Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am very pleased and proud to rise in support of this concurrent resolution that would grant the use of the Capitol rotunda for the 2001 Days of Remembrance Ceremony. I certainly want to thank the new chairman, and I want to congratulate him also, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who has had a distinguished career in the State legislature, chaired the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate in Ohio and has come to the House and made an extraordinary contribution and has just been named as chairman of the House Administration Committee. I congratulate him and look forward to working with him. I want to congratulate the chairman for his hard work in getting this resolution to the floor today in a very timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, this ceremony has occurred annually in the Capitol rotunda. It is the centerpiece of similar programs that occur all across our land. There is no doubt that the rotunda, the site of so many of our Nation's historical events, is a fitting and appropriate place for such a program. It is a place of unity, where we gather together as a Nation to celebrate and, yes, sometimes to mourn. On April 18, 2001, it will once again be at the forefront of the Nation's attention as we gather to remember one of the most heinous times in our past, and to pledge anew that it will never, never, never again happen, and that we will never, never again turn our backs on genocide. The theme of this year's program is ``Remembering the Past for the Sake of the Future.'' This should be more than just a theme for a few days; it should be a guiding principle in all of our actions. Sixty years ago the Nazis began their campaign of genocide against European Jews and others perceived to be not productive parts of the society. When the war finally ended, more than 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, died at the hands of the Nazis. In the years since, we have built memorials and museums so we can better remember, and this is certainly appropriate. In remembering the past, however, we must always consider the future. This sentiment was perhaps best stated in the 1979 report of the President's Commission on the Holocaust that said, ``A memorial unresponsive to the future would violate the memory of the past.'' The Days of Remembrance program is a living remembrance of the past that should always help guide the future. It forces us to consider what we can do to prevent genocide from ever occurring again. It raises questions we often grapple with in the Congress. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, we grappled with it in Bosnia, in Kosovo. So it is not ancient history; it is recent history. What should we have done and what can we do in Rwanda, Afghanistan, the Sudan? Well, let us also use this opportunity to shine a light into the dark corners of our own Nation. In the past several years, we have seen a proliferation of hate crimes across our land. We must use the power that the people have granted us to pass laws to help ensure that these horrible acts will never go unpunished, or even perhaps more importantly, or as importantly, unrecognized. As most of my colleagues know, the Days of Remembrance Commemoration was created in the establishment clause of the legislation that created the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. I would like to thank all of the members, Mr. Speaker, of the Council for their tremendous work that ensures that this Nation and our people will never forget and will never allow this tragic history to repeat itself. I would also take a moment, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has also mentioned him, to remember the late and great Member of this House who served almost a half a century, Sid Yates from Illinois. Sid Yates kept the faith. Sid Yates kept the light burning. Sid Yates made us all remember. Sid Yates was a giant in this institution, a giant in this country; and we miss him. This commemoration will certainly be another remembrance of him as well. Through Sid, though he is no longer with us, his efforts to ensure that current and future generations never forget the Holocaust will reverberate for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is a strong supporter of this resolution and a tireless advocate for human rights. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he cannot be on the House Floor today and, therefore, is unable to support this resolution on the floor at this time. But as our ranking member on the Committee on International Relations, and I see we have the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) here, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) would join the chairman in support of this resolution. I would like to thank him for his continuing support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I would also like to urge them to participate in this event, to remember the past, to reflect upon our obligation to the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the kind words of the gentleman from Maryland. I rise in strong support of this legislation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for his leadership on this and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his leadership on this as well. This is the right thing to do. The good news is that we are healthier for longer periods of time, more able to do vigorous things. Obviously, our first responders, our firefighters and emergency response teams, whether they be career or volunteer, are critical components of our society. They are professionals in every sense of the word, whether paid or volunteer; well trained. What this will do will allow us for another 2 years to avail ourselves of that training, that expertise, that commitment, and that courage. That is a very important thing for us to do. Some may or may not know that there are some 10,000-plus firefighters in the Federal service, as well as, of course, thousands and thousands across this Nation, both paid and volunteer. Firefighting is one of the most dangerous enterprises, and because it is so, it requires people who have experience. I think this bill will go a long way towards providing us the ability when the firefighter chooses to allow them to continue in service until 57. As has been, I am sure, observed on the floor of this House, this will make parity between our law enforcement personnel and our firefighting personnel; a very appropriate step for us to take. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and, like all of my colleagues, are in grateful recognition of the critical contribution that firefighters and emergency response personnel throughout this country make to our communities. As evidence of that, those of my colleagues who are new, I would urge my colleagues to join the Fire Service Caucus. It is the largest caucus in the Congress of the United States, bipartisan, led by and founded by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), himself a former fire chief and probably is the most knowledgeable person we have in this country on fire issues. I note on the floor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who was a leader on an effort for the first time last year in this Congress, with the leadership on the majority side and on the minority side, in a bipartisan way, to appropriate $100 million for firefighters and emergency responders throughout this country. Madam Speaker, this is an appropriate step, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in seeing its overwhelming support.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this region, and indeed this Nation, can take great pride in the fact that on Saturday, January 13, 2001, the final rail transit segment of the planned 103-mile Adopted Regional Metrorail System will be put into service. This most significant milestone represents the culmination of a great dream of a visionary group of people in the 1960's that our Nation's Capital would join other great capital cities in having a rapid transit system. Congress was a full partner in the creation of WMATA, beginning in 1952 when Congress passed the National Capital Planning Act mandating that plans be developed to facilitate movement throughout the region. In 1967, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created by Congress to build and operate a premier subway system worthy of the Nation's Capital. Every Congress and Administration since has recognized and confirmed the Federal commitment to the Metrorail and Metrobus system. From the outset, construction of the Metrorail system was a monumental undertaking. As directed by President Lyndon Johnson, it was monumental in design, befitting the beauty and dignity of our Nation's Capital. Metro's designers used architecture that is aesthetically compatible with the history and symbolism of the capital city. Architects sought simplicity, durability, and a sense of timelessness that would serve future generations. On January 13th, we will gather at the Branch Avenue Station in Prince George's County Maryland to symbolically drive the last spike in the 103-mile Metrorail System. We can only marvel at the handsome return on investment on the public's $10 billion investment and remember that in today's dollars the 103-mile system would have cost $22 billion. Since opening day in March of 1976, more than two billion transit rides have been taken. We have revitalized communities in the vicinity of rail stations. Engineers and contractors from throughout the nation have benefitted from jobs and construction contracts. We have reduced energy consumption, improved air quality and enhanced mobility for the transit dependent. Everyday the Metrorail and Metrobus system take thousands of people to jobs, schools, hospitals, family and other pursuits. It is virtually impossible to truly quantify the unlimited contributions our world acclaimed Metro system has made to the quality of life in the national capital region. Metrorail ridership has been topping records over the past year. Of the top twenty-five weekday ridership records in Metrorail history, twenty-two have occurred in the last year, as Metrorail carried over well 600,000 trips on those days. We in Congress, the region, and the Nation can be proud that we have created such a fine public transit system, worthy of our capital. The success of the beautiful Metrorail system is testament to the vision and federal-regional cooperation over the past fifty years, as well as the profound dedication of the people that designed, built and now operate the finest transit system in the world. Please join me in congratulating WMATA on achieving this awesome milestone.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, this House is now divided by its narrowest margin since the 83rd Congress when Republicans held 221 seats and Democrats 213. Today, our Republican friends hold a bare five-seat majority, 221 to 212. Thus, if we are to accomplish anything, bipartisanship, as President-elect Bush talked ad nauseam about in the campaign, is a sine qua non. It cannot be mere rhetorical window dressing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the first day of the 107th Congress we have missed an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to bipartisanship. Since the Republicans regained the majority in 1995, there has been a growing disparity between the minority's representation in this House and the committee slots available to its Members elected by the American public, Republicans and Democrats, to represent them. Simply put, there are not enough committee slots available to the minority party, which now controls 49 percent of this body. Nevertheless, the allocation of committee slots has remained unchanged, 55 percent for the majority, 45 percent for the minority. Now let me call attention to this chart. It is probably a little difficult to understand, but what it tracks is minority representation, not majority; whether Democrats were in the majority or Republicans were in the majority. One will note, up to the 104th Congress, when Democrats were in control, the percentage of committee slots allocated and the percentages in the House tracked one another. One will note that when the minority got more slots in the House, they went up. When they got less, they went down. The point is, it was fair. It was representative and it gave to minority members the opportunity to do what they said they wanted to do, represent Americans. Now I would call the attention of my colleagues, and I would hope the former governor of Delaware, who is one of the fairest members in this House, would look at this stark contrast; and I would say here is the 104th Congress, the 105th, the 106th, the 107th. One will note that the minority line has been flat lined, notwithstanding the fact that we have picked up in each of the last four elections additional seats and made the difference between the majority and minority parties smaller; but the line has not changed. The majority line has gone up in terms of their percentage, and the variance. That is not fair. It is also, I would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), contrary to his representations when he was in the minority. In my calculations, we would need an additional 64 seats in order for us to be allocated the number of seats that we are entitled to as a result of our percentage in the minority. What is being done is contrary to the rhetoric. It will not further bipartisanship, and I would ask that that be corrected as we move ahead in the next few days.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of John T. Daugherty, a distinguished and extraordinary member of the Southern Maryland community and a personal friend for many years. His contributions to his community of Lexington Park and the Southern Maryland area will continue to pay dividends and be fondly remembered for decades to come. Mr. John T. Daugherty was best known as Jack throughout Southern Maryland. He was born January 18, 1919 in Bath County, Kentucky. He went on to attend school at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Center College in Danville, Kentucky; and Morehead State Teachers College. He later was trained to fly Navy airplanes in Pensacola, Florida. He joined the Marine Corps and saw service in the South Pacific during World War II, where his courageous prowess earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross for a bombing raid on Rabaul Harbor. He went on to become a pioneer and product of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station Test Pilot School even before the first official graduating class was formed. After leaving active duty, he continued to proudly serve his country as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserves. Jack Daugherty remained in St. Mary's County to began life as a civilian and his entrepreneurial instincts led him to create many small businesses in Southern Maryland. His early business pursuits were not based on personal gain, rather, he created many new ventures to meet the needs of a fledgling and fast growing upstart Navy town. He is perhaps best known for founding Citizen's Bank, later known as Maryland Bank and Trust. His efforts to bring desperately needed capital resources to the Lexington Park community were critical in building a town to support the growing Navy base at Patuxent. Jack Daugherty became president of this bank and continued to run the local community bank for 35 years. He used the bank to literally help build a town that today is home to one of America's largest and most technologically advanced military bases. His unconventional loan practices enabled hundreds of entrepreneurs to go into business. Today, many small business owners, including a large number of women and minority owned businesses, will tell you how Mr. Daugherty helped them get started in business. Typically, they will tell you, their loans were approved without using any collateral and written on the back of an envelope. Indicative of Mr. Daugherty's great sense of community spirit and among his greatest contributions to the community, was an early venture to create a local radio station for St. Mary's County. Recognizing the need to create a sense of community, he began and operated the WPTX AM Radio station in Lexington Park, where he and other local business owners took turns announcing local news events, weather, and other items of local interest. Mr. Daugherty himself was an announcer on the station, covering local news and political events. That station has continually served the local community and today is operated as 97.7 WMDM-FM under the ownership of Mr. Ron Walton. Jack Daugherty was also a founder of the St. Mary's County Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Historic St. Mary's City Commission and the founder of the Lexington Park Little League. He was on the Board of Trustees at St. Mary's College of Maryland and is fondly remembered for providing scholarships to many disadvantaged area students. Mr. Speaker, Jack Daugherty was a unique individual who made contributions to his community that will last for generations to come. He was a giant among his peers whose leadership provided countless opportunities for thousands of individuals, reaching far beyond his local community. His rugged independence and fierce commitment to his community should distinguish him forever for the important role he has had in attracting the very significant U.S. Navy investment at Patuxent River Naval Air Station we have today. Repeatedly, he was a critical force in mobilizing the necessary resources to retain and attract federal investments at Pax River. Whenever a threat appeared on the horizon to either Pax River or St. Inigoes, it was Jack Daugherty who mobilized the local community to fight it. Mr. Speaker, Jack Daugherty's presence will be sorely missed. Right up until his death on August 10, 2000, he played an active role in the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance, providing the same firm and steady leadership to that organization as he continued to support and protect the interests of Southern Maryland and the U.S. Navy. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring a great American whose success and love of life will long be remembered in Southern Maryland. Every community in America needs a Jack Daugherty. He knew the importance of community spirit and set the bar high for others to give back to community in which he lived. I ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to John T. Daugherty, a veteran, a business and community leader and great family man, for his lifetime of service to his family, his neighbors and to his country. My best wishes go out to his wife Kay, son Tom and daughter Katie who best knew him as an upstanding and decent husband, father, and community leader. I ask that you join me in honoring John T. Daugherty's strength and devotion to a community that will continue to reap the benefits of his work and dedication. His legacy will never be forgotten.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have 3 minutes. We have an hour Special Order. Each one of us that stands could spend an hour talking about our friend, Henry Gonzalez. This is the people's House. We are proud of that. No person in history better represented an advocate for the people than Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. In a land of plenty, Mr. Speaker, and in a time of unprecedented economic prosperity across our Nation, many Americans, with no malicious intent in their hearts, may overlook the plight of the poor, the downtrodden, the vulnerable. That, however, could never ever be said of Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas, who passed away at the age of 84 just a few days ago. Throughout his entire life in public service, including his 37 years in this Chamber, where he represented his beloved community of San Antonio, he was a battler for those who were struggling in our society. He was a champion of the underdog and for social justice throughout his 37-year career in this body and previously in local and State government. He was a man of integrity, compassion, commitment, courage, unquestioned honesty. Born in 1916 to recent immigrants from Mexico, he knew firsthand discrimination and poverty. He entered public office after once resigning a position as a probation officer in juvenile court because he was prohibited from hiring an African American. Henry's fight for social justice continued when he was elected to the San Antonio Council. He won approval for a measure there to desegregate city facilities long before it was the popular issue of the day. In 1957, he became the first person of Mexican-American heritage elected to the Texas Senate. His legacy in that body, as has been referenced, certainly is focused on a 22-hour filibuster that he conducted to ensure the defeat of measures protecting school segregation. Henry could never, and would never, countenance rank injustice such as that. Henry B. Gonzalez was not always successful in the short term, but his cry for justice in the long term was usually successful. Henry's indefatigable quest for social justice and equality continued, Mr. Speaker, when he was elected to the House in 1961. Over the years, he rose to become the chairman of the Committee on Banking, as we have heard. In that regard, he fought for the little people, the people who did not have the lobbyists in Washington or the great money to advocate their position. And during his tenure on that committee, he was instrumental in helping to pass key housing legislation, repairing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and cleaning up the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s. While Henry was undoubtedly proud of his ethnic heritage, he always insisted that it did not determine his politics. ``I am a Democrat without prefix, suffix or apology or any other kind of modification,'' he once said. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in this, the people's House, the people had no more articulate, no more committed, nor more courageous advocate than our friend Henry B. Gonzalez. When I first came to this House in 1981, I was privileged to serve on the Committee on Banking. I was privileged to know him as a leader, as a role model, as a friend. America and its principles and Constitution had a great advocate in Henry B. Gonzalez. America, Texas, San Antonio, Charlie our colleague and his son, his other brothers and sisters, his wife, his family will miss him most. But, Charlie, know well that we miss him as well. We loved him when he served with us, and we love him now. Robert Kennedy once said that: Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Henry Gonzalez did much more than send forth a few tiny ripples of hope. His life's work and his legacy were a strong, powerful wave that gives all of us the energy and commitment to keep up the good fight, and keep the faith.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. This President, I will tell you, and I have been here for a long period of time, has been more engaged in working with Congress than any of his predecessors. Period. The gentleman has not been here as long as some of the rest of us have been, but this President is more engaged in the legislative process than any President I have had the experience of serving with. I will tell you further in response to your observations that the principals were not in the room. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) apparently was not in the room. That was one of the problems because he is the one that after an agreement was reached apparently took the deal back and said, ``I won't agree.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on October 4, a man of great knowledge, talent and dignity passed away. David Meredith Evans was an officer in the Foreign Service, serving his country in that capacity from 1963 until 1995. He was 64 years of age. I came to know him during his last assignment before retiring, when he served as the Senior Adviser on the staff of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known to us as the Helsinki Commission. I was Chairman of the Helsinki Commission at the time and relied heavily on his expertise in the early 1990s, when the former Soviet Union and the countries of East-Central Europe were in a state of transition and, in some cases, turmoil. With the Cold War coming to a close, it was a challenge for many foreign policy experts to understand the new world into which we were heading. David, however, had a keen sense of where things were heading, both in terms of the wonderful possibilities and of the dangerous obstacles that stood in the way. Thanks in large part to him, the Helsinki Commission played a prominent role during that period: observing the first multi-party elections countries from the Warsaw Pact held in at least four decades; organizing congressional delegations to these countries to learn firsthand what was happening; attending meetings of what is now the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE) to raise concerns about human rights violations in particular; and overseeing the drafting of Commission reports which helped educate policy-makers about what needed to be done. David Evans had a strong background in Soviet and East European affairs going back to his education at Harvard University and his tours at the U.S. embassies in Moscow, Belgrade and Warsaw. He had focused considerably on economic and trade issues, and he understood early on that the entrepreneurial spirit and free market, not the collectivism and central planning of communism, were what the people in these countries needed. He further understood that this could not happen without the development of democracy, and he became a committed human rights advocate. Indeed, the Commission's first encounters with David Evans were during OSCE negotiations on economic, scientific and environmental questions. Rather than pushing generic ``international cooperation'' in these areas, he pushed for improved human contacts through developing the tourist industry; he criticized the Soviets for taking action against scientists like Andrei Sakharov who expressed independent political views; he promoted the right of environmental activists in the Soviet Union and East-Central Europe to raise their concerns without being punished by the state. David also had a particular expertise on Yugoslav affairs, and while the violent demise of Yugoslavia beginning in 1991 had a strong affect on all of us, it brought him a personal anguish. He spoke the language fluently, traveled there frequently with the Commission staff and worked tirelessly to make us aware of what was happening and why. He was in Sarajevo in March 1992, when the city was first surrounded by Serb militants, and got a glimpse of the nightmare that Bosnia and its capital would have to endure one month later and the more than three years thereafter. I worked mostly with David, however, in dealing with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new countries about which we knew little. I can remember mostly his seriousness of purpose combined with a good sense of humor. Among other things, he introduced us all to the word ``gefuffle,'' his description of a scene of chaotic confrontation where people are shouting at each other. And, as I said, he was a man of great dignity. He was, for example, generally conservative and formal in his attire. Still, he would travel to some of the muddiest, dustiest, dilapidated places in Europe without hesitation in order to carry out the Helsinki Commission's mandate. In the five years he was with the Helsinki Commission, the staff truly appreciated his presence and sense of purpose. They could rely on him to provide the direction and judgment needed to carry out their tasks. They could also count on his support for their efforts to promote human rights when those from other branches of government or countries sought to minimize human rights in international relations. Many of the same staff are still at the Commission, and kept in touch with him in his retirement. Indeed, he continued his activism during this period, working to preserve country estates and museums throughout Russia. Along with his wonderful family, friends, fellow foreign service officers and Commission staff, I will miss David Evans and will always remember and value his advise and presence while at the Helsinki Commission. He was, Mr. Speaker, an American who dedicated his life to representing his country and the ideals on which it is based, and I am grateful to have known him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Treasury-Postal bill when it originally was presented to the House. I did so because I thought it was inadequate. It came back from conference, and I opposed it at that point in time. We did not really have a real conference. But to the extent that a conference report came back, I said it was inadequate, and I opposed it. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) rises, and I think correctly states the provisions of this bill. I think he also correctly states that we did, in fact, reach bipartisan agreement on this bill, and that in fact the bill, as it now stands, as it stood before the President, as it stands now is a good bill. It is a bill, in my opinion, that every Member of this House on either side of the aisle can support. It is furthermore a bill that I hope every Member of the body will support at some point in time in the very near future. I am not sure when we are going to get to that point, but hopefully in the near future. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) also correctly points out, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) pointed out, if one reads the veto message, that the President of the United States says that he can sign this bill. In fact, I urged the President of the United States to sign this bill. I wished he had signed the bill. But he chose to make the point which, frankly, we have been making over and over again, that, unfortunately, this process did not come to really focus until just a few weeks ago. The reason it did not come to focus until a few weeks ago, and I do not speak just to the Treasury-Postal bill, it is because, for 8\1/2\ months and effectively all of September, we pretended that the appropriations process was not going to be a process in which all of us would be party, but it would be a process that simply, frankly, the majority party would be a party of. Unfortunately, when we did as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has pointed out, come to agreement, and agree on a very good bill, we got it down there relatively late, i.e., 10 days ago. I would urge the Members, however, not to become too exercised about this bill. The reason I do that is because I believe we do have agreement. What we do not have agreement on is what the President discussed in his veto message, and they are important issues. They are unrelated, at least substantively, to the Treasury-Postal bill. But we know and any of us who have been in the last weeks of any legislative session, and I found this when I was in the State Senate for 12 years and I found it here for 19 years, that, unfortunately, issues tend to get wrapped up with one another that do not necessarily relate to one another substantively but clearly do politically. So I would urge the majority party, I would urge ourselves to try to come to agreement. Now both sides feel that agreements are not being kept. That is not a good context in which to try to get back to the table. The majority party believes the President said he would sign this bill. I was not in the room, therefore cannot assert that that was or was not the case. Some others who apparently were in the room and talked to the administration said that the administration said that they could sign this bill, but, again, I was not in the room, but that they were concerned, they were particularly concerned about a particular tax provision, and they wanted to see all the tax provisions considered at one time. Now, I hope clearly that this bill is going to go to committee and the veto will be considered. My suspicion is that we will at some point in time, hopefully in the near term, fold it in. But I would urge all my colleagues that, when the President says that it is related to other things, his desire, and I hope our desire, is to get the issues before the House resolved, get the issues before the Senate resolved, and send them to the President. We have just had a significant discussion about the fact that we do not have agreement on the Labor-Health bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who was in the room, I was not, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), whose integrity I trust wholly, says that he thought they had an agreement. It is my understanding, although the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) did not say so in so many words, that he thought there was an agreement, but he needed to check it out with some people. That agreement fell. I would hope that, in the next 24 hours, and I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, is on the floor. He and I worked together on a number of things. But I would hope that we could come to grips with the items that the President of the United States has said he believes are priority items. Whether one agrees with the veto of the Treasury-Postal bill or not, everybody agrees that it was not on the substance of the bill. The bill is a good bill. It is, however, an effort by the President of the United States to bring to closure the 106th Congress, to bring to closure the 106th Congress in a way that will bring credit to agreements between the parties. I referred earlier in discussions about the appropriations bills to an extraordinary speech given by Newt Gingrich on the floor of this House. It was a speech which I have entitled the ``Perfectionist Caucus Speech.'' It was a speech in which he said the American public has elected the President of one party, a majority party in the House and Senate of another party, and a very large and significant number of Members of the President's party. It is not surprising, therefore, that we find ourselves in substantial disagreement from time to time on substantive important issues. But as Newt Gingrich said in that ``Perfectionist Caucus Speech,'' it is the expectation of the American public that we will come to agreement, that we will come to compromise. Democracy is not perfect, and rarely do we win everything that we want. But the American public does expect us to agree. They expect to bring this Congress to a close. We argue on our side that they expect us to do some things that we have been talking about for an entire year and, indeed, longer than that in many instances to which the President referred, like education funding for classrooms and more teachers. That is really not a contentious issue. Most of us on this floor on both sides of the aisle know that we have a shortage of teachers, know that we have a shortage of classrooms, know that we would like to get classroom sizes down. We ought to move on that. Most of us say that we are for prescription drugs for seniors. We have differences on how that ought to occur. What the President is saying is we ought to come to agreement on that, because, frankly, seniors that are having trouble paying for prescription drugs do not care whether we agree on this dotting of the I's or the crossing of the T's. They want us to come to agreement. It is a shame we cannot do that. I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on the floor. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman form Michigan (Mr. Dingell) came together, worked hard, tried to come to agreement. I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) did not get everything in the Patients' Bill of Rights bill that he would have liked. I am equally confident that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not get everything that he would like. But they worked together. Indeed, the majority of this House agreed with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. We did that in 1999, a year ago. The Senate passed a similar bill some 11 months ago. But we do not have agreement. We have not moved a bill. On an issue that almost every one of us is putting in ads of 30 seconds and saying we are for, but we have not moved the bill. So I would urge my colleagues, as we consider this, it is going to go to committee, I hope we do not have a rollcall vote on. There is nothing we can do about it, very frankly, one way or another. It is a good bill. The President chose to veto it to raise the issues and try to raise our focus and try to bring us to closure. If it accomplishes that objective, perhaps it was useful. It remains to be seen whether we will accomplish that objective. Had it been signed, we would have had a good bill for the Treasury Department, the General Service Administration, for law enforcement, to which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) referred, he is absolutely right, to counter terrorism efforts in this country. All of those are worthwhile objectives. It is a good bill. But let us not have this bill further divide us. Let us try to come to grips in the next 24 hours with the Labor-Health bill and get that to resolution and see at that point in time where we can move. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me the time. I appreciate his giving me this opportunity to comment on this bill, which is a good bill, but comment as well on the efforts that the gentleman has been making and that others on the other side of the aisle have been making to try to bring us to closure, try to bring this Congress to a respectable close that the American public will benefit from.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the remarks made initially by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Both spoke very rationally. They spoke to the point. I wish we could have more of that kind of debate. But there is a difference, I tell the gentleman from Georgia, and it is a significant difference. It is a substantive difference. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), when he made his presentation, said that the difference between us is that we want Washington to decide and they want the LEAs to decide, the local education agencies to decide. Because it is their proposition, effectively, that the money that they have included in is not targeted for school construction, indeed, not targeted, per se, for teachers, but is a revenue-sharing program. That is essentially the flexibility. I am sorry that you grimace. But the fact of the matter is the rhetoric on their side has continually been that the locals can decide. Some people may need classrooms. Some may need additional teachers. But some may need computers. Some may need recreational facilities. They will have the flexibility. Now, I suggest to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) that he is correct that this amendment will not solve the classroom shortage in America. No amendment could do that. No bill in one year could do that. What this amendment, however, seeks to say, I tell the gentleman, is that we at the Federal level have identified two very significant critical problems. One, we do not have sufficient classrooms in America to house the swelling number of students in America. Two, we do not have sufficient teachers, quality teachers to teach those children. There are other problems in America. But as we do on so many of the educational programs that my colleagues referenced and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in particular referenced, we say there is a problem here. We are going to put some dollars. LEA, if one wants to solve the problem here, are the dollars to do it. That is the difference between us. We do not want to turn this $1.5 billion into simply a grab bag. It is for emergencies that exist in school construction and safety. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is exactly correct. The gentleman ignored the tax component of this, which spends $5 billion or $6 billion to leverage five times that or 500 percent times that, five times that to $25 billion in bonds that can be issued by local governments. Now, who decides to hire the teachers? The local government. Who decides whether to build the schools? The local government. The Federal Government does not make that selection, nor does it demand that the local governments do that. To that extent, I suggest to my colleagues that, when they represent that we want government at the Federal level to decide, that is a misrepresentation and not useful for this debate. The issue really is whether or not we have a targeted sum or we have a general sum. The general sum clearly, I tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), will not solve the school construction problem or the teacher problem.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, very frankly, the majority party has put a kinder, gentler face on what it has done over the last 8 months. That kinder, gentler, principled face is the face of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our Committee, the Committee on Appropriations; and like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I have no quarrel with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said the Democrats were not included in the appropriations process, in the Committee on Appropriations, in the Commerce, Justice, State. I will say, on my committee, that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I dealt together openly. The shame of it was that the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations were not always included in the appropriations negotiation. That is one of the problems, one of the significant problems. Mr. Speaker, 9 days ago, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) came on this House floor and made some interesting and, I believe, incredible statements. He said this Congress, the 106th Congress, is one of the most productive Congresses in recent history. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said that flipping through a document that apparently listed bills that were approved by this Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. I did not see that document, none of us did. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I can tell my colleagues with certainty, there was no meaningful patients' bill of rights in it. There was no Medicare prescription drug benefit in it. There was no targeted tax relief in it. There was no real campaign finance reform in it; and there was no school modernization, class-size reduction, and teacher quality initiative in that document. No, not one of those pressing critical issues which show on my colleagues polls and our polls as being the Americans focus. As a matter of fact, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), has an ad running today on TV that I saw this morning that she is for patients' bill of rights, for school construction, for campaign finance reform; the only thing that ad lacked was a tag line of vote Democratic. The bills that the majority in this Congress has refused to pass could go on and on. Then, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) charged, and again I quote, ``We remain here today because some people simply will not support the principles of fiscal discipline.'' Hooey. I am pretty sure he was not talking about the Members on this side of the aisle, but now we know the truth. Those are precisely the people who should have been listening. If nothing else, this do-nothing 106th Congress has finally debunked the myth of the free-spending Democrat and unmasked the fiscally irresponsible Republicans and who they are. This majority has wasted the last 2 years trying to enact a tax scheme that would drain the entire projected budget surplus over the next decade and threatened to eat into that portion of the surplus set aside for Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, now, they are loading up spending bills at funding level over and above what the President requested in his budget. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, pointed out earlier this week, the nine appropriations conference reports to date provide outlays that exceed the President's 2001 budget by $11.4 billion. None of them could pass. None of them could get to the President without the majority party's support. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) also noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations, and we ought to listen to this. We ought to listen to this figure, and I see the gentleman from Western Maryland, (Mr. Barrett), my colleague, that the majority is going to pass, yes, the President can veto and my colleagues can say, gee, whiz, we could not get our way. I understand that. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about what my colleagues are going to pass and send to him. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations at the fastest growth rate, 5.2 percent, since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was enacted. The House is going to pass, not the President is going to sign and propose, the House is going to pass the largest increase in domestic discretionary spending since 1974. Since enactment of the Budget Act, nondefense appropriations have grown an average of 2.1 percent when Republicans controlled the House, and only 1.2 percent, half of that, per year when Democrats controlled the House. That does not comport with the facts that my colleagues would like to portray. Those are the facts, and my colleagues can check with your CBO on whether I am inaccurate. So tell me, who needs a lecture on fiscal discipline? I do not think there is a soul in this House who does not understand why our budget process is broken down this year and why this eighth continuing resolution is necessary. The Republican majority insisted, not the appropriators, not the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 13 cardinals, insisted on passing a phony budget resolution last spring that turned our appropriations process into a sham. As The Washington Post stated, and I quote, ``The Republicans continue to insist on a make-believe fiscal policy. The familiar fable is that they can cut taxes, finance the boomers' old age and increase defense and selected other spending while maintaining fiscal discipline.'' Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done. It has not been done, and it is a shame.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned. He is right. I am proud of the fact that working men and women of America who are organized support me. They do so because they believe I support them. The gentleman is absolutely correct. He moved in committee to strike provisions. We could build a lot of things a lot cheaper. But do my colleagues know, two Republicans, a gentleman named Davis and a gentleman named Bacon, two Republicans from New York said that they did not want cheap labor, scab labor, people who were brought in to work for wages that could not support themselves and their family? Two Republicans said that is not right. If we are going to spend public money, we ought to pay the people who build them fairly. Now, we just passed a resolution, I will tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), some weeks ago about slave labor building this Capitol. It was much cheaper to do it that way, I will tell the gentleman from California, much cheaper; but it was wrong.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as a member and former Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed Yugoslavia's violent demise this past decade very closely, by traveling there, by meeting officials from there here in Washington, by participating in dozens of Commission hearings on various aspects of the conflict. Throughout this period, it has been obvious that, whatever ethnic animosities might have existed beforehand, the horrific aggression against innocent populations and, yes, genocide, was instigated by Slobodan Milosevic, deliberately, in order to maintain and enhance his power in Serbia. As his nationalist agenda was belatedly but forcefully rejected by the international community under U.S. leadership, Milosevic increasingly resorted to repression at home, against the people of Serbia. There has been opposition to Milosevic for a long time, but only this month did the people, the political opposition and independent forces join together and say ``enough is enough.'' I congratulate those brave Serbs who stood up to a regime that has lied to them, cheated them and denied them their rights for over a decade. The changes taking place in Serbia are, however, good not only for Serbs but for all people in the region. Other problems exist, but, with Milosevic out of the way, the stage is set for long-term stability an economic recovery in southeastern Europe. It is now possible to make the progress we all want so that our troops, doing critical work there, can come home with mission accomplished. Whatever we felt about the deployment in the first place, we should all be able to agree on that. For this reason, I support the decision of the President to provide quick support to the new Yugoslav President, Vojislav Kostunica, and his colleagues. The Conference Report on Foreign Operations Appropriations for fiscal year 2001 similarly reflects the general consensus that assistance needs to be provided to Yugoslavia quickly in order to solidify the gains being made by the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. The country is in a state of transition, and there is no question about the need to send a positive message. Such a message, however, does not preclude a cautionary message. I believe there is a need to place some conditionality on assistance. Cooperation with the Tribunal in The Hague prosecuting war crimes, ending the support for nationalists in neighboring Bosnia and promoting the rule of law and tolerance I agree that we should be flexible, and the conference report reflects a good compromise on the application of conditions. That said, I would like to make the following points. First, the large amount now allocated for Serbia should not come at the expense of ongoing funding for Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria and others in the region who have worked with the international community all along, undertook major burdens themselves and need this assistance. Second, the five month window which exists before the conditions are applied should not lead to throwing all of this money at Belgrade rapidly beforehand, because the conditions may not be met. I could see this happening next February, in the event that insufficient progress has been achieved by that time. Let's hope that progress will take place allowing for certification in accordance with this bill. Third, progress in the rule of law must include addressing the hundreds of ethnic Albanians currently in Serbian prisons and encouraging president Kostunica to continue to look for ways to resolve this issue. In conclusion, I believe a case can be made that the reformists coming into power at this time may not be able to surrender Slobodan Milosevic to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Sooner or later, however, they will need to do so. To do otherwise would not only be an injustice to the literally millions of victims in the former Yugoslavia. It would send the absolutely wrong message to Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro all of whom are cooperating with the Tribunal. It would delay the time by which the people of Serbia will have to reckon with the hideous atrocities committed in their name this past decade, a reckoning which will be absolutely necessary for Serbia to make significant progress in building a society in which the rule of law is respected and tolerance of others is embedded. It is important when discussing these issues to recall that there are also indictees beyond Milosevic living in Serbia. Let us recall exactly what these people are alleged to have done. Three individuals living now in Serbia were directly responsible for pulling over 200 people out of a hospital in Vukovar, Croatia, after the city had been surrendered and guarantees of safety were made, beating them severely and then executing them en masse in a field in late 1991. Another individual, the well known Ratko Mladic, was at the scene when as many as 7,000 Bosnians were similarly executed after being taken from the so-called ``safe haven'' of Srebrenica in 1995. Even if one could find some way to justify the conflicts surrounding these incidents--which I personally cannot do, but maybe some can--these acts were nevertheless heinous crimes, and we cannot put accountability for them at risk. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to read the indictments issued by the Tribunal, particularly the indictments of those responsible for the massacres in Vukovar and Srebrenica. They are available at <www.un.org/icty.indictment>. It is too easy to put the issue of the Tribunal to the side in light of foreign policy objectives, but, if you read what happened, I believe you will agree that justice must remain a pillar of our policy in the Balkans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I would advise him that that is a good theory, but it does not work out in practice.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman, I want to congratulate Kasey, I want to congratulate the new arrival, Kenzie; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. Seven pounds, two ounces, I understand, of beautiful baby girl. As the father of three young women myself, I know the joy of having a daughter. And, of course, I know the gentleman's son well, and he is going to be blessed with his sister. I want to say that I am sure there is not a person in this Chamber or an American anywhere who does not think the gentleman made the right judgment. Congratulations to you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) about omissions, about some things that are not in the House or not in the Senate bills. I would say to my friend, there are commissions and omissions, and we believe there is an omission. There is an opportunity to do the right thing. There is an opportunity to right a wrong. There is an opportunity to correct a mistake made by the Congress of the United States. To not do so when one has the opportunity to do it is, I suggest to my friend from Georgia, an omission and, in addition to that, a grievous omission. This provision has been talked about for months now. It is called Latino fairness. But as the gentleman from Oregon so correctly observed, it is for fairness for everybody. I want to tell my colleagues why I rise on this floor and feel so strongly about this provision. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is on the floor. I am glad he is on the floor. He and I, during the 1980's, were members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. And we are still members of that. And one of the things that we fought shoulder to shoulder to do in the 1980's was to ensure that families would be together, that families would be unified. The issue there was whether or not the Soviet Union was going to allow individuals out of the Soviet Union to unite with their families. The issue here is whether the United States is going to force people out of the United States to become disunited from their families and whether or not we will provide for greater unification of families from throughout Central and South America in a fair way. There ought to be a resounding ``yes'' to that question. There ought to be a resounding ``no'' as the gentleman from Oregon says to this rule so that we cannot commit the omission which has been so grievously perpetrated in this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), my distinguished friend and chairman of the subcommittee, that in some instances he is correct. In Prince George's County, the Head Start program is administered by the school system and they can use Head Start money only for Head Start. They do not have the flexibility, I tell my friend, to put that money in other places. Now, why is that? Why is that? Because 435 of us have been elected by the people of the United States to make policy, to make judgments, to establish priorities. I have full respect for State legislators. I was in the State legislature for 12 years, president of the Senate for my last 4. I respect the members of the State Senate. I respect my county council and my county executive. But, Mr. Speaker, they were not elected to decide how we spend Federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, we had a revenue-sharing program that most on that side of the aisle voted to repeal, as I recall. This is in effect what the gentleman from Illinois is talking about, a revenue-sharing program. I believe, as the gentleman from New Jersey believes, that there is a critical problem in America: A, there is a shortage of teachers; B, there is a shortage of classrooms and we have crowded classrooms. Now, it may not exist in every school system. So what I believe, and what the President believes, is because we have identified a problem, the gentleman is correct, it may not exist in every school system. We are providing a program to respond to that problem. Now, those who represent school districts that think that the teacher-pupil ratio is perfect, that the school buildings do not need rehabilitation, they do not need help with school bonding, then fine. They do not have to take the money. But we have identified as Federal legislators a need, and we are prepared to take the responsibility for appropriating funds to solve that problem. That is where the gentleman and I disagree. He places it in a context that I think is not the premise that I adopted. I am not for controlling the local system. What I am for doing is establishing a Federal policy which says that we need to have small classrooms so that we can educate our children to be competitive in a world-class economy. I think that is essentially what we are trying to do.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand his premise. We have, for instance, billions of dollars in our bill for Head Start. Is it the gentleman's position that we ought to make that flexible so that if a community locally decides that they do not need a Head Start program in that community, they can use those dollars for something else?