Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Am I correct that if we passed the initiative that we have been hoping to pass on making sure that we have more classrooms and more teachers to bring class sizes down and have safe and clean, healthy schools to teach in, am I correct that if a local subdivision did not want to have more teachers, or did not want to do any school construction, that this legislation would not force them to do anything? Am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not correct. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, why you are not correct. What you do is you take a sum of money and you distribute that by formula pursuant to title VI to every school system in America that may or may not have this particular problem that I think I have identified, my constituents have identified; and what you have turned it into is a revenue-sharing program to be disseminated. Some jurisdictions, frankly, are going to get a paltry sum.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if he does, that is fine. Why does he not propose that?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have had this argument in our committee before, and I ask the gentleman why then does he not believe that all the education money that we appropriate in his bill should not be simply block granted? Let me give a specific example.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Illinois, my point was, A, that the money in Head Start is in our bill. I said in our bill. I understand it is not in the education title because it is administered under HHS. It happens to be run by the education department in my county, and about one-quarter of the Head Start programs, as the gentleman knows, in America are under the education departments. Three- quarters are not. My point was that the Head Start money is money that is identified for a particular program. I tell my friend from Illinois that we made a determination that children from at-risk homes needed a special start, a head start. It is a program Ronald Reagan said worked. We, therefore, at the Federal level made a determination that we were going to, in our case, make billions of dollars available, but for this purpose, because we have made, as a Federal legislative body, a determination of a need. My point to you, sir, is that I believe that we have made on our side of the aisle a similar determination that there is a classroom shortage in America, that there are crowded classrooms in America, and that we have a teacher shortage in America as a result of having more students in our schools than any time in our history.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the Un-Congress, as ``The Washington Post'' now calls us, will approve now its fifth continuing resolution, and with it the Federal Government will stay open for an additional 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, I will support, of course, this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. It finally focuses on doing work. For as every one of us knew when we approved the fourth continuing resolution just 6 days ago, not much was going to be done in the 5 days that we lost. We knew it would take a measure such as this. As ``The Washington Post'' again stated, ``The un-Congress continues neither to work nor to adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to deal with issues that it has systematically avoided.'' This Congress has avoided a real patients' bill of rights, it has avoided a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, it has avoided campaign finance reform, and now, of course, it seeks to avoid, I tell my friend from Maryland, the Democratic initiatives on class size reduction and school modernization. It seeks instead to simply parcel out very small sums of money to everybody in America, and perhaps solve no problem, because the monies that everybody will receive will be too small to accomplish any one objective. The mother of all budget train wrecks, those irresponsible and decisive government shutdowns in 1995, Mr. Speaker, has morphed this year into the eerily quiet derailment. After 6 years of Republican leadership, our budget process is in a shambles. It is unnecessarily contentious, it is often disingenuous. And I want to make it clear, as I have made it clear on each one of the four previous continuing resolutions, this is not the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), a distinguished, able, effective and very honest chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who does this institution credit in his leadership. I believe it has contributed to the growing cynicism in our country towards the legislative process. While our budget debate need not degenerate into intransigence, the GOP's approach, in my opinion, over the last 6 years has made such an outcome inevitable. The majority has adopted unrealistic budget resolutions in each of the last 3 years. That is why we are here today, because the budget resolution was unreasonable. And guess what we did just a few hours ago? We changed the budget caps. Why? Because they were not working. In some years, including this one, House and Senate Republicans have been unable to reach agreement even among themselves, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and, although I do not want to put words in your mouth, I am sure you lament as well. Just 2 years ago, Congress failed to enact a budget for the first time in 24 years, since the adoption of the 1974 Budget Act. And I will say to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, that budget could have been adopted without a single Democratic vote. It was not. Both Houses are controlled by the majority party, and they did not adopt a budget. Republicans have loaded up spending bills with legislative riders that, frankly, have no place on appropriation bills. As Chairman Young said recently, ``the thing that is holding us up are the non- appropriation issues that should have been taken care of in authorizing committees.'' Finally, Republicans have proposed spending cuts that even ardent conservatives could not long have lived with. My good friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of our Committee on the Budget, how quickly they forget, released a report on Monday that debunks the myth of big spending Democrats. I want to have my majority party friends hear this. In fact, domestic appropriations have risen faster when the House is controlled by Republicans. I will just let that sink in a while, because it is contrary, of course, to what you argue out on the hustings. So while I urge my colleagues to vote for this continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, and to complete this year's budget, I lament the fact that again we are hung up at the end of a session because of our unwillingness in the majority to confront the educational needs of America's children and America's families. We have been discussing the difference, and the difference is the identification of a critical need in America, that of more classrooms. Why? Because we have more children in school than at any time in our history. And we know that we have a teacher shortage, a quality teacher shortage; and what we seek to do is expand upon the availability of classrooms and of teachers. Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority party to take a hard look at our process. No reasonable person, in my view, can conclude that this is the way this great institution ought to be run. Even Senator Phil Gramm commented in the morning's Post, ``I think the budget process has been destroyed; and I think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily numbered among the assassins.'' So said Phil Gramm. Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better. Let us come to agreement on providing more classrooms and more teachers for our children. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so it would be the local school board's choice, the local citizens' choice whether or not to utilize these resources.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I first want to associate myself with the remarks of all who have said that we ought to condemn violence wherever we find it. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House agrees with that premise. I think we ought to also agree with the premise that the United States really is the best hope for resolution of the peace process as an honest broker. I agree with that premise, but agreeing with that premise does not, in my opinion, adopt another premise, and, that is, that the United States ought not to call things as it sees it. That we do not adopt the facts as we find them. I find the facts to be as have been stated on this floor, that the two parties share a great enmity for one another, but I believe that one of those parties, Israel, has accepted the premise that they will exist in an area with Palestinians and with Arabs. Regrettably, however, I must say to my friends that I am not sure that the Palestinians have accepted the premise that they will live in a neighborhood with the Israelis. It is my view that that is the nub of the problem. Mr. Speaker, because that is the nub of the problem, it is appropriate for us to say so, and it is appropriate for us to urge both sides, but particularly, Mr. Arafat--and I say to my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), who is a dear and good friend of mine--that I think Mr. Arafat does have a responsibility, and to exercise that responsibility, to articulate to his people whom he leads, that peace is the only avenue to bring resolution, and that the 40,000 police force that he commands should, in fact, make a greater effort to maintain peace. We know they cannot do it perfectly, but we would urge them, and do so in this resolution, to accomplish peace in the Middle East through reconciliation and not violence.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) makes an impassioned statement, but the fact of the matter is almost every independent analyst agrees that the reason we have the surplus is the 1990 bill for which most of his colleagues did not vote and excoriated their own President, President Bush, for proposing; the 1993 bill and then the 1997 bipartisan agreement. So that the gentleman's reading of history is sorely wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this CR. Mr. Speaker, I have supported the previous CR's. I rise, representing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member who, unfortunately, has been called off the floor. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the majority are fortunate. They have been fortunate in September; and they have been fortunate in October. Let me tell my colleagues why. The Olympics were on in September and people were focused on the Olympics. The World Series is just about to start. The playoffs have just completed, and the people have been focused on those. And we have a presidential race. It is a tight race, as everybody knows, and the people have been focused on them. All of those events have captured the public's attention and diverted it from what is not going on in this House. What is going on here is that one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world is doing practically nothing. We are at a standstill, Mr. Speaker, and the American people are suffering because of it. No meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, despite the fact that it enjoys wide bipartisan support. No Medicare prescription drug benefit, despite the fact that our seniors need relief from skyrocketing drug prices. No reasonable gun safety legislation. No Hate Crimes bill. No targeted tax relief for hard-working American families. Let me say, we could have passed inheritance tax or estate tax or death tax, call it what you will, relief for 98 percent of the estates in this country and the President said he would have signed it. We could pass legislation to relieve married couples from the penalty that they might incur. But because we could not give all of a loaf, we have passed none of the loaf. As Roll Call stated recently, ``If they paid attention,'' and as I said, they have been distracted because of the Olympics, the World Series, the playoffs, the presidential debate, they, the public, ``surely would be appalled,'' said Roll Call. We are now considering our fourth continuing resolution because the Republican leadership has not had us doing anything this week, the previous week, the week before that, the week before that and, yes, the week before that. Look at the Record. We have hardly met since Labor Day. My distinguished chairman references the fact that we got our work done in July. With all due respect to the chairman, we passed 13 bills by July which all of us on this side said were not going anywhere and, very frankly, we were absolutely correct and, very frankly in my opinion, the majority knew they were not going anywhere. How do I know that? Because they said, well, this is the first inning or the second inning or the third inning, we know this is not the real deal; but at some point in time we will get real. We have not done it yet. We are not there yet. There is still no end in sight. While negotiations have continued behind closed doors, the fact of the matter is the President has still signed only three of the 13 spending bills that fund the basic operations of our government. I ask my colleagues, is this any way to run a railroad? Well, I do not know about that, but it is certainly no way to run the people's House. Even many of our Republican friends are hard pressed to say it is. Last week our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), commented, and I quote Mr. Sanford, not a Democrat, but Mr. Sanford, ``Anarchy reigns at the moment. Nobody is quite sure what comes next.'' Clearly we are not, because we are not told. But the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) from the majority side says, ``Nobody is quite sure what comes next.'' Let me tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle one thing they can count on. Democrats will never, never, never sell out America's children. Our kids need and they deserve smaller class sizes, which improves their learning and achievement. The Democrats' class size reduction initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers does just that. Our kids need, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve safe schools, a great number of which now require repair and renovation. The Democrats' and the President's school modernization initiative does just that. Our kids need and they deserve highly trained and highly qualified teachers. The Democrats' teacher quality initiative does just that. Our kids need and they deserve safe and drug-free schools. The Democrats' safe and drug-free school program does just that. These, however, Mr. Speaker, are not just Democratic priorities. They are the priorities of the American people. If we fail to enact them by passing a Labor-HHS-Education conference report that looks anything like the bill that passed the House in June, of which my chairman spoke, then we have failed future generations. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. I expect, however, it will pass. I do not want to see the government shut down. Nobody on this floor does. But I do want to see us do our work. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has stayed here the last two weekends, has told me that no meetings have been scheduled to work on any of the bills. So that when we go home tonight at some point in time, apparently no work will be done on Friday, no work done on Saturday, no work done on Sunday, no work done on Monday; and we will come back Tuesday at some point in time. As I said, I will vote against this resolution. But I also want to urge the majority party, the party that wanted to eliminate the Department of Education to take education off the chopping block, we can do better, we should do better, we must do better, and the American people and our children deserve better. Let us do, I say to my colleagues of this House, what the voters sent us here to do and pass the bills that meet their needs and address their concerns. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there has been back and forth about who is responsible for this and who is responsible for that. Unfortunately, we do not have the time to fully develop those issues. We ought to in the long run. This is about passing a CR. Everybody on my side of the aisle has voted for the last three CRs. They passed overwhelmingly. Keep the government functioning. We ought to keep the government functioning, but we ought to also, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, do the people's business. What this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, is about the fact that we do not think we are doing the people's business. With all due respect to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the issue is not the funeral on Friday of my good and close friend and a great leader of this country who was tragically lost to us in an airplane crash, Governor Mel Carnahan, Saturday is available to us, Sunday is available to us, Monday is available to us, Tuesday is available to us. But we are not coming back until Tuesday at 6 p.m. Mr. Speaker, essentially what our side of the aisle is saying, through the debate on this continuing resolution, is we ought to address some of the critical issues that had been pending in this House for 8 months and pending in the Senate, pending in the Congress for 8 months. Yes, my colleagues have heard us talk about prescription drugs. Everybody says they are for prescription drugs, because we know the costs of drugs is driving seniors to Draconian choices in their lives. But we are not passing a prescription drug bill, we are having a CR on going home for 5 days. We do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker. That is what this debate is about. We talk about a Patients' Bill of Rights, so that HMOs are not telling doctors and patients what kind of medical care they ought to get, and that they have access to emergency care and they can make choices. The gentleman from Arizona says our educational debate is about who makes the choices, ``bureaucrats,'' used as an epithet, or the people at home. The fact of the matter is on the school construction program, guess what, who makes the choices? The people at home. If they do not build schools, that is their choice. If they do not want to put on more classrooms, that is their choice. We do not force them to do anything. If they do not need teachers and do not hire teachers, we do not force them to. Get off my back with this rhetoric that is phony on choices. None of these programs we are talking about force locals to do anything, and the gentleman knows it, but he thinks it is good political rhetoric. I understand that. This CR is about whether we are going to do the people's business. That is what this debate is about. I think, as I said, that this CR may pass. If it does not pass, then we ought to pass a second CR until Monday night and come back Saturday, after we observe the funeral for Mel Carnahan, and do our work on Saturday; and yes, go to church Sunday morning, come here in the afternoon, and do the people's business. Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about, not about a CR which says we have not done our business, and therefore we are going to continue government in operation until Tuesday night or Wednesday night. We all agree on that. It is about whether we are going to go away from here 2\1/2\ weeks after we said we were going to adjourn without doing the critical business on the public's agenda. That is what this debate has been about, that is what this discussion is about; not to look at the past, at what has been done and who is responsible or who is not. It is about, Mr. Speaker, whether we are going to pass these critical programs: prescription drugs, campaign finance reform, education, more teachers, more classrooms, smaller sizes, particularly for young children, which all the experts say need specific attention. If they get it, we will lift them up and make them better students in the upper grades. We will therefore have a better America and a more competitive America. That is what this discussion on this CR is about. I would hope we would defeat this CR, Mr. Speaker. I would hope we would defeat this CR. Then, Mr. Speaker, because I know the gentleman is a man of such good will and purpose and responsibility, I would ask the chairman that we come back on the floor, pass the CR until Monday night, as the gentleman from Massachusetts wanted to do, come back here Saturday, do our work, come back here Sunday afternoon, do our work, come back here Monday, and perhaps be able to leave. If the gentleman does not agree with the President, fine, send him a bill. Let him veto it, and criticize him. I do not know why Members do not send the bills. I have a hunch that they are afraid that the American public will say he is right and they are wrong, so they do not send the bills down. I hope this CR is defeated, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have time to correct all the misstatements of the gentleman from California. Suffice it to say, however, as he leaves the floor, that from 1981 through 1992, not a penny was spent in the United States from Social Security, from anyplace else, that was not approved by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Not a penny. Why? Because we never overrode a veto of a spending bill that asked for more spending of Ronald Reagan. Never. So the fact of the matter is that it is Presidents who make policy. We make the laws, I understand that. But in your lament that Bill Clinton will not sign the bills you want signed, your tax bill of 1998 would have wiped out that surplus that you now so proudly say you want to pay down the debt with. It has been Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress that have brought us this surplus. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it the proposition of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) if we did not pass this CR and we still continue another 24 hours, because the CR expires, as the gentleman said 24 hours from now or 36 hours from now, that the agencies, both Social Security and the Veterans Administration, would not go ahead over the next 24 hours or 36 hours and prepare to send out these checks?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the majority whip says the truth has not been told on this side of the aisle. I beg to differ with my friend, and I certainly beg to differ with his recitation of history. He relates that the President has vetoed every one of the bills where they tried to cut spending. Now, if that is the case then the fact is that nothing they did on their side has brought us this surplus. The CBO says that, in fact, the Republican Congresses have added to the deficit, not cut it. Now I will remind the public that in 1993, the majority whip stood on this floor and said if we pass the President's economic program, the deficit is going to soar, unemployment is going to soar, inflation is going to soar, and the economy will go in the Dumpster. He was 180 degrees wrong. In fact, we now have the best economy in the lifetimes of anybody in this Chamber because of the leadership of this President and the courage of Members to vote for tough programs, tough spending cuts and tough revenues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion. This bill renames the wonderful National Museum of American Art as the ``Smithsonian American Art Museum''. This museum is dedicated to the arts and artists of the United States, and its collections and enable the public to enjoy America's visual arts both at the museum and on-line. The museum, part of the Smithsonian Institution, shares the historic Patent Building with the National Portrait Gallery. Known first as the National Gallery of Art, and later as the National Collection of Fine Arts, Congress in 1980 gave the museum its present name, at the Smithsonian's request, to reflect its mission and to conform to the style of the other Smithsonian ``national'' museums. However, since 1980, dozens of other museums have assumed the designation ``national'' in their names, thus weakening the Smithsonian's distinction as America's primary museum of works by American artists. Visitors to Washington are doubly confused by the presence on the Mall of the current National Gallery of Art, which is not part of the Smithsonian Institution. This change will clarify the museum's mission and status, and it is hoped, increase visitation numbers as museumgoers better understand and discover the contents and location of this important part of the Smithsonian. This non-controversial legislation has the support of the Smithsonian's Secretary and Board of Regents, and passed the Senate without dissent. I urge its passage by this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2498, to authorize $2.0 million in fiscal 2001 and $2.5 million in fiscal 2002 to construct a new sea-level base camp for the Smithsonian Submillimeter Array at Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii. The array is a state-of-the art radio telescope located at the 14,000 foot elevation which uses high resolution and high frequencies to produce images 50 times sharper than current telescopes. This observation site, one of the finest and most important in the world, greatly enhances the ability of scientists to understand, study and track the birth of stars, quasars, and other phenomena. S. 2498, sponsored by Senator Moynihan, passed the Senate unanimously on June 14, 2000 and was referred to the committee on House Administration. The identical House measure, H.R. 4729, was introduced by Representative Matsui of California, who is a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. It was cosponsored by Representatives Mink and Abercrombie and myself. Passage of S. 2498 by the House today will clear this measure for the President. Funding for the base-camp project, which is expected to be completed in 2002, has been included in the interior appropriations bill for fiscal 2001, so passage of this authorization bill will complete the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, this support facility is needed because, due to the altitude, harsh weather and working conditions at the summit, array operations and staff must be located at sea level with only a small staff traveling to the array on any given day. Economical leasing space is not available in the Hilo area, and construction of the base facility will obviate the need for expensive commercial space in that city. According to the Smithsonian, estimated rental costs for the 30- year life cycle of the array would be more than double that of the base facility being authorized here. The project will provide 16,000 square feet of electronics laboratories, offices and support space for maintenance of the array, under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory. Like other organizations basing observations at Mauna Kea, the support structure will be built on land donated by the University of Hawaii at Hilo Science Park for $1 a year. Mr. Speaker, we live in an age of exploration, and there are few things which so stir the imagination as the exploration of space. In recent years we have discovered planets orbiting distant stars, gained new understanding of the age of the universe, and discovered phenomena which have forced us to reexamine our understanding of the laws of physics and the underpinnings of the natural world. The Smithsonian Institution has played a leading role in the advancement of mankind's understanding of the physical world we can see and touch, as well as of the distant universe, and the world of the imagination which projects like the submillimeter array make real to us. I strongly support this legislation and I complement Representative Matsui and the Smithsonian regents from the House, Representatives Regula and Sam Johnson of Texas, for their initiative in bringing it before us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic is one of the deadliest foes that we have faced in recent history. Like any foe, we must learn all we can about this deadly virus and take appropriate action to halt its assault on society. One of the first steps in stopping the spread of HIV is to know if one is infected. A recent study showed that 90% of the people who knew their HIV status changed their sexual behavior, thus helping to stop the spread of HIV. This statistic illustrates the importance of knowing one's HIV status. I believe it is essential for all U.S. citizens to be aware of their HIV status. This will not only help them stay healthy, but it is the first step in preventing the transmission of HIV to other. Unfortunately, many people in this country are unaware of their HIV status. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 900,000 people may be infected with HIV and nearly one-third of these individuals or 270,000 are unaware of their HIV status. We must ensure that people have access to all FDA approved HIV tests. It is the simplest and cheapest form of prevention. A barrier to HIV testing is that it is often perceived as painful because some testing requires blood samples taken through needles. Many people fear needles and therefore would rather not be tested than give blood. I am pleased to learn that there is FDA approved technologies that do not require the use of needles. Companies like Calypte Biomedical, which is located in my own state of Maryland and in California, have focused on developing HIV diagnostic test than do not use needles, such as the HIV urine tests. Why then are so many not being tested? It has come to my attention that some facilities within the public health infrastructure are discouraging local community testing groups from using HIV tests that require only a urine sample. Some states have even passed legislation that prevents organizations from accessing FDA approved HIV urine testing technologies. It is critical that our public health infrastructure, which receives Federal Medicare, Medicaid and block grant funds, supports all FDA approved HIV testing systems. In our efforts to help people learn their HIV status, we must guarantee access to all HIV testing options, like urine testing. A first step in this direction is to become involved in the upcoming National AIDS Testing Day. The National AIDS Testing Day is coordinated by the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA), which Calypte Biomedical supports. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to become involved with this effort.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion. This bill resembles one that I introduced in April. It will resolve the sole remaining issue raised in the annual audit of Library financial operations by giving the Library statutory authority to operate its gift revolving funds. The bill creates three revolving funds, one to support the Library's audio-visual duplication and delivery services; a second to support its gift shop, decimal cataloging and photo duplication services; and a third to support ``FEDLINK,'' the program that acquires library materials for other agencies, and the Federal Research Division, which conducts research for other agencies. Enactment of this measure will result in significant savings to the Library and its customers by improving financial management of these programs. The Library estimates that FEDLINK's agency customers will collectively save over $1.3 million annually through administrative efficiencies and increased vendor discounts. In addition, the bill adds the vice-chair of the Joint Committee on the Library to the trust fund board, to ensure representation from both Houses. Finally, to facilitate the work of the Library's trust fund board, the bill adjusts its quorum requirement. It also permits the board chairman to request that members whose terms have expired continue to serve for up to a year, or until their successors are qualified, whichever comes first. Mr. Speaker, this is a good-housekeeping bill that will save money for the Library and its customers while resolving auditors' concerns. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman, who is one of the real leaders in our House and in this Nation on defense policy. We lament the loss of those four brave sailors. We pray for the injured, the missing, and for their families. And we reiterate what the chairman's sentiment that there will be no division, there will be no partisanship, there will be no disagreement on standing together in defense of our forces around the world to maintain freedom and peace. I thank the gentleman for his comments and join with him in that sentiment.