Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, centuries from now, when future generations look back, they will see that September 11, 2001, was a day like no other in our history. A bright, late summer morning on our Nation's East Coast was shattered by unspeakable acts of war against all Americans and all freedom-loving people. We fear that these cowardly attacks have claimed more than 5,000 innocent men, women and children, making this the deadliest day ever on American soil. At Pearl Harbor, 2,300 perished; at Antietam, 4,000 fell in a day; and during our entire 8-year struggle for independence, 4,500 patriots gave their lives for freedom. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese admiral who planned that treachery remarked, ``I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve.'' Mr. Speaker, our national resolve expressed in the resolution before us is equally determined, and those responsible for these depraved attacks have every reason to fear it. Under the authority granted by Article I of the Constitution, Congress has declared war only 11 times. We do not make a formal declaration of war today. However, in fulfillment of our constitutional duty and as contemplated under the War Powers Resolution, Congress does today authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided these horrific attacks. Importantly, Mr. Speaker, we also authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those who have harbored such organizations and persons. A generation ago, one of this Nation's greatest friends, whose mother was an American herself, rallied free people against the darkness and despair descending on the European continent. ``You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory.'' So said Winston Churchill. Victory is our aim today; not over nations or persons, but over terrorism. However long and hard the road may be, we must cut out and destroy this cancer which plagues civilized society. When future generations of Americans look back, let them see that we answered this challenge with courage and with unity. Let them see that we took decisive action that made the world safer for this generation and for generations to come, and let them see that September 11, 2001, a day like no other in our history, marked the turning point in the war on terrorism. In bracing us for war some 60 years ago, Roosevelt said, ``With confidence in our armed force, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding to me. I salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), Senate Majority Leader Daschle and Senate Republican Leader Lott, and my own ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). From the outside, democracies sometimes appear weak, to those who do not understand the strength of a free people in discourse and disagreement. Sometimes democracies appear unwilling to act decisively in response to a threat. But those who perceive weakness where there is incredible strength make an awful, terrible mistake. Today, within literally hours of a disastrous act being perpetrated against the United States, its people, and indeed, the very concept of freedom and liberty here and around the world, see how quickly democracies will act. We will pass this as a first step, as a first commitment to confront tyranny, terrorism, and despots. Mr. Speaker, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a major step in the United States' initial response to the horrific terrorist attacks on Tuesday. I know that my colleagues will strongly support it. Specifically, this bill is a rapid response to our Nation's urgent needs. It will make $40 billion available to Federal, State and local authorities to respond to these contemptible crimes. It will allow us to increase transit security, repair public facilities and transit systems, fight international terrorism and strengthen our national security. And it will provide emergency relief to victims and their families. However, make no mistake: This appropriations package is about more than money. It is a clear demonstration of our Nation's resolve and unity in funding rescue operations and a military response to Tuesday's treacherous acts of war. Those acts will not go unanswered. In the face of this challenge to our Nation and freedom-loving people throughout the world, the United States Congress speaks with one voice. Yes, we are Democrats and Republicans. But first we are Americans. Congress has an important role to play, along with the President, in responding to this act of war. For example, we have ensured that there will be approprirate oversight of the expenditure of these funds. As the elected representatives of the American people, we will work closely with the President on a daily basis in the coming weeks and months to ensure that the proper resources are provided and necessary actions taken. Finally, let me say to my colleagues that I had the opportunity on Wednesday to tour the devastation at the Pentagon. Like all of us here, my prayers and heartfelt sympathies go out to all those who died or were injured in Tuesday's attacks, and their loved ones. Many of my own constituents are among the victims at the Pentagon. But even as I toured the carnage, I could not help but be buoyed by the courage and determination of the fire fighters and rescue workers and military personnel I met there. Their spirit, and the spirit of democracy and freedom, can never be extinguished by the unmitigated evil that has been directed at innocent men, women, and children. Their spirit and their courage lights the way for us all, as we respond to these cowardly crimes. I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and obviously I will not nor do I intend to object, but I want to reserve the right to object so the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) can kindly explain the purpose of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I, of course, concur in the Chairman's characterization of the resolution. It is appropriate that we authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol, the center and heart of this Nation's Capitol, to remember those who have paid the final price for living in freedom and defending freedom. Our democracy, of course, will not crumble in the face of this disaster. Our democracy will endure this test and emerge stronger and more dedicated to freedom and justice throughout the world. We do this to honor and remember those of our fellow citizens, those who live among us who perished yesterday, and those whose lives have been forever changed by grievous acts of cowardice.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the unspeakable barbarism perpetrated on American soil yesterday was directed at freedom-loving people on every continent on Earth. It will never be forgotten. Another day of infamy and perfidy is etched indelibly on the pages of the history of the world. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to all those who perished or were injured by these mindless murderous acts; acts of war. Our hearts go out to their loved ones as well. Our thoughts, our prayers, and our heartfelt thanks go out to all of those who put their own lives in harm's way to help others: the law enforcement officers, the military personnel, the firefighters and paramedics, the doctors and nurses, and the countless civilians who came to the aid of their fellow citizens. They are the true American heroes, and their selfless courage fortifies this Nation. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow we fear that many of these brave souls too have become victims of this contemptible criminal conspiracy. Today, every American, every civilized human speaks with one voice in saying to those who planned, participated, aided and abetted, or gave sanctuary to the perpetrators of this unmitigated evil, we will not rest until you are rooted out, rooted out like a cancer, and destroyed. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his address to Congress the day following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and I quote, ``Always we will remember the character of the onslaught against us.'' And in remembering, it will fashion our response. The United States of America will never, never, never rest until you and all of those who provide you with shelter and safe harbor are held accountable for this horrific and heinous crime. Know, too, that no amount of fury, no amount of anger, no amount of revulsion at such senseless and cowardly acts on innocent men, women, children in the street, none of that will drive us to embrace your twisted law of the jungle. But we will see justice done. Our national character charged by the bravery and determination of generations who preceded us demands more. Our resolute commitment to democratic values and the rule of law and reason demands more. The depraved brutality of September 11, 2001, much like that of December 7, 1941, has left each of us shaken and sorrowful. But now, as then, the American will and the American resolve are unshaken and undeterred. Freedom, all of us know, has never meant freedom from risk, nor will it ever be. In fact, such risk is a component of that very freedom we cherish. But we must and we will confront those who criminally and viciously put freedom itself at risk. Mr. Speaker, the memory of all of those whose lives were lost, who were surely on the front lines of freedom, must lead us to renew our pledge of allegiance to our one Nation, under God, indivisible, and with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on May 21 of this year human rights advocates in Russia and all over the world marked the 80th'' anniversary of the birth of celebrated scientist and human rights advocate, Dr. Andrei Sakharov. As a Soviet scientist and citizen of the world, Andrei Sakharov combined a brilliant intellect with a deep concern for humanity. He was the youngest member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. After World War II, Sakharov worked as a theoretical physicist and received the Soviet Union's highest award three times for his scientific accomplishments in the field of thermonuclear weapons development. By the late 1960s, however, his protests against nuclear testing and calls for greater intellectual freedom had made him a pariah to the Kremlin. The publication of his seminal essay, ``Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom,'' brought him international attention and respect. In 1970, Sakharov and fellow activists Valery Chalidze and Andrei Tverdokhlebov founded the Moscow Human Rights Committee to help Soviet citizens secure the rights theoretically granted to them under the Soviet Constitution. As journalist David Remnick wrote recently, ``his modest apartment on Chkalova Street in Moscow seemed the moral center of an immoral empire.'' In 1975, as a result of his human rights advocacy and his work toward genuine detente between the West and the Soviet bloc, Dr. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In the words of the Chairman of the Nobel Committee: Sakharov's fearless personal commitment in upholding the fundamental principles for peace between men is a powerful inspiration for all true workers for peace. Uncompromisingly and with unflagging strength Sakharov has fought against the abuse of power and all forms of violation of human dignity, and he has fought True to form, Moscow would not allow Dr. Sakharov to travel to Oslo to receive the honor. Dr. Elena Bonner, his energetic wife and partner in the human rights struggle, accepted the prize in his stead and delivered his Nobel lecture, ``Peace, Progress, and Human Rights.'' Ironically, on the same day that Dr. Sakharov was receiving by proxy the Noble Peace Prize, December 10, 1975, the recipient himself was in Vilnius, Lithuania attending the political trial of Sergei Kovalev, a fellow scientist and colleague in the struggle for human rights. By 1980, the Kremlin and KGB had decided that this soft-spoken scientist who kept talking about human rights violations and political prisoners, as well as criticizing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, could no longer be allowed to speak his mind freely and to meet with foreign journalists. He was picked up on the streets of Moscow and, without a shred of judicial process, sent into ``internal exile'' in the city of Gorky about 300 kilometers east of Moscow. Even at this distance he could not be silenced, although the KGB did its best to harass him. Through Dr. Bonner, Dr. Sakharov continued to appeal for justice for the victims of human rights violations and to call on the international scientific community to work together for peace and disarmament. By the late 1980's, however, Soviet authorities understood that the Soviet system could not compete with the rest of the world by repressing its best minds and criminalizing dissent. In December 1986, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called Dr. Sakharov and invited him to return to Moscow ``to resume his patriotic work.'' What Gorbachev had in mind is unclear. Nevertheless, in April 1989, in the first genuinely contested national elections since Lenin dissolved the Constituent Assembly in 1918, Sakharov was elected to the Congress of People's Deputies where he resumed his ``patriotic work'' advancing the ideas of liberty and human rights for the Soviet people. Mr. Speaker, at one point during a session of the Congress of People's Deputies, General Secretary Gorbachev turned off Dr. Sakharov's microphone in an effort to silence his arguments against the privileged position of the Communist Party under the Soviet Constitution. At that time, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I compared Dr. Sakharov's actions with those of former President John Quincy Adams who, as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, absolutely refused to be silenced on the subject of slavery despite the existence of the so-called ``gag rule.'' Tragically, Dr. Sakharov succumbed to a heart attack on December 14th, 1989, eight months after his election to the Congress of People's Deputies. Some 50,000 people, along with foreign dignitaries and fellow members of the Congress of People's Deputies, gathered at the Palace of Youth to say farewell to their hero and colleague. And, yes, the KGB was also in attendance. Chairman Kryuchkov filed a report to the Party leadership that can now be found on the Internet. Mr. Speaker, through the kindness of Dr. Elena Bonner, today Dr. Sakharov's papers are available to researchers and the public at the Sakharov Archive at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. This archive is an invaluable contribution to world literature on human rights and international peace, and I hope that it will find generous support from the American people. May Dr. Sakharov's example inspire us in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this bill. What is this bill? It is the bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) got on the floor and said he supports. It is a bill that, in 1999, 275 of us voted for in a bipartisan fashion, and in a bipartisan fashion for 24 months we have labored to pass that bill. We did pass it, and it was bottled up in conference committee because the Republican leadership did not want it to become law. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) wants a bill that can be signed. I agree. But the way to get a bill that can be signed is to show where the bill ought to be, and those 275 of us for the underlying bill should vote for that bill today and send it to conference, have the conference work on it, and let the President come to the conference; not, with all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Charlie Norwood), one Member, but to the conference, to the Senate and House, after they have worked their will and passed a real Patients' Bill of Rights. Let us adopt the base bill and reject the three amendments. Mr. Chairman, the American people need and deserve a real Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation ensures that doctors make medical decisions, not insurance company bureaucrats. It gives every American the right to choose his or her own doctor. It ensures broad access to specialists. It prohibits incentives to limit care. And, yes, it allows patients to hold managed care companies accountable when they make decisions that injure or kill. Responsibility! What's more American than that? Yet, the Republican leadership has fought legal liability tooth and nail. They said strong liability provisions would cause insurance premiums to skyrocket. But that didn't happen in Texas, where then-Governor Bush let a Patients' Bill of Rights become the law in 1997 without his signature. They claimed that managed care liability would cause people to lose their insurance. But that didn't happen in Texas. And they said strong liability provisions would open the floodgates of litigation. But that didn't happen. Only 17 lawsuits have been filed under the Texas law in 4 years. Today, they're trying to gut meaningful reform with these amendments. Arbitrary damage caps are a perfect example. I'm always amazed that some of the same people who think a jury is perfectly competent to decide whether a man or woman lives or dies is somehow incompetent to decide whether a person has been injured by negligence and the extent of the injured party's damage. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan bill and to vote against these amendments. Let's level the playing field between patients and their doctors and managed care companies.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress can and should outlaw the practice of human cloning. No pressing need exists to allow such cloning, and I believe it is appropriate for Congress to make the practice illegal. However, I cannot support the overbroad approach taken by H.R. 2505. This legislation goes beyond banning reproductive cloning to ban research in somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is that the bill would cut off scientific developments that are granting new hope to millions of Americans who have been told there is no cure. Without the use of nuclear transfer, these stem cell developments will likely remain in the laboratory and will not be used to help patients. If H.R. 2505 were to pass into law in its present form it would be difficult, if not impossible, for our nation to benefit from stem cell research that is currently ongoing or that would take place in the future. This is because the only practical means of developing breakthroughs in stem cell research into treatments is through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The bill prohibits the importation of safe and effective medical treatments, and it would use criminal law to interfere with the scientific progress. Almost every Member of Congress, including myself, agrees that human cloning is unsafe and unethical and should be prohibited. However, I believe the manner in which H.R. 2505 is written would extend the bill's prohibitions far beyond the goal of banning human cloning and would prevent our citizens from benefitting from ongoing or prospective scientific discoveries.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We are trying to take care of Members, their accounts, and the Capitol itself. We have included a provision for certain termporary workers of the Architect of the Capitol to ensure that they can receive the same employee benefits that other employees receive. I thank the majority clerk of the subcommittee, Elizabeth Dawson, who has done an outstanding job together with her colleagues on the staff, including Mark Murray for the minority, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). This is not a controversial bill, as a result of a bipartisan effort to fund at adequate levels for the legislative branch of government so we might do our job on behalf of the people of this country. Mr. Chairman, our friends from North Carolina and Virginia have written an excellent bill that meets the test any general appropriations bill should meet. It will provide the resources that agencies need to do their jobs next year. I have already voted for it twice in the committee, and I urge all members to support it here. This bill 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 work of the Congress. It fully funds the American Folklife Center in the Library, including the Veterans' Oral History Project authorized last year at the suggestion of our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind]. It funds the excellent new sound-recording preservation program also authorized last year. It provides needed funds to improve services to the public 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 next year, and restores pay parity with Park Police and Secret Service Uniformed Officers. It extends GPO's early-out/buy-out authority for 3 more years. It funds the 4.6% COLA that all Federal employees, both military and civilians, should receive next January. It funds the same $65 transit benefit available in the Executive Branch for every legislative-branch agency. I especially want to compliment our friend from Virginia for making this a priority. I will work in House administration to authorize the increased benefit promptly for House employees. And the bill otherwise provides ample funds for the operation of Member offices, committees, and the officers of the House. The bill reserves for conference a final decision on the Congressional Budget Office's request for student-loan repayment authority, in order to give House administration time to develop a policy applicable to the entire legislative branch, as just wisely proposed by our friend from California (Ms. Lee). Mr. Chairman, I could go on for a considerable time lauding this bill, but I won't. It has been a pleasure working with Chairman Taylor and Mr. Moran this year. I thank them both for their leadership and tireless efforts. It has also been a pleasure to work with the capable new subcommittee clerk, Liz Dawson. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this excellent bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition. I do not know that there is going to be opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think everybody here that has spoken says this is something we ought to do. Hopefully between now and when we adjourn, we will be able to get this accomplished, not just for the fire service of America but for the people of our Nation and safer communities.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), one of the co-chairs of the Fire Service Caucus who does an outstanding job on behalf of the fire fighters of America. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been such a hard fighter on behalf of this program for the firefighters and first responders of our Nation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the Weldon amendment. The Weldon amendment is carrying out what I think is a very worthwhile and important objective. It would increase the $100 million provided in the bill for the fire grant program by $50 million. Before I speak on the substance, I want to thank the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, I understand the constraints they are under. I also understand their support of this program. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), as well as so many others who have been supportive, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for rising to speak on behalf of this amendment. All of them have been tireless in their support of this program. The response, Mr. Chairman, from the fire services to the Fire Act, which authorized $300 million and to which we appropriated $100 million last year, has been nothing short of astonishing and has exceeded everyone's expectations. In this first year of the program, the U.S. fire administration received over 30,000 requests from local departments, totaling more than $3 billion. To put this in perspective, there are 32,000 departments in this country. Our first responders respond to fire, flood, hurricane, and other crises. In the first year, the departments were limited to applying for only 6 of the authorized 14 categories. That gives us, I think, Mr. Chairman, a sense of the need that is out there that fire departments throughout this country have. The $100 million in this bill is insufficient. The chairman and the ranking member know that. Hopefully, in conference, we will be able to get that figure up to the figure that the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks and, indeed, if there are additional funds, they would be warranted as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to take a short time, and this amendment is going to be I think withdrawn. It is going to be withdrawn because we understand that we ought not to take $50 million out of the salary and expense money of HUD. HUD needs that money. Mr. Chairman, I rise really to say that this committee's 302(b) allocation is insufficient to meet the unbelievable demands that it confronts. I think the chairman and ranking member are going to say that in just a minute. But I empathize with that because this is a critical need. We have talked about the need being manifested in the grant applications that have been submitted: Over $3 billion with $100 million available. Those grant applications are not for some objective which somebody would make fun of. We talk about fires, and that is what we think about our fire service and emergency response teams as doing; but we have also talked about natural disasters. There are also unnatural disasters; for instance, automobile accidents. The first people usually on the scene are the fire service and/or the EMS, emergency medical service. They are there. They need equipment and training. That means more lives saved. Just as it has been said that we spend a lot of money on people that we send overseas to defend our security, that is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I and others on this floor refer to our fire service and EMS personnel as our domestic defenders; because, indeed, they are the persons, along with our police department, that we ask to defend us here at home to make sure that we not only have law and order, but that we have security at time of crisis, whether it is natural disaster or fire or accident or some other calamity. Mr. Chairman, the fire service was one of the first on the scene when Timothy McVeigh set that awful explosion that killed 168 people. They were there in that building climbing those stairs bringing children out, bringing women and visitors from that building. They take risks every day, and we lose on an average one every 3 days in America. It is important, and I think America believes it to be a priority, that we give to them the training, the equipment, so that they cannot only respond effectively to save our lives, but they can do so in the safest possible manner that we can give to them. In conclusion, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I know that they care deeply about this program and I know the constraints on them. The good news is when we go to conference I hope we can get to this number.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, former Maryland State Senator and St. Mary's County, Maryland State's Attorney Walter B. Dorsey is being honored Saturday, July 28, 2001, at the Anniversary Crabfeast of the newspaper ST. MARYS TODAY for a Lifetime of Public Service. Senator Dorsey is a third generation member of the Maryland General Assembly, having been preceded in service by his father, the late Circuit Court Judge Phillip H. Dorsey, who was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1930 and 1934 and by his grandfather, Walter B. Dorsey, who was elected to the House of Delegates in 1911. Senator Dorsey was elected to the Maryland Senate in 1958 representing St. Mary's County, as was his father who was elected to the same seat in 1926. The late Judge Dorsey also served as a delegate to the Maryland Constitutional Convention in 1967. Senator Dorsey was first elected St. Mary's County State's Attorney in 1954 after serving in the U. S. Army in Korea in the Judge Advocate General Corps. and won election again in 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1994 when he retired from office. Senator Dorsey also served as Deputy Maryland Public Defender during the administration of Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel. He has also maintained a law practice between his service as Public Defender and State's Attorney and at this time is of counsel to his the firm headed by his son Phillip H. Dorsey II as well as being engaged in the operation of Checker's Restaurants in Virginia and Maryland as a franchise owner. Senator Dorsey also owned and published the newspaper St. Mary's Journal in Leonardtown, Maryland from 1958 to 1961 as well as a doing a brief stint in the bakery business and developing the attractive waterfront new home community on Breton Bay known as Mulberry Point. Senator Dorsey is married to his lovely wife of 28 years, Brenda B. Dorsey. Senator Dorsey has three sons and one daughter, Phillip, John Michael, Paul and Helen from his first marriage to the former Jeanne Duke Dorsey Mandel and two daughters he has raised with his wife Brenda, Sheryl and Suzanne.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. John Rouse. He is celebrating his 30th anniversary as the editor of the Bowie Blade News, a hometown newspaper located in Bowie, Maryland, in the heart of my district. The first amendment states, and I quote, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' This first tenet of freedom in the Bill of Rights is vigorously exercised by the thousands of hometown newspapers that act as watchdogs for the American public against intrusion on its rights and property by the government and by others. Newspapers across the country oversee elected officials' conduct and performance, reporting the facts and offering praise or criticism on their editorial pages. It is the prism by which many Americans gain their insight on just what is happening in the world, in America, and even right next door. We lament the fact that sometimes they are wrong, as human beings are wont to do, but most times they are right. In any event, they are absolutely essential to the continuation, to the growth and the vitality of democracy. John Rouse, Mr. Speaker, has made an extraordinary contribution to his community by fulfilling this watchdog role in Bowie, Maryland, for 30 years. After serving in Vietnam as an Air Force officer, John joined the Bowie News as editor and became the editor and general manager of the new Bowie Blade News in 1978 when the two papers merged. John reports issues fully and fairly and often shows his keen sense of humor. He is an adept writer, a skilled editor, and very much in tune to the needs, the hopes, and the vision of the people of Bowie. John's skills earned the Bowie Blade the 1999 Best in Show award by the Maryland, Delaware and D.C. Press Association, and his walls are covered by numerous other awards he and the paper have won over the years. The paper itself has received dozens of accolades under his stewardship. Bowie, Mr. Speaker, is a vibrant community that has grown rapidly and changed greatly over the past 30 years. The city is in many ways a microcosm of the changes that have buffeted this country over the past few decades, from increased suburbanization to greater diversity. It certainly is no easy task to keep one's hand on the pulse of such a community, but that is exactly what John Rouse has been able to do for 30-plus years. He has kept himself constantly connected with the issues that are important to the city of Bowie and to its people. John has snapped and growled at me more than once. I know that my colleagues can empathize with that in dealing with some of their local editors. But he has been an editor that I have been always in respect of. I always appreciate that his goal is to advocate for the best interest of his city, of his county, his State, and his country. He and I have grown to be friends and to hold each other in mutual respect and esteem. Our democracy, Mr. Speaker, cannot continue to thrive without the likes of John Rouse, without whom the electorate would have a much harder time discerning fact from fiction when it comes to their local politicians, their community leaders, and the policies that are proposed. So today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you, thank you to John Rouse, an editor of a small paper. Unlike Katherine Graham, not known worldwide, but equally important in the strength of our democracy, equally important to the informed citizenry of his community. I want to wish him the best of luck as he continues as the editor of this great little paper.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to clarify some of the remarks that were made by the chairman. We believe that the difference is approximately 15 percent in the last 4 months. If you compare the first 6 months, it is an interesting comparison, because the Vice President, of course, was not in residence at the Vice President's residence. They were refurbishing the residence for the Vice President. If you are just comparing the last 4 months, including a hot day yesterday and a cool month of June, there was a 15 percent difference over those 4 months between the two energy costs, which is clearly explained by the difference in weather. But that attempts to respond to an alleged attack on the Vice President by attacking his predecessor. Now, I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but it would seem to be fair to the former Vice President not to go after these energy costs, as the majority wants the present Vice President to be free of these attacks. The gentleman from Washington State pointed out, absolutely correctly, this is not about the Vice President. This is about the cost of energy. This is about a sensitivity that the administration ought to have, that the Congress ought to have, to the cost of heating one's home, of air conditioning one's home. Now, let me correct, if I might, the chairman. The Secret Service is separately metered. The Secret Service has its own meter. Why? Because they use a lot of electric utilities. They use a lot of security lights, and they are metered themselves. So this is not an opportunity nor an effort to embarrass the Vice President. But I will tell my friend, the chairman of this committee, with whom I have been working positively, who did not serve on all the years from 1995 to 2001 when there were repeated attempts to embarrass the President and the Vice President on the expenditures in the White House account, repeated attempts, unlike, I will tell the chairman, as he knows I feel strongly about, unlike 1981 through 1989, when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, and unlike 1989 to 1993, when George Bush the First was President of the United States. It did not start to occur, for Members of Congress to go after individually either the Vice President or the President on administration of the House in which they live, until 1995, and it became very popular in 1996, 1997 and 1998 to rag on the President and the Vice President. That is not what this is about. We have a crisis in America, and that crisis is energy costs. Some people in California and other areas of this country are put to the test of whether they are going to pay for an electrical bill or pay for their prescription drugs or pay for food.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I make a unanimous consent request that the order of the amendments be the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), then the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).