Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a fallen member of the congressional community whose sudden passing reminds us how precious and fragile life is. On Monday, May 14, 2001, Officer Adam T. Popielarcheck, a 17-year veteran of the Library of Congress Police, lost his life in a traffic accident near his home in Mechanicsville, Maryland. Officer Popielarcheck's death saddens not only his own family, but also his fellow Library Police officers and numerous other employees of the Library, where he had embarked upon a second career after retiring as a lieutenant from the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department in 1983. Millions of people visit the Capitol complex each year, and hundreds of thousands of them visit America's national treasure, the Library of Congress, whose buildings also grace Capitol Hill directly across the street. Although most Library visitors, and perhaps some employees, may never have known Adam Popielarcheck's name, they and indeed we all, owe him a debt of gratitude. It was Mr. Popielarcheck's job to help assure the safety and security of Library visitors, staff and collections, and he did it superbly every day. His colleagues have amply demonstrated since his death that they held Adam Popielarcheck in the highest esteem, both personally and professionally, and that he is sorely missed. Officer Popielarcheck is also sorely missed by his widow, Maryellen, and by his sons, Thomas and Adam W.; his daughters, Tina and Tammy; his mother, Angelene; five brothers; two sisters; and by the many nieces, nephews, other relatives, and countless friends he leaves behind across the Washington, D.C., area, in Southern Maryland, in Pennsylvania, where he was born 60 years ago, and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, in this time of sorrow for the Popielarcheck family and the entire congressional community, let us pause and reflect on the life of a valued and wonderful man, Adam T. Popielarcheck, who toiled among us here, gave us his best and left us far too soon.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, On Monday, Americans throughout our great Nation will pause to honor those men and women who nobly sacrificed their lives to protect the safety and liberty of their fellow citizens. Originally designated as ``Decoration Day'' to honor Veterans of the Civil War, and first observed on May 30, 1868, or modern Memorial Day now recognizes those one-million, three hundred and twelve-thousand, eight-hundred and ten heroes who died in defense of our Country in one or more of her conflicts: the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. To the extent that we now enjoy the many rights inherent in a democracy, as well as those freedoms and benefits that we as a self- governing people bestow upon ourselves and our posterity, we owe great thanks to those defenders of democracy who died in war, so that we might live in peace. We should also take time on this Memorial Day to honor all those Americans who have ever served in our Armed Forces, and to those great Americans who continue to volunteer to defend our Nation to this day. Without their continued commitment, courage and contributions, we would not enjoy the opportunity to be here, in this great land, reveling in the freedom that their noble deeds have allowed us to celebrate. We should also take time today to reaffirm our commitment to our soldiers and our veterans: all men and women who voluntarily serve their Nation in the Armed Forces have earned the greatest respect, courtesy, and care that we can provide, and we as a Congress should never hesitate to deliver those benefits to our Veterans. As we welcome this new Memorial Day in America, in peace and democracy, we solemnly acknowledge that the sacrifices of our Veterans have not been in vain, and will never be forgotten.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1981. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) was not. He was then an economist, perhaps not so successfully because he came to Congress. Ronald Reagan asked the Congress of the United States to spend every nickel of Social Security surplus in his budgets. George Bush first asked the Congress of the United States to spend every nickel of Social Security and Medicare surplus. The Congress of the United States from 1981 to 1993 spent less money than Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked us to spend. Those are the facts, my friends. Those are the facts. Very frankly, my colleagues knew the facts in 1981. I mentioned them a little earlier today. Let me recite them again so that my colleagues understand the premise that was underlying 1981. He was not a liberal. He was not a Democrat. His name was Stockman. He knew what you were doing in 1981, notwithstanding the same kind of rhetoric that we heard on this floor today. He said that we knew that the budget we were passing would result in triple digit debts, deficits. We knew that we would escalate the debt. We knew that interest rates would remain high and at historically high levels in 1980. You light a time bomb today that will blow up for generations yet to come. It is your duty, your responsibility to defeat this bill. Do so.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I knew we were on the precipice of triple- digit deficits, a national debt in the trillions, and destructive and profound dislocations throughout the American economy. David Stockman, David Stockman, admitted the knowledge that he had as he presented the 1981 economic program to the Congress. As it was proposed and submitted to the Congress, it was the same rhetoric that we have heard about giving Americans back their money. That is good rhetoric. It is politically attractive rhetoric. But we are fiduciaries of that money. They collectively give us that money to apply to the needs of their country and of themselves and of their families. In the 1980s, the debt that we created was also theirs. As a result of the creation of that debt, they today pay billions, billions of their dollars in interest, and receive essentially nothing in return except what a previous generation bought with that money. This is a sad day, as was 1981, because, like David Stockman knew, it will be the result of profound dislocations in America in the days ahead. Defeat this rule. Defeat this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, we ushered in a decade of profligate spending and exploding deficits. In 1990, we passed a budget bill that was tough and it helped bring down those deficits and bring us a surplus. In 1993, we took another action which was tough and helped bring down those deficits and create the surpluses. In 1997, in a bipartisan way, we passed a bill that was tough and helped bring down deficits and create surpluses. We now wait on a conference report that will again, as we did 20 years ago, usher in a decade of exploding expenditures and exploding deficits. That is irresponsible. We passed a personal bankruptcy bill that said we expected each citizen of America to be personally responsible. Mr. Speaker, it is equally important that we be collectively responsible and reject this bad policy for America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her willingness to yield to me, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), as I said, for being willing to yield me time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his outstanding leadership on the committee, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has worked so hard to bring a good bill to the floor. The education of our children should be our top priority, which is why we are especially pleased that this bill is truly the result of a bipartisan effort. During the debate, we have discussed at great length the need for standards and improved achievement. However, many of our schools do not have access to research-based reading programs developed by NICHD. This bill includes report language that discusses research- based reading programs. But I do not feel we are doing enough to make sure that our teachers have access to this innovative research. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to have a colloquy with the distinguished gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), my colleague on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, who shares my concern and interest in this area.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are at least five schools with host programs in my district as well, all of which are demonstrating improved results. We look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the President on implementing the recommendations of the National Reading Panel and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) as well.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I hope people can follow how this happened.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late John Patrick Collins, best known simply as Pat. A prolific businessman with an insatiable appetite for public service and an insurmountable sense of humility, Pat Collins was an individual who touched the lives of many and made a true difference in his community. Pat entered the automotive sales industry in the early sixties, and became the general manager of a dealership before the age of 30. His ambitions knew no horizons. He eventually bought, helped turn around, and prospered from a failing dealership in northern Virginia. With those profits, he was often found working behind the scenes, donating resources to several organizations, often anonymously, to causes which he felt were important. Pat's early life was impacted by living in a large, close-knit family of nine children where everyone looked out for one another, especially his brother Brian who was born with Down Syndrome. From this life experience, Pat became an outspoken advocate of the mentally impaired and fought to assure their equal rights. When it was discovered that a local facility was neglecting patient care, Pat devoted his time and energy to help bring about changes to remedy conditions for current and future patients. He was constantly speaking out for those who could not speak out for themselves. Those who knew Pat best will always remember him as an incredibly bright man whose intellect was surpassed only by his generosity. Pat's departure leaves a significant void in the community where he was well known for his uncanny ability to cut directly to the heart of a matter and craft a commonsense solution. Pat Collins played an important role in the lives of many individuals who relied greatly on his counsel, advice, and mentoring to assist in running businesses, operating community projects, or putting together deals and programs to improve a community. As a philanthropist, Pat generously gave to several organizations, including Gonzaga College High School, St. Mary's Ryken High School, Calvert Hospice, and the Calvert County Chapter of the American Cancer Society. Pat Collins is survived by his wife Ann; three children, John R., Daniel E. Collins, and Mary Mulford, all of St. Leonard; two sisters, Margaret Mary O'Brien of Rockville and Sheila Cotter of Annapolis; three brothers, Paul of Ocean City, Edward of Silver Spring, and Terence of Arnold; and three granddaughters. Mr. Speaker, I was always impressed by Pat's energy and ability to get things done during his lifetime. He will be missed by many. Fortunately for us, his contributions of his time, energy, and money will benefit the entire southern Maryland community for decades to come. Pat Collins was a giant who was successful in life, but who never forgot his roots and always gave back to his community. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this great American who leaves behind a loving family and many admirers who will miss him greatly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the last 9 years, I have sponsored a resolution for the Greater Washington, Soap Box Derby to hold its race along Constitution Avenue. This year, I am once again proud to have introduced H. Con. Res. 79 to permit the 64th running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which is to take place on the Capitol Grounds on June 23, 2001. This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, The Capitol Police Board, and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby in complete compliance with rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol Grounds. In the past, the full House has supported this resolution once reported favorably by the full Transportation Committee. I ask my colleagues to join with me, and the other cosponsors including Representatives Albert Wynn, Connie Morella, Jim Moran, Frank Wolf, and Eleanor Holmes-Norton in supporting this resolution. From 1992 to 2000, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby welcomed over 52 contestants which made the Washington, DC, race one of the largest in the country. Participants range from ages 9 to 16 and hail from communities in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. The Winners of this local even will represent the Washington Metropolitan Area in the national race, which will be held in Akron, OH, on July 28, 2001. The young people involved spend months preparing for this race, and the day that they complete it makes it all the more worthwhile. The soap box derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain valuable skills such as engineering and aerodynamics. Furthermore, the derby promotes team work, a strong sense of accomplishment, sportsmanship, leadership, and responsibility. These are positive attributes that we should encourage children to carry into adulthood. I want to thank the Transportation full committee and subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for their support and I urge all of the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I want to also thank her for the extraordinary efforts that she is making to ensure that not only will in America every citizen have the right to vote and be welcomed and encouraged in exercising that right, but will also have his vote counted correctly. When the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), was discussing who should chair a committee that would look at election reforms, the problems that were brought to light in the last election, we had some discussions. He suggested the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the reason he did so is because he knew and I knew and her colleagues knew that the gentlewoman is one of the strongest, most courageous voices that we have on this floor, a voice much like the voice of the gentleman from Texas's father who, in his time, was a giant in speaking out for those who were disenfranchised by operation of law. No less should we speak out for those who might be disenfranchised by either negligence or the misoperation of technology. So I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, for her hard work on this effort; and I am confident that we are going to pass legislation in this Congress. This is the civil rights issue of the 107th Congress. There is no more basic right in democracy than the right to vote. When we do pass legislation, it will be largely attributable to her hard work and efforts in making sure that everybody in the Nation is focused on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on one element that is key to reform: better voting technologies, the nuts and bolts of the election infrastructure. Now, as I begin this, I want to make it again clear that the technology issue comes in only after we have ensured and facilitated a voter getting to the technology. If the voter never gets to the technology, it is irrelevant. So the most important thing we need to make sure of is that every voter is able to register; that they have their registration accurately recorded; that it is transmitted accurately to a polling place; that the election officials receive the voter and accurately check to make sure that voter is registered; and that there is, if there is a failure to communicate from the recipient of the registration and the polling place, a way in which a provisional ballot can be cast, so that that voter is not turned away, is not told no, your democracy is not open to you today, not because of your failure, but because we failed to transmit information properly. So what we are going to do is allow you to vote and then we will take a day or two to make sure that you, as you have said, were registered to vote and a legal voter. None of us on this floor wants to facilitate voting by people who are not eligible to vote. But equally, I hope, there is nobody on this floor who wants to prevent an eligible voter from casting a vote. We found in Florida that people who got to the polls voted, thought they had voted correctly, left, and found that, lo and behold, their votes were not counted. We further found that this was not a Florida problem. It was Florida that we focused on, it was Florida that we learned from, but we quickly were informed by others around the country that it was not a Florida problem. It was a problem in jurisdictions north, east, south and west, in Maryland, in California, in Texas, and New Jersey, the four jurisdictions represented on the floor right now. So we focused on the fact that we need to make sure that that voter, when they exercise their franchise, has it counted and has it counted accurately. Better voting technology is the nuts and bolts of election infrastructure. When I say nuts and bolts, I mean that quite literally. Over the past 2 days, the Committee on House Administration, of which I am the ranking Democratic member, has learned from the manufacturers that actually build the sophisticated, durable equipment that Americans use to exercise their right of franchise, equipment used not only by Americans, by the way, but voters all over the world, many of whom have struggled to attain the right to vote and will retain it only if their nations' democracies are conducted honestly. While we have a long history and are not at risk, we are at risk of retaining the confidence of our people that their votes will be accurately counted when their voices are raised to participate in democracy. For that reason, it is not an exaggeration, I think, to say that the voting machine manufacturers build the tools that make democracies all over the world live up to their names. They produce what I will call the ``voting veins of democracy.'' And how well those veins carry votes forward to an accurate count can be the difference between a democracy whose heart pumps strongly and faithfully and a system that does not enjoy the confidence of its citizens. Over the past 2 days, 13 vendors have displayed the newest technology available in the voting machine industry in the Committee on House Administration room. Members of Congress, their staffs, the media, and the general public have had the opportunity to test the machines and to ask questions. I saw the full range of what the voting technology industry is developing, including Optiscan equipment and Direct Read Equipment, so-called DRE, computer touch-screen equipment. I also learned and other Members and staff learned about sophisticated software and hardware to ensure that voting is accessible to all Americans, and ``all'' needs to be underlined, that votes are counted accurately and completely, and that voters have a chance to correct mismarked ballots before they are cast. That is so critically important, Madam Speaker, as the gentlewoman well knows. What we have found is a system that counts at the precinct level is much more accurate than a system that counts at a central location after the voter has left, where there is no opportunity to tell the voter, you forgot to vote, you overvoted, you made a mistake, do you want to try to correct your ballot. People make mistakes, but we should not subject them to the vagaries of the possibility of making a mistake when we have technology that can say to them, either you did not vote for President, do you want to; you do not have to, we are not forcing you to, but do you want to? Did you forget this? Or, hey, you voted for two people for President and that will not be counted. Do you want to correct it? Give them that opportunity so they can ensure the fact that they have exercised their franchise correctly. We also learned about sophisticated software and hardware devices to ensure that voting is accessible to those with disabilities, to those who are even quadriplegic and cannot use hands or feet, to those who are blind, to those who have other impairments. We can fully make accessible the voting system to them and provide for the secrecy of their ballot as well. That technology is available. We need to pursue it. What I did not see on display, I am happy to say, is the latest in punch card technology. Why? Because almost everybody has concluded that punch cards have seen their day and ought to be on their way. The fact of the matter is, Florida, with only two dissenting votes, has mandated the abolition of the use of punch cards in their State. Only two dissenting votes, unanimous in the Senate and two in the House. They came up with money, and the President's brother, Governor Jeb Bush, signed the bill and they are proceeding to do that. I am hopeful that President Bush will follow the lead of his brother, Governor Bush, and help us take that same path. Any industry operating at the cutting edge can teach us a lot about the future of technology. What I have learned from the voting technology industry in the past 2 days is that there is no future for that punch card. Inventors may yet devise a better mousetrap. What they will not devise, however, is a better punch card. The punch card will soon be obsolete. I look forward to the day when it will be on display downtown in the Smithsonian and not in the voting precinct. We may talk about those days between November 8 and December 12 when we were mesmerized by the 537 votes, or the 219 votes, or the five votes that would make a difference in counting these punch cards, and whether or not they would make a difference in Florida's electoral votes. We are beyond that, and it is not the purpose of anybody on this floor to look back. It is, however, to learn from that history and not see it repeated. I have also learned that taking advantage of the latest, most reliable and accessible technology represented in that room, in the Committee on House Administration room, that voting technology will not be cheap. Now, relatively speaking, in my opinion, it will not be extraordinarily expensive either, and it is worth the price. But the average DRE machine runs about $4,500. That is a touch-screen machine or some other computer technology. The average Optiscan technology where one fills out the ballot as if one is taking a test, and take a number 2 pencil or something else and connect the dots, or connect the line, and then put it into the counting machine and have it scanned optically, from which it gets its name. If you have not voted correctly, if you have overvoted, it simply kicks it out, and says, you have made a mistake, you get it back and you can correct it. But that costs about $5,000 to $6,000. While communities should be expected to help pay for much of the cost of these machines, we in Congress have an obligation to foot the bill. For over 200 years, States and localities have been conducting elections, and during those 200-plus years, they have had Federal officials running on their ballots, and they have paid the full price. We, in effect, have gotten a free lunch. It is appropriate that we at the Federal level, as State and local governments do, participate in partnership in ensuring the accurate, accessible elections of our officials. After all, we in Congress are elected on the machines that are now in use, including the punch card devices that were used in 72,000 of the 200,000 voting precincts last year. We in Congress will be elected on the new machines that start entering service in the months ahead, I hope by 2002. It is therefore, Madam Speaker, appropriate that we help with guidelines and encouragement to local subdivisions to run these elections as best they possibly can, in this, probably the most technologically proficient Nation on the face of the Earth. Surely, surely, we can, we must. It is our sacred obligation to ensure that this Nation, a beacon of democracy for all the world, is as good a democracy as the world thinks it is and as we know it to be. I might say, I also look forward to joining the gentlewoman on Saturday when we go to Chicago where we will hear from voters and those who administer elections as to how best we can make the system work. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. HOYER. I think the gentlewoman is absolutely right. The polls reflect that. The polls reflect overwhelmingly that Americans expect us to fix the problem of which they were made aware last November and December. They were shocked to learn that many absentee ballots and overseas ballots were never counted in the course of running the elections. It was just expected by election officials if they were not going to make a difference, they would not be counted. I was chagrined. I may not have been shocked, but I was certainly chagrined to hear that. I am a white male, who from the very start of this nation everybody presumed would vote. Margaret Brent was the first woman lawyer. She came from Maryland. She was on the Governor's Council. Governor Calvert died, and she asked for a vote. She was denied that vote. It is incredible to me that we have had to amend the Constitution on a number of occasions in this connection. Thomas Jefferson intoned words that all of us recite, that all men, presumably but not necessarily meaning women as well, were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Clearly it was the concept of so many of us that that meant all of us, but clearly, it did not mean all of us. It was not until a great civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment that we ensured that, at least legally, African Americans could not be discriminated against. But we know as a result of poll taxes and literacy tests and the imposition of devices to intimidate people from registering and coming to vote that that was honored more in the breach than it was in the adherence. We know that immigrants, nonwhite Caucasian Americans, had difficulty, for which the father of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) was a giant in saying, that is not right. We did not add women, and an African American woman, or African Americans, men at least, could vote before women could vote. It was incredible that in the enlightened democracy of America in 1914 and 1918 women could not vote. We had to pass a constitutional amendment which said that we are not going to discriminate on the basis of gender. It was not until 1965, as the gentlewoman knows, when we passed the Voting Rights Act that we said, we cannot have poll taxes, we cannot have literacy taxes, we cannot preclude, and the Federal government is going to step in and ensure that every American has access to the polling place? Why? Because it is central. Then we had another constitutional amendment and said that if one is old enough to go overseas and fight to defend democracy, one is old enough to vote at 18. We amended the Constitution again. So this has been an ongoing process of ensuring that our democracy is participated in by every citizen, not just a select few. This effort is about that objective. Again, I think the gentlewoman is correct, it is a critically important objective.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, quickly, let me observe that the President and his faith-based organizations' proposal said that funds can be segregated. Yes, they may be fungible, but they can make a difference. That is what this issue is about. Family planning programs supported by the United States save lives around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that close to 600,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventable. Nearly one in four of these deaths could be prevented if high-quality family planning services were available. Proponents of the global gag rule would lead us to believe that taxpayer dollars are being spent to actively promote or fund abortions. This is false and has been prohibited by United States law since 1973. Imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech of foreign NGOs not only undermines the key goal of our foreign policy, promoting democracy worldwide, but it would be unconstitutional in the United States. I urge my colleagues to preserve the existing language in the bill and vote against the global gag rule. Mr. Chairman, family planning programs supported by the United States save lives around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that close to 600,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventable-- 99 percent of which are women that live in developing countries. Nearly one in four of these deaths could be prevented if high-quality family planning services were available. Proponents of the global ``GAG'' rule would lead you to believe that taxpayer dollars are being spent to actively promote or fund abortions. This is false. The truth is that not one penny of U.S. assistance pays for abortion services. Federal law has explicitly prohibited funding for abortion services since 1973. Furthermore, the global ``GAG'' rule would be unconstitutional in the United States. Impossing restrictions on the freedom of speech of foreign NGOs not only undermines the key goal of our foreign policy--promoting democracy worldwide--but it would be unconstitutional in the U.S. I urge my colleagues to preserve the existing language in the bill and vote against the global ``GAG'' rule.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the premise that the United States should participate in the United Nations and that if we want to maintain our leadership role that we ought to pay our dues. I must say, therefore, that I am ambivalent on the means used in this resolution, but I am not ambivalent at all on the sentiments and the point that it makes. I rise, therefore, in support of the intent of this resolution. I have not decided, frankly, how I am going to vote, but there ought to be 435 of us who, in the strongest possible terms, say that this was an act of a commission that knows that it is the United States day after day, week after week, month after month, in every forum in the world, the OSCE, the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I participate in on a year-round basis; the chairman of the committee has participated in that heavily, as has the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the former chairman; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). This was an act perpetrated, frankly, by the abusers of human rights, by those who would like to hide the abuses that exist in so many parts of this world; that would like to hide the shortcomings to international standards that so many nations demonstrate. That ought not to be left to stand. The exclusion of the United States from the Human Rights Commission, the one Nation that consistently raises the issue of human rights around the world, and yes, even in the United States. So I applaud the sponsors of this resolution for raising for the rest of the world and for our country how critically we view this issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my friend: Let us not give them 25 cents back and add 75 percent to their debt. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi said. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends have turned the annual budget resolution into a rite of spring. Remember what the Washington Post said last year? The Republicans seek not to just cut taxes but to increase defense and selected other categories of spending while maintaining the appearance of fiscal discipline. Does that sound familiar? The year before that, The New York Times said the Republican Congressional leadership appears to prefer radical tax and spending cuts to reasoned accommodation on the budget. The tone may be different, but the substance is not. Three years ago, of course, the majority plumbed the depths of budgetary gridlock. It could not even pass a budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, to that poor soul who accidentally lost two pages in the budget resolution on the way to the House floor early last Friday, let me say, do not be too hard on yourself. Mr. Speaker, that oversight is just a tiny blip on a fiscal radar screen, full, frankly, of Republican pretense. The substance of this budget resolution is shameless. It is not a plan for our future. It is a stalking horse for Republican tax cuts that would mainly benefit the wealthy. I am for a tax cut, a tax cut that is responsible and will fit defense and domestic discretionary spending and will help pay down the debt and save Social Security and Medicare. Who would bear the brunt of the proposed spending cuts? The millions of Americans with no health insurance; the kids who go to school in crumbling buildings, zero-funded education in terms of any increases; the seniors who cannot afford prescription drugs not provided for. My colleagues are either going to steal from Medicare, from Peter and pay Paul, but neither Peter nor Paul are going to be able to be funded. Meanwhile, the President is pushing a missile defense system. It may be a good policy. He has no idea how to fund it, no idea how to pay for it. He is pushing his plan to privatize Social Security, no idea and no plan in this budget how to pay for it; unless that is, of course, we continue to plan on raiding the Social Security surplus. This budget resolution is not real any more than last year's, the year before, or the year before that. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations in the other body thinks that as well. He is a member of the party of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), not mine. Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject this budget resolution. We ought to go back and do some real work for real Americans for a real future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``The Democrats are whining about the process rather than getting into debate on the substance.'' I am going to talk about substance tomorrow, but let me talk about process today. I ask my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle, what do they think about 212 Americans who represent approximately 235 million Americans, not Democrats, 235 million Americans, who had no opportunity to see the substance of your proposal on Thursday night? Cannot we cry foul over a Republican budget process that completely shuts out the representatives of the people, not us as individuals, but of the people that we represent, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and, yes, those who are not aligned. Our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was not allowed into the conference on this resolution; yet we adopt a rule that today will not debate substance but, by process alone, will recommit this bill to the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I detected a few Republican tears in the wee hours of the morning that they could not get this through. As a matter of fact, I heard the distinguished gentleman from Florida talking about that and lamenting. After all, that is when the majority learned the painful truth: It would have to wait 4 days. Look who is crying now. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle has had a weekend of bad press on these frankly heavy-handed budget tactics, and people are starting to reexamine the substance in this budget, a budget that provides huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and let the budget ax fall on education, contrary to the bipartisan agreement in the other body, and seniors who need prescription drugs, and our environment. Mr. Speaker, let us vote down this rule. Let us return this matter to the American people and have a full and fair debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving us that information. I understand that the gentleman said that we are going to conference on the budget. We are not sure when it is coming back. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any guess as to whether, if it comes back, it will come back Wednesday or Thursday?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, for that information.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of informing us of next week's schedule, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to rise on behalf of all of the Members on this side of the aisle. Joelle works for the majority. She used to work for the minority, and I was in the majority. Joelle and I have switched places. And I have been here 20 years, so I have known Joelle for a long, long time. I think I speak for everybody on our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that she is perhaps not equally, because I do not want to get her in trouble with the majority, but she is very helpful to us, always courteous, always with a good word, always cheerful, and has made this institution a better place. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us on this side of the aisle, she has operated in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, efficient and effective way to make this institution run better; and we all join, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating her and thanking her for her service to this institution and to her country.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, every year on April 24 we commemorate the Armenian genocide. Between 1915 and 1923, in what is called the first genocide of this century, more than one million Armenians perished and 500,000 survivors were exiled from their homes in Ottoman Turkey. We mark this unspeakable tragedy each year on that date so that we can examine what occurred and honor the memory of the victims. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the massacre of the Armenians was not the last genocide of the 20th Century. In designing his ``final solution to the Jewish problem'' Adolf Hitler reflected, ``Who today remembers the Armenians?'' Decades later, the cries of these victims echoed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, but we must also learn from this event and ultimately act on that knowledge to prevent such indescribable horror from ever occurring again. There are those who deny that there was an Armenian genocide. Mr. Speaker, Yehuda Bauer, historian of Yad Vashem, has said that ``to deny a genocide . . . is a denial of truth.'' We must speak the truth, and that is what we do here in this House today. As we honor the memory of those who perished, we marvel at the strength of the survivors and the generations which have followed. In the diaspora, the Armenian people have prospered and flourished throughout the world. The creation of the independent state of Armenia in 1991 not only provided the Armenian people with a homeland, but is a beacon of hope for the future. It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that Armenia will thrive and prosper and continue to fortify its democracy. It is also our hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan will redouble their efforts to find a solution to the conflict in Nagomo-Karabagh. I commend our government for bringing the parties together in Florida recently for renewed negotiations, and I hope that this intensified effort will result in an agreement that will ensure lasting peace for all the people of the region.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 642, a bill to re-authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Resources Office. This bill, which I am proud to be a co-sponsor of, will undertake two new activities that I think will further improve the condition of the Chesapeake Bay. First, it provides $6 Million a year through 2006 for a small watershed grant program. This program will make it possible for local governments and environmental organizations, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, to undertake locally led restoration projects. They can use this money for such things as oyster and sea grass restoration projects, the creation of artificial reefs, and the improvement of fish passageways. Second, it requires NOAA, in cooperation with State resource agencies and the scientific community to undertake a five year study to develop a multi-species management strategy. Let me give you an example of one of things they will investigate. Recently we have seen rockfish population, that was once on the brink of collapse, return. That is good news for the Bay and the watermen who now able to again fish for rockfish. The bad news is that the return of the rockfish may be a contributing factor to the decline of the blue crab stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. The rockfish is a voracious predator that feeds on blue crab hatchlings. These hatchlings, who often lack sufficient habitat due to a loss of sea grass, are easy prey and are not surviving to breeding age. As we work to restore the Bay we need to develop a strategy that preserve and protect the delicate balance of this ecosystem. This study will give us the baseline information we need to rehabilitate one species without harming another. The preservation of the Chesapeake Bay is a crucial investment that benefits all Americans. My thanks go to Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Wynn for their leadership on this issue.