Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. I regret that I was late getting here to speak. I reiterate my respect, affection and empathy for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has tried to get this process going. During debate of the last two CR's, I talked about that and made similar comments. I am not going to spend so much time on the appropriations bills. We are late. We have been late in the past, as I am sure the chairman has observed earlier. I rise today at the occasion of the passage of this CR to lament the fact that not only have we not completed the appropriations bills, which I know that the ranking member has spoken eloquently about already, but we have some outstanding critical agenda items that have been discussed in the two Presidential debates and the Vice Presidential debate. There has been a lot of talk about how we are going to work together and how we are going to have bipartisanship so that we can have action. There has been a lot of talk about the fact that we have not accomplished certain objectives over the past few years. I lament the fact that we have not accomplished those objectives, as well. In my opinion, we have not accomplished them because we had leadership and a majority in this House that did not want to accomplish them. The Patients' Bill of Rights. We passed a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. Not only has the appropriations process been languishing, but Patients' Bill of Rights has been languishing, unpassed, unsigned and, as a result, unhelpful to the American public. Prescription drugs. The debaters say they are for prescription drugs. Some debaters say, well, why have you not gotten it done? Well, for the same reason we have not gotten the appropriations bills done and we need a CR, because the majority party has not moved them forward. We want prescription drugs under Medicare for every senior guaranteed them. And by the way, no government HMO, as some ads and the statement of the chairman seem to reflect. We have not passed a prescription drug bill, just as we have not passed the overwhelming majority of the appropriations bills. Why? Because the majority has not sent them to the President for signature. Education, on everybody's radar screen, is the number one issue in America because the public knows that educating our children is critical to the future of our Nation. The President stood, Mr. Speaker, on the dias in front of us and said, we need to provide more classrooms, we need to provide more teachers, and we need to provide smaller classes, particularly for our young children in kindergarten to third grade. Why? So they can compete in a world-class economy and be world-class citizens. Both candidates talk about that. But the Labor-Health bill still languishes with those provisions. Why? Because the majority has not come to grips with passing legislation to ensure there is school construction funding for more classrooms, safer classrooms. We have not provided for the additional teachers that the President asked for in January. Here we are 9 months later. Why? For the same reason the appropriation bills languish and have not been signed by the President of the United States. Yes, the President has vetoed one appropriation bill. He sent it back to Congress. That bill is now pending passage in the Senate. But most of these bills have never gotten to the President, not because of the chairman, but because the other side has not come to grips with exercising its majority to pass the needed legislation. So whether it is Patients', whether it is prescription drugs, whether it is more classrooms for our children and more teachers so that to ensure a quality education, those bills have not been passed. Yes, I will vote for this CR. And, like the ranking member, I will implore our majority to make sure that the next CR is for 1 day only so that we get our work done. We must press forward not only with these appropriation bills but with the critical agenda put before us by the President of the United States 9 months ago. Mr. Speaker, let's hope that the third time is a charm. Let's hope that this third continuing resolution gives us the time we need to finally complete our work on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. Let's hope the majority leader, Mr. Armey, is correct when he says that we are within ``an inch or two from closure'' of the appropriations process. Because from where I'm standing--and I think the vast majority of members might agree with me on this--we've still got a mile to go, it's an uphill hike, and we've got legislative riders dragging us back down. The President has signed only three appropriations bills into law. He is expected to sign two others--agriculture and transportation. But that leaves eight bills undone, including energy and water, which was vetoed. Now, I appreciate the Majority Leader's optimism. You might call it irrational exuberance. However, I think most Members of this body tend to agree with my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford. He is quoted in Rollcall this morning as saying: ``Anarchy reigns at the moment. Nobody is quite sure what comes next.'' Over on the other side of Capitol Hill, Senator McCain didn't mince words either. He commented: ``It's just what I predicted--the biggest train wreck in history.'' Mr. Speaker, as I've said repeatedly, the blame for this budget debacle does not lie at the feet of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend Mr. Young. I empathize with the Chairman. He has done a very good job under trying circumstances. But his hands have been tied in this process, specifically by the GOP's unrealistic budget resolution that made a mockery of our appropriations process this year. And today, we're living with the fallout. As my friend, Mr. Spratt, the ranking Member of the Budget Committee, noted earlier this week, this Republican Congress--which pretends to be fiscally disciplined--has already appropriated $10.6 billion more in budget authority in five bills sent to the President than the President requested for those bills. Our sticking point continues to be the substantive riders, which are a staple of GOP budget strategy: Barring the EPA from issuing stricter limits on arsenic levels in drinking water; Preventing the EPA from requiring polluters to clean up the contaminated sediments that they have deposited on river bottoms; and Blocking the Interior Department from imposing new environmental controls on the hard-rock mining industry. I completely agree with Chairman Young, who was quoted on the hill yesterday as saying: ``The thing that is holding us up are the non- appropriations issues that should have been taken care of in authorizing committees. If we only dealt with appropriations issues, we would have been finished.'' Yes, we would. But instead we are in a situation where the majority whip, Mr. DeLay, says he doesn't ``have a clue'' when we will adjourn. This morning, he is quoted as saying that this budget fight could ``go to the end of October. It could go up to November 6.'' Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has shown time and again that it would rather block than lead. On a patients' bill of rights. On a Medicare prescription drug benefit. On a minimum wage increase. The American people have a right to demand more than the bare minimum. And, with yet another continuing resolution, this Republican majority proves that it can't even give them that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I adopt the remarks made by the ranking member and the chairman as well as my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), with respect to this bill. I am a strong supporter of its provisions as it deals with readiness and as it deals with quality of life for our members of the armed services. I want to talk about really an extraneous provision on this bill which I am very pleased with. The National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control issued a report in 1973 called America Burning. For the Fire Service, this was a turning point in its 350-year history. This is another turning point. The fire package attached to this conference report is a scaled-back version of legislation offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has championed his fire act tirelessly for the past 2 years. Some told the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) that it would not happen. I note that on the floor today, as well, is my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who cochairs the Fire Service Caucus with me. He and I are still working on getting an additional $100 million in emergency funds available for our fire fighters. To the credit of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), he never lost faith. He pushed and working together with all of us in the Fire Service Caucus, and I note the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is also on the floor with me. We have one of the finest pieces of legislation for fire fighters this Congress has ever passed, and I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and Senator Warner as well, for their leadership and help on this, and congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his work on this as well. To his credit, he never lost faith. He pushed, cajoled, and lobbied tirelessly to move his legislation forward. As a cochair of the Fire Caucus I would like to thank him, the Fire Service organizations and literally thousands of fire fighters from across the Nation for all their hard work. I would also like to thank my fellow cochairs Rob Andrews, Curt Weldon, and Sherry Boehlert for all their leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, as I said before this is a watershed moment for the Fire Service and I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) so he might explain the unanimous consent request.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, and I thank him for his work on this. I certainly want to say to our friends in the Senate, Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin and others who have worked on this legislation, that we are very pleased that it is here. We are pleased that, with the gentleman from New York, we were able to get agreement on the unanimous consent. I rise in very strong support of the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to discuss a landmark piece of legislation that will improve the lives of over four million individuals with developmental disabilities--The Reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act. The road to passing The Reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act has been long and tortuous. The Reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act was passed originally by the Senate around the same time this month, last year. We had some problems moving it here in the House, but were finally successful in passing a House version in July during the 10th anniversary celebration of The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As the lead sponsor of the ADA 10 years ago, I was especially pleased to be able to work on another important piece of disability legislation while celebrating the passage of civil rights for people with disabilities. Today we are here to pass a joint resolution that incorporates technical changes we made here in the House and re-pass the Senate's version. This bill originated in the Senate, and out of respect for the hard work of Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and Harkin, we would like to send the original Senate bill to the President to sign. The DD Act has not been substantially reauthorized since 1994, and is in need of some updating. Just as our technology and science evolves every day, so do the strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with developmental disabilities. Individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require interaction with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance as well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The DD Act seeks to provide a voice for those with developmental disabilities, those with mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy and epilepsy, as they navigate through the complicated system of public services, policies and organizations that we currently have in place. The DD Act seeks to provide families with the knowledge and tools they need to help individuals with developmental disabilities become integrated and included in their communities, to foster true independence of those with developmental disabilities and protect themselves from abuse and neglect. Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today, ready to pass the final version of the Developmental Disabilities Act, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge and remind all of my colleagues of the battle that people with disabilities have fought in order to obtain basic civil rights. It is appropriate that the House passed the first version of this bill on the 10th anniversary of the ADA, and today as we pass this final version of the Developmental Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court is hearing a case that may significantly alter the civil rights protections granted in the ADA. Today the court is hearing oral arguments to review whether Congress had the authority to abrogate State immunity and enforce the ADA's antidiscrimination protections against State governments. A negative ruling from the Supreme Court could call into question altogether the constitutionality of title II of the ADA, as well as other disability rights statutes. As someone who was there during the debates on the ADA, these questions aren't hard to answer. There was a great deal of discrimination going on at the State level--people with disabilities were segregated into institutions; children were discriminated against in public school; public transportation didn't accommodate wheelchairs; and there was a history of section 504 litigation that proved discrimination was happening at the State level. The Bush administration's own national council on disability documented the discrimination in its report to Congress. We can't let the court turn back the clock on disability rights in the same year that we are celebrating the anniversary of these important protections. The ADA allowed us to tear down the wall of exclusion and pour a strong foundation for the house of equality. But that house--in which Americans are judged by their ability and not their disability--is still being built. The promise remains unfulfilled, but still is within reach. I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding civil servant, Mr. James L. Harrison, of Bethesda, Maryland, who died October 5, 2000, at age 94. Mr. Harrison was the 16th Public Printer of the United States, serving during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations, and overseeing a fundamental and far-reaching transformation of the Government Printing Office during his tenure. Mr. Harrison came to the Government during the Great Depression, working as a draftsman at the Bureau of the Census. He later transferred to the Office of Price Administration, rising to the position of liaison officer at the Capitol, a post he occupied until the OPA was disbanded in 1947. In 1949, he became Staff Director of the Congress' Joint Committee on Printing, where for 12 years he worked tirelessly to improve the speed and efficiency of the Government's printing operations. It was through the Joint Committee that Mr. Harrison began his long association with GPO, the organization through which he would make his greatest contributions to the Nation. In March 1961, following his appointment as Public Printer by President John F. Kennedy, Mr. Harrison took direct control of the Government's printing and publications dissemination work. His successes at the GPO are summarized eloquently in this excerpt from ``The Government Printing Office,'' written by Robert E. Kling, Jr., in 1970: Under Harrison, the Government Printing Office entered a period of growth and progress. Dollar volume leaped from less than $100 million in 1961 to more than $200 million in 1969. Documents sales jumped from about $9 million to $20 million over the same period. The far-reaching Harrison policy of sharing the government's printing requirements with industry led to a steady increase in work supplied by contract printers. In 1961, commercial printers provided 42 percent of the annual volume; in 1970, 57 percent, or $103 million worth of printing, was done by private industry. Harrison made strenuous efforts to improve working conditions and environment in the plant, and during his tenure took a keen interest in upgrading the equipment used in supplying the U.S. Government's printing needs. Under his direction, a major part of the Office's outmoded and obsolete equipment was replaced by modern, more efficient machinery. In keeping with nationwide trends in the industry, letterpress was supplanted by offset as the main production method . . . offset presses with high running rates and low plating and press preparation costs keep GPO prices competitive with those of the best commercial firms. Mr. Kling could not have foreseen an even further-reaching modernization to the GPO that Mr. Harrison pioneered: the introduction of GPO's electronic typesetting system. This revolutionary change freed the Office of storing, melting, and molding tons of lead in its daily printing operations by converting to electronic database operations. By the time his term as Public Printer ended in March 1970, Mr. Harrison had laid the groundwork for today's on-line editions of the Congressional Record, U.S. Code, and other essential Government publications. As a result of the technological changes that Mr. Harrison initiated, the American public today retrieves an average of more than 25 million Government documents a month from the GPO's on- line service, GPO Access. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we pay tribute to this man who brought so much insight and energy to the public's work. James Harrison's leadership at GPO produced results that not only saved public money, but also built a strong foundation for information technologies developed decades after his tenure ended and which today benefit all Americans. He was, moreover, a friend of the dedicated men and women of the Government Printing Office. He will be missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and say we see a lot of partisanship, but one of the positive things for me in this Congress is working with the Washington metropolitan delegation which is very bipartisan. It is almost half and half in terms of its makeup, and we work very well together. This was a great success for our region and for our country. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and our four Senators who worked so hard on reaching this objective. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for yielding to me.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this conference report and particularly to discuss the component of this conference report which deals with the Treasury Postal bill, of which I have the honor of being the ranking member and working with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). As the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) indicated in his opening remarks, this has been a difficult bill and difficult for us to come to agreement between ourselves and with the administration, but I believe we have done so. I believe we have done so in a very responsible fashion, which provides for an additional sum for the IRS, which is critical for the agency to meet the mandates of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. I think there is agreement on that between the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and myself in our subcommittee. Without this funding, a successful completion of the 2001 filing season would quite possibly have been at risk. Customer service would have been reduced and audit coverage could have continued to decline. In addition, this legislation continues the modernization of the IRS by upgrading its computer systems and business practices. All of that was critically important to do, and I am pleased that we are adding a sum sufficient to accomplish those objectives in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, it also includes more than $37 million in funding to counter terrorist threats along our northern border, enhances the Federal Government's joint terrorism task force, and to establish a new national terrorist asset tracking center, which was very important to the administration. They had asked for $50 million. They did not get all $50 million but they got about $38 million, and that was a significant step forward in countering terrorism. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conference for including sums, and this is the transportation conference, so that we might complete the reconstruction of the Wilson Bridge. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report, both because the transportation side of it is good, and I think the Treasury Postal side is a very good step forward. I want to join in the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, with reference to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Frank Wolf is a good friend of mine. He is a man of great character, intellect and deep integrity. He is a fine Member of this body, and he has, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) indicated, led this committee for 6 years, in a very, very bipartisan and substantive way. And I join the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) in his complimentary remarks about the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is such an important Member of the Washington metropolitan delegation. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, and thank, as he did, the staff: my own staff, Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance who worked very hard on this bill. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his words about them, and then Michelle Mrdeza who is our staff director. She does an extraordinary job trying to keep all the component parts of our bill together. It has been a very difficult year for her, because, as all of my colleagues know, we have had some problems on the Senate side passing the bill. I also want to thank Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Doug Burke, and Tammy Hughes for their work on this bill. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said and as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said and as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said, we cannot do this work without very conscientiousness, very able, very hard-working staff; and although this has been a difficult process, they have stayed with it, and their effort was a critical component of our success. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will support the conference report, which includes the additions which I think will make the Treasury Postal bill a signable bill by the President.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah for his comments and his undertaking the responsibility to make sure this bill passes in a timely fashion. He is one of the good Members of this body and is always there when you need him. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak in support of H.R. 5212, as amended, the Veterans' Oral History Project Act. The manager's amendment in my opinion has strengthened an already good bill and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for all their work in getting this legislation to the floor. This bill directs the American Folklife Center, as the gentleman from Utah said, at the Library of Congress to establish a program to collect video and audio of personal histories and testimonials of America's war veterans. Our war veterans include 19 million men and women who risked their lives so that this bold experiment in democracy could flourish. Their record of valor, courage, and bravery is unmatched in world history. The numbers of men and women, Mr. Speaker, who have served our Nation is staggering: 4.7 million in World War I; 16.5 million in World War II; 6.8 million in the Korean War; 9.2 million in the Vietnam War; and 3.8 million in the Persian Gulf War. Of these veterans, almost 19 million are still with us today. In my district, there are more than 11,000 military retirees. Though these numbers are astounding, the veterans' stories and achievements are even more remarkable. Among these 19 million nationwide and 11,000 in Maryland's fifth district are the Doughboys, who broke the German resistance at Meuse- Argonne and forged victory in World War I; the brave paratroopers who jumped behind enemy lines and the courageous soldiers who charged the beaches of Normandy; the men who endured the vicious fighting in the Pacific theater, including five brutal months at Guadalcanal. These veterans climbed Pork Chop Hill and endured the losses at Heartbreak Ridge in the Korean War, a war, Mr. Speaker, whose 50th anniversary we are honoring this year. They quietly patrolled the rivers in search for a hidden enemy in the jungles of Vietnam. These 19 million veterans saw their countrymen fall around them; yet they continued to march forward. They continued to fight, not for their personal glory, but for our freedom. By passing this bill, Mr. Speaker, we allow their firsthand accounts to become part of our Nation's history. It is imperative that we act soon, tonight. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 572,000 veterans will die this year, including an estimated 1,500 World War II veterans each day, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) pointed out. As we lose these men and women of courage, we also lose their stories of valor and honor. We must make every effort to learn their stories. These remembrances will help not only those interested in America's past; they will guide those who will lead America's future. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate two of our body, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a Democrat, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a Republican, two distinguished Representatives in this body, who have joined together to make sure that we remember and that generations yet to come will remember. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a distinguished leader on this legislation, whose efforts, along with those of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), have resulted in this being on the floor and on the front lobes of our brains tonight, and ask that he be allowed to control this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time to me, and again I rise, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) rose, to say to my distinguished chairman and friend, who does a great service for this institution of the House and a great service for the Committee on Appropriations, and it is a better committee for his service, but unfortunately, he was given a no-win task at the beginning of this year. Mr. Speaker, let me quote: ``Nobody has ever done this many this quick in less time.'' Some may recall that that was the self- congratulatory statement in July of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), regarding this body's passage of all 13 appropriation bills through the House. Even, frankly, the New York Times could not contain itself. The headline over a story earlier this year cried out, ``GOP passes spending bills at record clip.'' But oh, what a difference a few months makes, and, I might say, a dose of reality. We had passed in July and sent to the President two of 13 appropriation bills that were signed into law. August came and went. September came and went. We have two bills signed by the President of the United States and 11 still pending. Now, we have passed the energy and water, and the President says he is going to veto that. So the two out of 13 was the same as we had in July, and despite the fact that both chambers have since passed the energy and water spending bill, the President vowed again just the other day to veto it. In addition to the haste, I might say, that we passed these bills in, there was a great deal of hubris, too, on the part of the leadership, which acted as if we could disregard the views of the minority and the fact that it only held a six-seat margin. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that that makes it difficult. I agree. The only way it can be done is for us to come together and work together, realizing that the American people have elected 435 folks who have differences of opinion, 100 members of the Senate who have differences of opinion, and, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out and I referenced last week when we passed the CR, a president of the United States who does not agree with some of us. Apparently it just never occurred to the Republican leadership that it needed to or should reach out to Democrats and to the President and try to strike a bipartisan budget resolution last April. That is why we are here, because the budget resolution passed on a partisan vote was not reasonable, was not acceptable, and could not be implemented, no matter how talented the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or the subcommittee chairmen were on the Committee on Appropriations. Everybody knew that and said it in April. That is why we are here. Instead, they forged ahead, and I do not mean the chairman. He was directed to do that. They forged ahead with a budget plan that even many of my Republican friends knew was unrealistic and could not be implemented. Were we really going to eliminate Head Start for more than 40,000 children to make room for big tax cuts? Were we really going to cut more than 600 FBI agents and 500 DEA agents? Were we really going to provide Pell grants to 316,000 less young people to go to college? Of course not. Neither that side of the aisle nor this side of the aisle thought that was going to occur. So in failing to come up with a reasonable budget resolution, and I want to tell the Members, I voted for a couple. I particularly voted for the one that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) offered which said, let us do 50 percent debt reduction, 25 percent for investment and 25 percent for targeted tax cuts. That made sense. Even if we did one-third and one-third and one-third, that would have made sense. Now, however, because of our failure to enact a reasonable budget resolution, we are operating in an unrestrained, unidentified budget context without parameters. I do not think that is what anybody wants to do. It is certainly not what I want to do. Yesterday my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), a Republican leader in this House, a man of great wisdom, in my opinion, and great integrity, he is a member of the Committee on Appropriations whom I respect and who understands the necessity of legislative consensus, he was quoted in Roll Call: ``We knew all along we would appear to be losing when we broke these limits in the budget resolution.'' So this was predictable. The day of reckoning was as foreseeable as the beginning of the new school year, the turning of leaves, and the start of the football season. The responsibility for this logjam lies with those who thought this budget resolution was reasonable. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, however, obviously, to vote for this continuing resolution. It is not the Chairman's fault that this continuing resolution is here. We have not finished our business. Who is responsible for that? All of us. We understand that. But I speak not so much in a partisan vein but for this institution, because if we come together, whether it is next year or the year after or whatever, in an attempt to pass appropriation bills that we can send to the President in a timely fashion, then we will not lose the leverage as a legislature, and forget about Republicans, Democrats, or who is president, but as a legislative body. But every week that goes by, we lose leverage. That is not good for the institution of the Congress. I argued that when we were in control, and I will argue it when they are in control. Let us work together to approve the remaining spending bills. I just voted for one. I was glad to see it passed. I hope the President signs it. That is what we should have been doing all along. I want to tell my friends, I think that 90 percent of the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations knew that to be the case and wanted to do that. I hope we can do that, Mr. Chairman, as we conclude this session, and I hope we certainly can do it next year, whatever the outcome of the election. Again, in closing, let me congratulate the chairman. Let me congratulate the ranking member. I do not know anybody in this body who works harder, who is more conscientious, who is more courageous in standing up for his beliefs and the beliefs of his party than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). But I very frankly think that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) are working together in a way in which America can be proud and can place its trust in. I am just sorry that they could not get the rest of us perhaps to go along in as bipartisan a fashion as they most of the time have the opportunity to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) meant extra innings, we know what the gentleman meant.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this continuing resolution, as I presume most of us will. But let us recognize what we are doing for what it really is. It is the budgetary cap stone to 6 years of the Republican's Perfectionist Caucus. I do not remember how many remember Speaker Gingrich's speech to the Perfectionist Caucus in 1998, but it was a compelling and accurate speech as to why we are here right now. Now, my very close friend for whom I have great respect, and I emphasize that because I want the public to know that in a bipartisan way, I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee, does an excellent job. And, frankly, had his caucus listened to him and the other appropriators as to what we should be doing, we would not be here now. But the Perfectionist Caucus moniker was born 2 years ago when then Speaker Gingrich walked on to this floor and chastised his Republican colleagues, the Perfectionist Caucus, not all of these Republican colleagues, for urging the defeat of an omnibus spending measure. Perhaps they would do so again this year. After 4 years in the majority, it seems Mr. Gingrich had finally seen the light. But not before these things had happened: The GOP failed to pass a budget at all in 1998. The first time we had not passed a budget since the adoption of the Budget Act in 1974. And not before the GOP dared the President to veto a disaster relief bill in 1997 to which Republicans had attached controversial policy riders. And not before the GOP provoked two Federal Government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996. Pleading for compromise 2 years ago, Mr. Gingrich who was pleading for compromise, Mr. Gingrich stated and I quote: ``Surely,'' this is Mr. Gingrich's quote, in case anybody missed it. ``Surely those of us who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last 4 years that we have to work together on the big issues. If we do not work together on big issues, nothing gets done.'' So said Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House. Well, now we know that common sense advice went in one ear and out the other. With all due respect to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) who gets on the floor and says we have passed all 13 appropriations bills, the gentleman is absolutely right. And we knew at that time that at least 11 of those appropriation bills were not real and could not pass, and would bring us to an impasse. The gentleman knew that. I do not expect him to get up on the floor and say he knew that. But I know that in his heart, he knew we were right. Mr. Speaker, today we are living with those results. With only 5 days left before the start of the fiscal year in 2001, we have failed to complete our work on 11 of the 13 must-pass appropriation bills. Continuing resolutions, of course, are not unusual. Since 1977, we have completed our work on all 13 spending bills on only four times in that period of time. But in the 6 years under this majority, we have completed our work on two or fewer appropriation bills by October 1 four separate times. That is 4 out of 6 years, less than two. In 1995, none were completed in time. Not one. In 1997 and 1998, we completed one bill each. So my colleagues on the Republican side are 100 percent ahead of where they were in 1995 and 1996. I suppose that is some sort of progress. And this year we finished just two. The die for this end-of-the-year budget debacle was cast 6 months ago. It was inevitable. It was predictable and we all knew, at least on the Committee on Appropriations, on both sides of the aisle, that we were going to be here today doing exactly what we are doing. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, correctly predicted in April when the GOP passed its budget resolution, and I quote, ``This resolution puts us on a track for another budgetary train wreck in September.'' Mr. Speaker, he said that in April. He predicted then we would have a train wreck in September. He said that their budget ``calls for deep cuts in domestic programs to make room for very large tax cuts.'' Let me be precise. The GOP's budget resolution calls for $175 billion tax cuts over 5 years. That is 12 percent more than the Congress passed and the President vetoed the year before. Nobody was surprised at what the outcome of these proposals was going to be. They just did not care. Inevitably, we are here. Yet in urging passage of the budget resolution conference report on April 13, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) stated, and I quote, ``I am disappointed that we do not have four times as much tax relief in this bill.'' I do not know where he thought he was going to get the votes to pass appropriation bills under that circumstance. It is one thing to hail huge tax cuts. We all like to say that. It is something all together different to explain how one would actually pay for them, how we would get there. The huge tax cuts in this year's budget resolution would have necessitated cuts in non-defense discretionary of $121.5 billion over 5 years, in education, in health care, in law enforcement, in all of the work that the Federal Government does. There were not the votes on that side of the aisle to accomplish those cuts. Period. And certainly not in the Senate on that side of the aisle. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a soul in this body who thought for a minute that such Draconian cuts would ever happen. Notwithstanding that, we passed these bills knowing that we would be here in this situation 5 days before the end of the fiscal year. Thus, this ill-conceived budget resolution which made a shambles of our appropriations process this year put us in this predicament. As The Washington Post observed, and I quote, ``The appropriation process is again a charade in which the Republicans pretend to be making cuts in domestic spending that in the end they know they will lack the votes to sustain, and with good reason; some of the cuts would do real harm. The first round of appropriation bills,'' they went on to say, ``is mainly for show.'' The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), my friend, knew that. He characterized that as: Well, we are in the second or third inning. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what inning we are in now, but it is obviously getting late in the ball game. The gentleman said then that: ``We will get real then. We will fix these bills.'' I think he was right and hopefully we are going to. Mr. Speaker, the blame for this budget mess lies squarely with Members of the Republican's Perfectionist Caucus, so coined by your predecessor, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, who failed to heed the advice of their Speaker 2 years ago and instead adopted an unrealistic budget this year that disrupted the entire appropriations process. After 6 years in the majority, I really have to wonder just how long, in the words of the former Speaker, it takes to grow up and mature in this process. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wish the gentleman would not take down the chart, because I want to read from his very beautiful chart. He read 1990, 51; 1991, 36 days; 1992, 57 days; 1993, 5 days; 1994, 41 days, then came 1995 which, of course, we passed in 1994, the last year the Democrats were in charge. And he gave correctly the credit to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for having 0 days, but then he stopped. As I read the gentleman's chart, the next year, which was the first year that the Republicans were in charge, the gentleman, of course, was not chairman of the Committee on Appropriations at that point in time, we were at 208 days, which was more than all the other years combined that the gentleman read. I wondered why the gentleman stopped at that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, to make a serious point, I have commended every time I have stood on this floor the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his leadership. The gentleman, I think, on our side of the aisle is perceived to be one of the fairest, kindest, most responsible Members of this House. I share that view in great measure; and I think the serious point here is, as we will hopefully pass this CR, is that we really ought to get away from first innings, second innings, and third innings; and we ought to start, and that is my real point, Mr. Speaker, sitting down together, as we are now. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I sat down on the Treasury-Postal bill. I think we have agreement on where we ought to be. I think we need to start that process earlier and be real earlier and stop making political points as to who is saving money or who is not saving money when we know the inevitable result will be we will attempt to fund appropriation bills at levels that are consistent with what we think our responsibilities are. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), because I think the chairman's leadership has been for that proposition, and I admired him for that. He has not always prevailed. And I think what Mr. Gingrich was really trying to say and I said it somewhat facetiously tried to do it lightly, but it was a serious point that we can on each side posture and say, well, we want it our way. But if we all go forward saying we want it our way, we end up as we are today and, that is, having at the last minute to try to come to agreement. I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida, because I think that is what he has tried to do, wants to do and is leading in a direction of doing right now; and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I share the amusement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, at the recitation of history. First of all, CBO, your CBO that you appointed the chair of 2 years ago came down and said the reason we have cut the deficit is not because of anything that was done on the Republican leadership, it was because of the 1993 economic program that was adopted by Democrats only, not one Republican voted for it, and the 1990 program signed by President Bush, which was excoriated by that same Speaker Gingrich and a number of the rest of the Members of his party. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) also has a selective memory, I suggest to my colleagues, about what Mr. Greenspan said before the Committee on the Budget, the Joint Economic Committee, and every other committee before which he has testified about the tax cuts. Then you take out each individual item. You were smarter this year. You said people like this, people like that, so we will take it in small bites, and maybe they will not notice that the total is more than the one they did not like a year ago August when you thought you were going to go to the American public and say, ``Do you believe the President of the United States is going to veto this bill?'' And, guess what, the American public said, ``Yeah, not only do we believe he is going to, we think he ought to because we think it puts Social Security and Medicare at risk.'' Now, this year you cut it up in little pieces and thought maybe you could nibble it through. But it would have had the same consequence. Mr. Greenspan whom you quote said, ``Uh-uh, you ought not to do that.'' Let us go back a little more in history in the 1993 bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said that, if we passed the 1993 bill, the economy would fall off the precipice. Mr. Gingrich said, if we enacted the 1993 bill, the economy would go in the tank. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said that it would create high deficits, high inflation, and economic disaster. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said that it would create unbelievable unemployment and unbelievable deficits. Now what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is exactly 180 degrees opposite of what every Republican leader said in 1993 would happen as a consequence of the adoption of the President's economic program. In fact, we have the best economy in the lifetimes of anybody in this room, low inflation, more employment than we have ever had, and the fastest creation of jobs at any time. Healthy, robust economic growth. Most houses owned by American citizens ever in history. Every indicator is positive as a direct result. Now, going back to what CBO said. CBO said that, not only did you not bring down the deficit, but in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, the net effect of those 4 years was to increase by $12 billion the deficit. So the net reduction was approximately 140 if you put those two bills together. So let us tell it like it is. I would repeat the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) admonition when you say veto strategy. The President has not vetoed anything this year. Now, we are going to pass the CR. It is the responsible and right thing to do. I am for it. We have done it in the past because we have not reached agreement. But I tell the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the reason we have not reached agreement is because the budget resolution was a resolution for political sake, not for substance sake. Nobody on the Committee on Appropriations, I tell my friend the gentleman from Florida, nobody on either side of the aisle in the Committee on Appropriations thought for one minute that the Committee on the Budget's resolution was going to be carried out in appropriation bills, not because of the President, but because you cannot get it through the Congress of the United States. We said that in April. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said that in April. That is why I quoted the gentleman from South Carolina. In fact that is what has happened. Let us work together. Let us not have the Perfectionist Caucus prevail.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct, that what is present is the most important. But it is also important to understand, I tell my friend from Georgia, how we got to the present. Because the bill that I believe he initially voted for was $3.5 billion under the President's budget. Now, hear me. Originally, when we passed the bill through this House, it was $3.5 billion on education under the President's request. So that, yes, we are here; but the reason we are here is a little bit of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said. The President said he was not going to sign that kind of bill. The gentleman is right. He has not vetoed it because my colleague has not sent it to him. He said, I am not going to sanction that kind of cut in education. So, yes, we do readily admit that we have a budget that is now presumably going to come out of the Labor-Health conference much better, but it is much better because the President of the United States said he was not going to sanction that House product.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, over a quarter of a century ago as president of the Maryland Senate, I led an effort to revise extensively the sexual offense statutes of the State of Maryland. Those statutes were premised on the perception of women as chattel, as somehow less than subject to full protection of the law, particularly from their spouses and intimate partners. We amended those statutes very substantially. We passed violence against women. Millions and millions of women this day throughout the world will be subjected to violent acts because of their gender. They are perceived by their societies to be subject by their male counterparts to such treatment. It is critically important that we pass overwhelmingly this statute and make a very strong statement to everybody in America and everybody around the world that we respect individuals for their individuality. Pass this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Maryland yielded me some time. The reason I wanted to take this time is he will not say himself, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is a member of the Helsinki Commission and has served with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I for many years. There is a no more conscientious, a no more engaged and focused member of the Helsinki Commission than the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I am pleased that he rises to speak on behalf of this resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for bringing this resolution to the floor. I am pleased to join my very good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), with whom I have served on the Helsinki Commission since 1985 and who is now the chairman of our commission and does an extraordinarily good job at raising high the banner of human rights, of freedom, and democracy and so many other vital values to a free people. I am honored to be his colleague on the Helsinki Commission. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 100 which commemorates the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act which, was signed on August 1, 1975. It is my firm belief that the political process set in motion by the signing of the Final Act was the groundwork for the forces which consumed the former Soviet empire. In 1975, many of the Final Act signatory states viewed the language of the act dealing with human rights and the obligation that each state had toward its own citizens, as well as those of other states, as essentially meaningless window dressing. Their objective, it was felt that of the Soviets, was to secure a framework in which their international political position and the then existing map of Europe would be adjudged a fait accompli. Let me say as an aside that as we honor the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, we ought to honor the courage and the vision of President Gerald Ford. I am not particularly objective. President Ford is a friend of mine for whom I have great affection and great respect, but those who will recall the signing of the Final Act in August of 1975 will recall that it was very controversial, and that many particularly in President's Ford's party thought that it was a sellout to the Soviets, thought that it was, in fact, a recognition of the de facto borders that then existed with the 6 Warsaw Pact nations, captive nations, if you will. President Ford, however, had the vision and, as I said, the courage, to sign the Final Act on behalf of the United States along with 34 other heads of state; that act became a living and breathing process, not a treaty, not a part of international law, but whose moral suasion ultimately made a very significant difference. I want to join my colleagues who I know would want to thank President Ford for his vision and courage in that instance, because those who thought it was a sellout were proven wrong. The Helsinki process, which provided a forum and international backing for Refuseniks and others fighting behind the Iron Curtain for fundamental freedom and human rights, led inevitably to the collapse of Soviet communism. Today we celebrate the freedom yielded by our steadfast commitment to the process and by our demand that the former Soviet bloc countries adhere to and implement the human rights standards enshrined by the accords. The fall of the Berlin Wall, Mr. Speaker, transformed the world and demonstrated unreservedly that respect for the dignity of all individuals is fundamental to democracy. Mr. Speaker, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe took a stand that human dignity, tolerance, and mutual respect would be the standards for all nations of Europe as we entered the 1990s. The Helsinki process served as a source of values and acted as an agent of conflict resolution. It provided, Mr. Speaker, participating states with a blueprint by which to guide them away from the past, but most importantly, it reminded members, old and new, of their responsibilities to their own citizens and to each other. Mr. Speaker, this lesson was sorely tested in the years following the Wall's fall with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, the economic collapse of Albania, and the emergence of new threats to the citizens of Russia. One year after the fall of the Wall, at the OSCE Paris Summit, former political prisoners like Vaclav Havel and Lach Walesa, who had fought for the rights espoused in Helsinki in 1975, led their countries to the table and recommitted themselves and their governments to the principle of human rights, security and economic cooperation that are the foundation of the Helsinki Final Act. Today, Mr. Speaker, 54 nations of Europe and the Americas, the Caucasus and Central Asia are committed to the Helsinki process as participating states in the OSCE. Now, we must recognize that all 54 of those states do not carry out those principles any more than the Soviet states carried out those principles in the months and long years after the signing of the Final Act, but we found then that inevitably the power of those ideas was like a tide that swept down oppression and resistance. Hopefully, all 54 states will find that tide irresistible and will incorporate in their own lands all of the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on this anniversary, we understand that the countries and peoples of the region are still in transition and will be for decades to come. Great strides have been made by many former Communist countries in building democratic societies and market economies. Yet, progress has been uneven, and much remains to be done, as I said. Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is critical that the United States remain engaged with the peoples and governments of Europe and the countries which emerge from the former Soviet Union, especially from Russia, during this difficult period. I agree with President Clinton when he said that we must, and I quote, ``reaffirm our determination to finish the job, to complete a Europe whole, free, democratic, and at peace for the first time in all of history.'' It is in our strategic and national interest, Mr. Speaker, to do so. By doing so, we honor the memory of all those who sacrificed so much to hold high the banner of freedom. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.J. Res. 100 unanimously.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for bringing this resolution, along with the minority, to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1064 and urge my colleagues to support it. I am an original cosponsor of this bill, offered by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Helsinki Commission. As he has noted, whatever our views on the American involvement in the Balkans, we all have a common interest in bringing democratic change to Serbia, which will enhance long-term stability in the region, allow our troops in Kosovo and Bosnia to return home sooner, with their mission accomplished, and preclude the need for further intervention to thwart Slobodan Milosevic's aggression. Clearly, democratic change in Serbia is the single most critically needed development in southeast Europe today. First and foremost, the people of Serbia deserve the same ability to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms that so many other Europeans enjoy. Secondly, it, more than anything else, would contribute to security in the region. Indeed, it would increase tremendously the chances for resolving conflicts and encouraging social reconciliation. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I have served together on the Helsinki Commission for a long time, over a decade and a half, and we have worked together to promote human rights in Europe and in other parts of the world, I might add. Our efforts have been especially relevant in the Balkans, where Milosevic and his regime have instigated conflict and orchestrated genocide to perpetuate their rule and enhance their power and privilege. The international community, Mr. Speaker, has been slow to respond and sometimes ineffective in the face of this threat to European stability. Only with the intervention of the United States has action been taken. Since Kosovo, however, there is a more united view than ever between the United States, Europe and the international community as a whole that democratic change must come to Serbia. There is also a greater realization that the threat Serbia poses comes not from the Serb people. Let me repeat that. The threat comes not from the Serb people but from Milosevic and his henchmen. Indeed, the people of Serbia, and the people of Montenegro, who are in a Yugoslav federation with Serbia, have suffered far too long under Milosevic's repression. They, the Serbians, the Montenegrans, deserve to take their rightful place in the democratic community of Europe. Mr. Speaker, national elections were held in Yugoslavia yesterday, as many have said. We do not yet know the final results and there are, as predicted, widespread allegations of fraud. Early reports indicate that the opposition is claiming first round victory with more than 50 percent of the vote. That in my opinion would be an extraordinarily happy circumstance. The Milosevic camp, not committed to democracy, committed to authoritarian rule, committed to attaining their ends by whatever means are necessary, are claiming that they are ahead 44 percent to 41 percent, indicating a need for a second round runoff. Nobody in the international community believes that representation. It is widely believed that Milosevic simply will not concede. He has hinted that, as he has said, his term does not formally end until next year, giving him another 9 months or so entrenched in power and in perversion. Alternatively, he may simply turn up the level of fraud to ensure a second-round victory and crack down on whatever opposition might exist. At this point, Mr. Speaker, we do not know what Serbia will be like, even in the near future, other than the fact that it will not be the same. It might change, we pray, drastically for the better or tragically for the worse. Either way, this bill sends the message that we are there for the people of Serbia. The alternative, to send no message at all, Mr. Speaker, is the message that Milosevic wants to hear. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1064.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I also correct, I ask the chairman, that not a penny of it needs to be spent on school construction?

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