye''] and Julie Little of Ms. Kaptur's staff, for their fine work. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, when our Nation deploys its Army or Navy on a sensitive mission, we don't supplement their war-fighting capabilities with a privately run air force. So why would we insist that Federal law enforcement agents--who are on the front lines of homeland security--work alongside private airline screeners who are poorly paid, poorly trained and poorly performing? Do we really believe that a terrorist who can elude the greatest fighting force in the world cannot exploit this weakest link in our homeland security? Every member of this body recognizes--in the wake of September 11-- that airline security is an integral part of our national security. Thus, there's broad agreement: Airline cockpits must be more secure. More Federal marshals must be deployed on airplanes. Training and performance of airline security personnel must be improved. Yet, some Members of the majority believe that private companies should conduct security screening of passengers and baggage. That's a recipe for future disaster. As Secretary Mineta remarked on Tuesday, ``An unacceptable number of deficiencies continue to occur'' at our Nation's airports. Just since September 11, seven screeners failed a quiz on their skills at Dulles. Seven other screeners were arrested at Dallas-Forth Worth when they were found to be working illegally in the United States. And, Last week, a passenger flying from New Orleans to Phoenix discovered that he had a gun in his briefcase that had not been detected. Low salaries contribute to an average turnover rate for private screeners of 126 percent. And the General Accounting Office has documented their poor performance. Two weeks ago, the Senate recognized that decisive action was required, and passed an airline security bill by a 100-0 vote that would create a well-paid, well-trained force of Federal airline screeners. Federalizing this security function will ensure that we are able to conduct thorough government background checks on screeners, and that our law enforcement efforts are integrated. The traveling public has every right to expect that our airport security personnel will be as professional as our Armed Forces deployed in Afghanistan and Central Asia. This Democratic alternative, which federalizes all security-screening functions, is our best chance to restore public confidence in airline security. Let me note, though, that Federal screeners cannot be Federal employees in name only. This bill gives the Attorney General broad discretion over pay, health care, whistleblower protection, veterans' preference, workers' compensation, and the right to organize. He must not use it to create a second-class status for these employees. I will support this legislation to make our air travel system much safer. This objective must be accomplished. But I intend to monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure that Federal employee protections and benefits are not undermined in the process.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. The chairman of the conference committee from the Senate was very strongly in favor of the gentleman's provision. Very frankly, I was in favor of the gentleman's provision. I agree with the premise the gentleman has stated, but the President indicated he would veto the bill if the gentleman's provision was kept in. It proved to be an insurmountable obstacle to us in doing that, but I think the gentleman's comments are well taken. I will tell the gentleman that I believe next year, assuming that provision is in this bill, I do not know whether the Senate can get the same provision in, it is a little difficult for the Senate to accede to the House's provision, but they want to do that if the House does not hold to its position. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Arizona, I agree with his first proposition and strongly disagree with his second proposition. The gentleman points out that this bill is almost exactly at the dollar level, $48 million is a lot of money, but we are talking about a bill that is close to $30 billion for both mandatory and discretionary spending. Essentially they are very close, the Senate and the House bills. I think this is a bill worthy of support as it passed the House. It continues to be worthy as a conference report from the conference committee. I hope that Members would support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to rise and join the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of this subcommittee, in expressing our deep sorrow at the death of Thomas Murray, a long-time employee of the Customs Service, killed in the line of duty, killed while trying to defend this country from the importation and introduction into our borders of materials which are either illegal or dangerous. Every day Customs agents, INS agents, DEA agents, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, IRS and Federal employees who are not perceived to be in law enforcement or tax enforcement are themselves, because of the very fact that they work for the Federal Government, at risk, and it is important that we remember them and that we appreciate them. We thank them for the contribution they make to making America free and great. This bill does that in part by assuring that they will receive a comparability adjustment, which does not get them to comparability but an adjustment which will move them further towards their private sector counterparts. I thank the chairman for his support of that effort. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides a total discretionary funding level of nearly $17.1 billion in discretionary dollars; that is, dollars over which we make a decision. That includes 969 million above last year's level and 388 million above the President's suggestion. I want to mention a few important items. To some degree this will be repetitive, but I think it is important for both sides to mention these issues. For Treasury law enforcement, which as the chairman pointed out makes up nearly 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement, we have provided 4.8 billion, 400 million above the President's request. Very frankly, that number will go up in supplementals to provide for better security and a better ability to meet the threat that now confronts this great Nation. Important additions in this bill to the President's law enforcement request include the following: 170 million to modernize the Customs Service import processing system, for a total of 300 million in fiscal year 2002; 33 million for the Customs Service to purchase nonintrusive inspection technology. We had the opportunity of talking to Secretary O'Neill last night about that issue, critically important to our Nation and to our commerce. Safety and commerce come together on that particular issue. Twenty-five million for additional Customs inspectors on the northern border. Forty-five million above the President's request for the Secret Service to complete its work for its balancing initiative. Critically important if we are going to have Secret Service agents work for hours that do not tax their effectiveness and efficiency. We include 10.6 million for new facilities at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glencoe, Georgia, and Artesia, New Mexico, critically important as we confront the beefing up of our law enforcement capability in this country and on our borders. The funding level also includes 226.4 million for the HIDTAs, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program. 20.3 million above last year's level. Mr. Speaker, I have been a long time enthusiastic and strong supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has significant dollars in it, now almost a quarter of a billion dollars, but it is a most important contribution, and a contribution which will become even more important in these days and the days ahead is the coordination it provides between Federal, State and local law enforcement and public safety agencies. Tom Ridge, the new director of our homeland security effort, spoke to the Democratic Caucus this morning and talked about the necessity for coordination. HIDTA is a perfect example of that kind of coordination. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be concerned with the level of support the Treasury law enforcement agencies receive from this administration, and I might say, from previous administrations. The emergency supplemental request sent to Congress underfunds the Customs Service. The Customs Service is on the front line protecting our borders. As we have just seen, Mr. Murray was on the front lines. He lost his life. If we are to enhance homeland defense capabilities, the Customs Service will require more support from the administration and from Congress. This funding agreement includes $2 million in addition to our law enforcement accounts for a program called First Accounts. This is on top of the $10 million enacted last year and will give to Treasury $12 million to provide a very important service for Americans who are unbanked: They have no checking account, they have no credit cards, they have no ATM card obviously, because they have no checking account. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has championed this program, which is intended to establish affordable, electronic banking accounts for low-income families, and increase the availability of ATM machines in low-income neighborhoods as well. It will also serve to educate low- income Americans about the benefits of having a bank account and managing their finances. It will protect them hopefully against being ripped off every payday by those who want to charge them exorbitant rates for cashing checks or making short-term carry-over loans. For the IRS, Mr. Speaker, $9.4 billion is provided. $548.2 million above fiscal 2001. This includes an additional $320 million to continue modernizing its business systems. It is appropriate that we mention the work of Charles Rossotti, the Commissioner of the IRS, who has done an extraordinary job as a manager, bringing the IRS into a position of carrying out the Internal Revenue Service Reform Act and making sure that we get the most efficient operation of our tax collection enterprise as is possible. The conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, also provides $280.6 million for court house construction. That is essential in my opinion and, in fact, could be more. We are obviously still within fiscal constraints, but it does move further than was originally proposed. The amount provided surpasses the amount requested by the President by almost $64 million. Also included in the budget of the General Services Administration is $19 million for the Food and Drug Administration consolidation. This will save large sums of money and provide for much more efficient administration of the Food and Drug Administration. That could not be more timely in light of the threat that we have to our food supply in the context of terrorism. This is an ongoing, multiyear project that will replace abysmal facilities that are scattered across the metropolitan area, and provide FDA employees with state-of-the-art technology to do their jobs even better; and they do an excellent job now of protecting Americans and protecting our food supply and our drug integrity. For Federal employees, the bill, as I said, includes several important provisions. I want to highlight just a few. First, as the chairman has pointed out, it includes the 4.6 percent pay raise, which will not get them to where they need to be, but will move them further along the road of becoming comparable with their private-sector counterparts. In addition, it makes permanent a provision that allows Federal agencies to improve the affordability of child care for lower- income Federal workers, which is a critical need. And it continues a provision that allows Federal employees to receive contraceptive coverage, as the chairman has pointed out. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of election reform. I believe most Members of Congress are committed to addressing the issues facing our election system. Although dramatic examples of those shortcomings in our election system were found in Florida, we soon found that the same problems which existed in Florida existed in many other States throughout this Nation, very frankly including my own in Maryland. As the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, I am continuing to work with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), on broad-based legislation to address these issues. That legislation, which hopefully we will pass out of the Committee on House Administration in the next few weeks, will require significant resources; and I plan to address this need with the committee at the appropriate time. The reforms that will be effected ultimately will be under the jurisdiction of this committee, and I have discussed this with the chairman. He and I have both discussed it with Chairman Young; and this matter, although not addressed in this bill, will have to be addressed in the near future. Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up my remarks, I want to join the chairman in congratulating the staff of this committee. First of all, I want to mention an extraordinary staffer, Michelle Mrdeza. Miss Mrdeza is the Chief Clerk of our committee. ``Clerk'' is a word that implies to some a job of ministerial importance as opposed to policy importance. Now, Miss Mrdeza would be the first to say that she does not enter into policy, it is we Members who do so, but frankly, the advice and council she gives to both sides of the aisle is invaluable as we consider this bill. She has institutional knowledge that is helpful to each and every member of the committee, and we thank her for her leadership of the staff and for her critical assistance as we mark up this bill. I also want to mention Jeff Ashford, who does an outstanding job; Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, both of whom are of great assistance to Members on both sides of the aisle. I also want to mention John Albaugh, who works for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), as does Scott Nance, who works for us personally, but who is very much involved in the committee's consideration of this legislation. Also, of course, I want to mention Rob Nabors. Rob Nabors is our committee staffer on the minority side and he does an extraordinary job. He is new, but not new to the budget process. He comes from OMB and is extraordinarily knowledgeable and has been a valuable asset to not only our side of the aisle but, I think, to the committee as a whole. Lastly, I want to join the chairman in thanking Chris Stanley for his contributions to the committee. We get some outstanding talent from the various Federal agencies. We get the talent and their personnel get the experience of how this process works. We think both sides are advantaged by that exchange program. So I want to thank all the members of the staff. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We ought to pass it and we ought to pass it overwhelmingly. I thank the chairman for working with us in a bipartisan fashion. We have not always agreed, but we have worked in a bipartisan, open fashion, so that all sides knew what the issues were and they could be addressed in an open, democratic way, and I thank him for that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the House in 1981 in a special election. I came here in early June, so I had been here some 18 months before Norm Sisisky was sworn in in January of 1983 to the House of Representatives. But because Virginia and Maryland are members of the same organizational region for our caucus, and because Norm and I had a number of interests in common, we became very good friends. I am pleased, therefore, to rise on behalf of this legislation. This legislation, of course, will pass unanimously, as it should. It is appropriate that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) introduced this resolution to honor his predecessor. They come from different parties, but they come from the same State, the same region, and the same district, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) knows full well of the affection and respect with which Mr. Sisisky was held in his district. Norm Sisisky, some of my colleagues may not know, was born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1927. His parents had come from Lithuania; emigrated to this country. When Norm was a very young boy, his family moved to Virginia. He grew up in Richmond and, after he graduated from high school, he enlisted in the Navy for the final years of World War II. He was very young. He enlisted at almost his first opportunity, as soon as he graduated from high school. After completing his naval service, Norm graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University. History would prove that his service to the Navy in World War II did not end until his death, for the Navy had no better friend than Norm Sisisky. Indeed, the Armed Services of America, the defense of our Nation, the defense of freedom throughout this world had no better friend nor more tenacious supporter than Norm Sisisky. When he graduated from college and completed his naval service, he entered into the soft drink bottling distribution business. He bought a small distribution plant that he then built into a giant distribution plant and was so respected by his colleagues that he became the President of the National Soft Drink Association. Norm Sisisky was a man of faith, active in his synagogue and in many Jewish organizations. Indeed, he served as president of his congregation. Norm and his wife, the former Rhoda Brown, had four sons, Mark, Terry, Richard and Stuart, and seven grandchildren. Norm and Rhoda were and are extraordinarily proud of those four sons and those seven grandchildren, and I know they will be proud to point to this post office that will be named for Norm Sisisky. By the way, let me, as an aside, make a suggestion. The first bill that I passed as a Member of this House was to name the District Heights Post Office for E. Michael Roll, who had been the mayor of the town in which I lived for over 20 years. And I can remember as a young kid, the town was small enough that the mayor would get on you if you were not riding your bike in the proper place or he saw you throw an ice cream wrapper on the street or something of that nature. Mr. Roll had recently died, and I was so pleased to introduce a bill to honor him by naming the post office after him. When they went out to the District Heights Post Office, and this is what I want my Virginia friends to hear, they were going to take off the words ``United States Post Office.'' The post office had proposed putting E. Michael Roll's name in place of United States. I told them that E. Michael Roll would roll over in his grave if he knew his name was replacing the name of the country that he loved so deeply. So I would suggest that perhaps rather than name this post office the Norm Sisisky Post Office Building, that we name it the Norm Sisisky United States Post Office as the official name of the place. But to get back to Norm Sisisky, although we are talking about an appropriate act which need not be debated, we are talking about an individual whom this body is poorer for having lost. Born on June 9, 1927, he died on March 29 of this year. He died too soon. It could be said, of course, that perhaps all of us die too soon, but we particularly miss Norm Sisisky who was an expert on not only national defense but on national intelligence. He served on our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He was a quiet man, not bombastic, not rhetorical, not subject to self-aggrandizement or self-promotion. He was a man of substance. He was a man of commitment. He was a man of great intellect. He was a man of great energy. And he worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that America was strong, that we tended to our military, and that we made sure our intelligence was the best that it could be. How deeply in this time of trouble that confronts America today do we miss Norm Sisisky. I am proud to rise on behalf of this legislation because, as was quoted earlier in talking about Ben Franklin and quoting John Kennedy, a nation is known by the men and women that it honors. It is absolutely appropriate that we honor Norm Sisisky; that we lament his loss, but glory in the service that he gave to this institution and to this country that he loved. I ask all of us, as we vote on this legislation later today, to remember that contribution and perhaps to once again send a note or make a call to Rhoda and tell her we share her loss, not as poignantly, not as personally, but as his colleagues we share her loss, the loss of her sons, the loss of the grandchildren, and the loss of the great Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, David Stockman wrote in his book about the economics that supply side economics brought us. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has now left the floor, but he always gets up and says on your watch, meaning the Republican watch, presumably, we balanced the budget. That is, of course, not the case. The budget was balanced because of the 1990 bill, the 1993 bill, and the first bipartisan part of that trifecta, the 1997 bill. Republicans railed against the 1990 bill, not one of them voted for the 1993 bill, and the deficits that we incurred and all the money we spent that the gentleman from Florida talks about in terms of Social Security were signed on to by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. All of it. We never overrode a veto of a spending bill of Ronald Reagan. Not once. This bill on the floor is neither bipartisan nor responsible. It is ``Here we go again,'' Mr. Chairman, you are right. Here we go again putting on the floor of this House a bill that the gentleman knows we have not paid for and that future generations will be called on to pay for, our children and grandchildren. That was what was wrong with the economics of the 1980s when we incurred the largest deficits, signed on to by Ronald Reagan, the one person who could have stopped it; and George Bush, the first, the other person who could have stopped it; until 1993, when we started bringing those deficits down. And, yes, we finally created surpluses. President Bush said that we could have a massive tax cut, against which I voted, and be fine. That lasted for 10 weeks. He signed it in June, and by mid-August CBO, not Democrats, CBO was saying we have a deficit problem confronting us. Now, I say to my friend from Florida, yes, we talked about Social Security; and the gentleman is absolutely correct, of course, the trust fund is inviolate. But what is not inviolate is the money. What Bob Rubin suggested is that we pay down the debt with the excess Social Security money. Why? Because it would make it easier and more probable that we could pay for Social Security well into the future. But, no, we are spending that money, raised at a 7 percent flat tax on everybody who makes under $83,000. Why? So that we can continue to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest in America. And when Bob Novak says that does not make sense, it is not Democrats calling your hand. I suggest to my colleagues that you ought to go back to the drawing board and be bipartisan. Sit down with ranking member Rangel and the Democratic Members and come up with a bill that is responsible. I will vote for this substitute because I believe it puts money into the pockets of the people who need it and who will spend it and who will therefore stimulate the economy, and in so doing will create jobs. This GOP bill, reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on a straight party-line vote, is simply Halloween candy for big business and Americans who are doing well economically. Meanwhile, those who have been hit hardest by the recent slump in the economy are left holding a Halloween bag filled with nothing but rocks. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill didn't mince words. A week ago, he called this legislation ``show business'' that was designed to please the GOP's corporate constituency. Even conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that this bill is ``a hodgepodge that only a lobbyist could love.'' In fact, this bill violates virtually every principle for economic stimulus that the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees agreed to in early October. Congressional budget leaders agreed that a stimulus plan must be fiscally disciplined. This bill is not. When higher Federal debt service is included, this GOP bill will cost an estimated $274 billion over 10 years. And it will threaten our efforts to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down debt, which keeps long-term interest rates low. Congressional budget leaders agreed that a stimulus plan should provide an immediate economic boost. However, many of the provisions in this bill provide little or no stimulus within the next 15 months. Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should sunset within one year. However, this GOP bill would make many tax cuts permanent, including a reduction in the capital gains tax rate and repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should ``help those most vulnerable.'' However, the tax rate-cut acceleration and capital gains tax cuts are tilted toward those who are doing well, rather than those most likely to spend tax cuts. Furthermore, the $21 billion foreign-income tax break for corporations can only be termed outrageous. Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should be offset. However, unlike the Democratic alternative, this GOP bill contains no offsets. I urge my colleagues to embrace the bipartisanship that has guided us since September 11. Vote for the Democratic stimulus plan. It invests in homeland security and helps unemployed workers and their families. It stimulates the economy through temporary tax cuts. And it maintains the fiscal discipline necessary to keep long-term interest rates low. The American people deserve more than partisan Halloween pranks and posturing. Let's pass a stimulus plan that provides the economic boost we need.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise initially, as I said in full committee, I have had the opportunity to serve on this subcommittee now for 18 years. It has been led by some extraordinary Americans on both sides of the aisle. I started my service under Mr. Natcher. Bill Natcher of Kentucky was a legend in this institution. During the course of his service, he cast more consecutive votes than any person in history, a compliment to his sense of responsibility and his extraordinary self discipline. Succeeding him was Mr. Smith, and then the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and then Mr. Porter. When the Republicans took control in 1995, John Porter succeeded to the chairmanship, and he did an extraordinary job in a bipartisan fashion. This bill, however, was not always treated in a bipartisan fashion, as we know, not, frankly, because of the appropriators or the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but because of the extrinsic forces that came on to the committee with reference to caps on spending that were totally unrealistic and therefore led to either the bill being considered in a partisan fashion or, in fact, 1 year not being considered at all on the floor of the House and ultimately being considered in an omnibus appropriations bill. But this year, this is a real bill; and it is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. In fact, of course, we never pass perfect bills. But this bill is unique. It is in so many ways the people's bill, because it affects literally millions and millions, not only of Americans, but people around the world, who benefit from the research at NIH and who benefit from other facets of this legislation. But clearly the American people are advantaged by this bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is absolutely correct when he says there are insufficient resources in this bill. When you sit in markup on both sides of the aisle, liberals, conservatives, East, West, North and South, Members say there needs to be more in this program or that program. I am going to speak about a couple of them briefly. But this basically is a good bill; and I will support it, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support it. I want to again say, as I do almost every time I stand, because I think it is important for the American public to know the kind of leadership we have on critically important committees, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is the epitome of fairness, integrity and bipartisanship. His view is on America's well-being, not on partisan gain. Those of us who serve with him are advantaged by doing so. I thank him for his leadership. The good news for our subcommittee is that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) falls into the same category of a person focused on America, on Americans, and the country's interests, not on partisan interests. Therefore, this advantages this bill and our country. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me mention a couple of issues, if I might, that I am very concerned about. The National Immunization Program at CDC receives a significant increase in this bill; and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for that, an increase of $47.5 million over fiscal year 2001. But that is still only half the level that the Institute of Medicine recommended in its report last year for State operations and infrastructure and vaccine purchase. As the recent report on anthrax in Florida has proven to us, the threat of a biological attack on this Nation is a very real one. I just got off the phone doing a tape for radio with reference to yesterday's incident on a Metro train. As a result, we need to do all we can to ensure that our public health system is able to respond in the event of attack. I will say more about this when we mark up in conference. I know that there will be some emergency monies available for this objective as well at CDC. My understanding is the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, has suggested as much as a half a billion dollars increase in CDC to anticipate and deal with appropriate response in the event of a biological or chemical threat to the health of a city, a region, or our country. Let me discuss one additional issue, Mr. Chairman, briefly; and that is the Assistive Technology Act of 1989. I bring that up not because we will add more money to this bill for that objective, but because I am hoping in conference we can add some authorizing legislation. Obviously it must be done with agreement of the authorizers, both in the House and Senate. I understand that, and we are working with them. But if we fail to do so, nine States are going to lose assistance to make assistive technology available to those with disabilities so that they can be more able to participate fully in our society, whether it is jobs or in their home. I appreciate the chairman's concern about this and that he is working with us; and I appreciate the assistance of the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), with this effort as well. If we do not do something next year, nine States in 2002 will lose dollars; and 14 States will lose dollars in 2003 if we do not take action. I am hopeful we will do so, because this assistive technology is extraordinarily important to those challenged with disabilities to be fully incorporated into our society. That was the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act which President Bush signed on July 26, 1990; and it is an effort that we ought to make to ensure that that promise is fully met. Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee; and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and our ranking member for working so diligently to make this bill within the resources available to us the best it could possibly be.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this concurrent resolution, introduced by my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. Serrano). During his more than 11 years in the House, the gentleman from New York has consistently led on issues of interest to Hispanic-Americans. I have admired his leadership and appreciated his counsel during the time we have served together. It was through the work of the gentleman from New York and others that this handsome volume was orginially compiled. It was also my friend from New York who, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during the 103rd Congress, introduced the resolution that provided for the book's publication. My friend from New York recognized, as should we all, that Hispanics and Hispanic-Americans have played a fundamental role in the history of the United States. Hispanics have every reason to be proud of their role. Christopher Columbus may have been born an Italian, but he was in the service of the King and Queen of Spain when he discovered the New World. A Spaniard led the first European exploration of lands now part of the continental United States, in what is now Florida. Other Spanish explorers pushed still further into American territory. Indeed, as Americans fought for independence from Great Britain on the east coast of this continent, The Spanish were exploring and settling the west coast. Barely 2 months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Spanish founded a little settlement that we know today as San Francisco, CA. Hispanics have also played a tremendous role in the history of this institution, And they continue to do so today. Mr. Speaker, the first Hispanic-American to serve in Congress, Delegate Joseph Martin Hernandez, represented the newly acquired Florida territory in the House during the 17th Congress. The first Hispanic-American Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, represented New Mexico in the 70th Congress after a public career that included service as Governor of his State. From 1822 to 1995, a total of 63 distinguished Hispanic-Americans served in the two Houses. Since then, 9 more distinguished Hispanic- Americans have served, all of whom continue serving today. Biographies of the newest Hispanic-American Members, and updated biographies of others, will be included in the new edition as appropriate. Mr. Speaker, of the more than 11,600 individuals who have served in the two Houses since 1789, fewer than three-fifths of 1 percent have been Hispanic-Americans. In the Congresses of the 21st century and beyond, there is no doubt that many more Hispanic-Americans will have the honor of taking seats in the House and Senate. There is every reason to be proud of the contributions of the Hispanic-Americans who have served to date, which is why it is so important to chronicle those contributions. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 21st century, we must continue to mark the service and record the substantial contributions that Hispanic- Americans are making to the deliberations of the most democratic legislative body on Earth. A new edition of Hispanic-Americans in Congress will gather, in one updated volume, useful historical information for teachers, students, and others, describing the careers of the Hispanic-American men and women who have served in Congress. I am certain the new volume, like the first edition, will quickly become a tremendous resource, inspiring young Hispanic-Americans, and indeed all young Americans, to pursue careers that could eventually bring them to Washington to represent their neighbors in Congress. I urge the House to support the concurrent resolution. I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I join with the Chairman in urging adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 67. This is a housekeeping measure allowing the Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee to designate another member of that panel to serve on the Joint Committee on Printing in his place during the 107th Congress. By statute, the Senate membership of the Joint Committee on Printing consists of the Chairman and four members of the Committee on Rules and Administration. In order for the Senate to depart from that statutory scheme, the House must concur, hence this concurrent resolution. Anticipating adoption of this measure, the Senate has adopted a simple resolution electing its members of the Joint Committee for the 107th Congress. If we clear this resolution, the Joint Committee on Printing can organize and proceed to its business. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her leadership on this committee. I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for bringing this legislation to the floor, and I want to congratulate my good friend, former governor of Delaware, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for authoring this legislation. I might say that the gentleman from Delaware has the honor of representing probably one of the very best fire departments in America and, indeed, the world. A service that is, I think, without denigrating my Maryland firefighters in any way, without anybody surpassing them in their role they play, not only in their community but in this country. Madam Speaker, I have the honor of co-chairing the Fire Service Caucus with my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Fire Chief Weldon, who temporarily is a Member of Congress for many years, but he was a fire chief. He knows firsthand the dangers that exist. I have the honor of being the honorary chief at Company 26 in Prince George's County, Maryland. I rise today in support of the gentleman from Delaware's resolution to require the flying of the American flag at half staff to honor not only all fallen firefighters but as well emergency medical response teams who are in lock step with the fire fighters in responding to crises. The tragic events of the last month have, of course, reminded all of us of the valor and sacrifice of our Nation's first responders. The enormous loss of life would have been much higher if it were not for their bravery, displayed on television just a few days ago. In New York, as frightened citizens raced down the staircase of the World Trade Center, firefighters raced up the staircases to fight the 2,000 degree fire; going at the fire, not from it. That fire was engulfing the building. Their task was to evacuate the wounded. Sadly, as we know, over 300, 343, as has been mentioned, lost their lives in that fire and in the buildings' collapse. They are mourned today, along with their colleagues, who died at other fires and other emergencies. This weekend, I and many of my colleagues will go to Emmitsburg, Maryland, to attend the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial annual observance. There we will add the names of 101 firefighters from 38 States who were killed in the line of duty in the year 2000. In one 120-minute period, we lost three and a half times as many firefighters and emergency response personnel and police as we lost in all of 2000. That is the magnitude of what happened on September 11. Madam Speaker, there was a newspaper ad in today's paper, and it said, ``The True Badges of Courage.'' We have all heard about the Red Badge of Courage. We have all heard it said, ``that is a badge of courage.'' The true badges of courage are those worn by our police personnel, those worn by our fire personnel, and those worn by our emergency medical response teams. These men and women who died last year may not have died in a terrorist incident, but their sacrifice is equally great and equally tragic. This resolution honors them and those that will follow, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the measure. Now, Madam Speaker, let me add this. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), myself, and many others, as well as all of the people on the floor here supported the Fire Act, which we passed as a part of the defense authorization bill last year. And in that context, we appropriated $100 million, $100 million for over 32,000 fire companies in America. There have been, I think I am correct, $3.5 billion worth of requests for training, for equipment, and for HAZMAT training, equipment to deal with hazardous materials. Flying the flag at half-staff is an appropriate thing for us to do; but, my colleagues, as we vote on this resolution, I trust that we will also commit ourselves to, at a minimum, adding $50 million as we consider the VA-HUD appropriations bill. We need not only to add the 50 million additional dollars that were put in the Senate bill to get that fund to $150 million, but we are authorized at $300 million. The firefighters and emergency responders of America need better training and better equipment. We give billions of dollars to law enforcement throughout this country. It is right and proper that we do so. But we have seen a dramatic example of how critical the fire service and emergency medical response teams are in league with our law enforcement officials. My hope is that as we appropriate funds to ensure that America can respond to terrorism or to other calamities, that we will empower our firefighting personnel and emergency response teams to do so with as much safety to themselves and much effectiveness on behalf of the safety of others as we can possibly do. And so I rise in strong support of this resolution. And we ought to salute that flag when we see it at half-staff and remember those who have fallen as they responded to the call to save lives, protect property, and make America a safer place. But let us also remember that we need to invest more of our treasure in protecting our firefighters and emergency response teams and giving them better equipment and better training to do their jobs better so that America, our communities, our schools, and our homes will be safer places. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her leadership, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); and, clearly, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for honoring the Emmitsburg event, but we need to honor Emmitsburg's 1-day event for the other 364 days of the year as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to recommit. I am a strong supporter of the contracting community. I have a very vibrant contracting community in my district. They perform an invaluable service for the defense of this Nation, in my case, for the United States Navy. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) have stated it well. What we want is we want a competition which will produce the best product for the best price. What this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is adding simply says that in the competition we will not exclude Federal employees who were doing the job now. If they lose that competition, the job will be contracted out as it ought to be. On the other hand, if they win the competition, and the competition shows that the Federal employees can do it cheaper and better, then it ought to be done in-house because that is what the taxpayer would want. I think that is good for America. I frankly think it is good in the final analysis for contractors, and it clearly is fair to our Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time in support of the motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening a tornado ripped through several towns and I was in Maryland surveying the damage. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 351.