Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been on this subcommittee for many years. In 1983, Terrell Bell, then the Secretary of Education, issued a report. That report was entitled: A Nation at Risk. It said that we were at risk of becoming a Nation of mediocrity because our educational system was not keeping apace. The response of the Reagan administration was to send down a budget which had the largest cut in education funding at the national level to that date in history. Now, that budget that Ronald Reagan sent down was not passed. It was increased substantially. But me thinks the chairman protests too much in saying we are all for the first sentence, that we want to spend more for education. It is useful, I think, to remember a little bit of the history of why we are here and why this motion, we think, is necessary. First of all, when we passed the House bill, we were $3 billion less than the Senate bill on education, $3 billion less. So that, when the House took its action, all of this euphoria about spending more on education was not present. But we have had a lot of policies, Mr. Speaker, since then about what the American public care about. We have had a lot of debate between the Presidential candidates, and everybody is falling all over themselves to be for education. So what do we see between then and now, between the passage of a Republican budget that provided little funds for education and today? Well, we see a $3.7 billion increase, notwithstanding the fact that we Democrats stood on the floor when this bill passed and we opposed its passage, of course, and said we needed more money. Oh, no, it is fine. This is just a first inning in any event. We have been just at the first inning in about 13 bills, which is why we are stuck in the mud because this process has not been real. Well, my colleagues are starting to get real. We understand that, because November 7 footsteps are heard loud in these Chambers and the American public's voice is heard louder as the days go by. I rise in support of this motion. I believe that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) our distinguished chairman who we are going to lament will not be here next month to help us work on these issues because he cares about these issues. But I think we need this motion because we need to say we want to go to those figures in our conference. The conference has not really been a real conference. The reason it has not been a very real conference is because the dollars that the Republicans say are available for these bills keeps moving, it keeps moving as their political antenna quivers. And every time they got a little quiver, there is a little more money and they add it to the bills, which they should have done, of course, on substance, not on politics, on the concern that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) says about children. Now, the second part of this motion is a critically important part. I have had this discussion with one of the Members of the United States Senate. He says local control. I am for local control, but I am for accountability for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when I go home and say, we took your money and here is how we spent it, not the school boards spent it, but this is what I said was a priority, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I believe that there is a critical need in this country, as the President believes, for us to help with school construction. Because we know that schools are falling down, we know there are not enough classrooms, we know that there are some schools that are not safe for our kids to be in. So the President of the United States has proposed, and I support, saying we are going to give some money for school construction, not to build new pools in schools, not to have new football programs, etcetera, etcetera. That is not my responsibility. If the locals want to do it, they spend, as all of us know, 93 percent on education. We spend 7. But I believe that school construction is critically important if we are going to have more classrooms. Because, in order to have more smaller classes, we have got to have more classrooms; and in order to have more classrooms, we have got to have more teachers. So the President proposes that we have a program for more teachers, as well. The Republicans made a deal last year when they passed the omnibus appropriations bill that they were for that and they said they were for that. Now, maybe they were for it because that is the only way the bill would get passed, but notwithstanding the fact we had an agreement that that would happen. That is what this motion to instruct is all about, both ends of it, more money. Now, yes, I agree, we seem to be moving in that direction because they added not only $3.7 billion from the House bill, they added $8 billion in total to the House bill. Eight billion dollars they have added to the House bill. We are glad they are getting there because the children of America, the families of America need this investment. I am prepared it take the responsibility for more classrooms, more teachers, and to assist with school construction. I think that is my responsibility, and I am prepared to stand up for it and vote for it. So when they tell me, Mr. Speaker, that they want local control, I want local control. But when they say that we should not make determinations on specific needs, I think they are wrong. That is our responsibility. I urge passage of this motion to instruct.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) for his comments. And as I was standing here, I thought to myself Sanford Bishop Sr. would indeed be proud of his son, a leading educator in our country. His father was a very distinguished American, and his son has become someone of whom his father would be indeed be extraordinarily proud. I thank the gentleman for his participation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush), a distinguished representative, and one of the very significant leaders in our country for most, if not all, of his adult life.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I was going to make this point later, but she gives me such an opening. We talk about these institutions giving extraordinary opportunities to African Americans, and they do. Bowie State University in my county is the place from which Christa McAuliffe graduated with her Master's degree. Christa McAuliffe, as some may recall, was the teacher in space who went up on the Challenger as it blew up and she died. She was one of Bowie State's most distinguished graduates, a Caucasian American but given an extraordinary opportunity through her attendance at and the receipt of a quality education at a Historically Black College.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), for his generous comments and also for his cogent comments with respect to the impact that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have had on young African Americans, instilled in them a sense of hope, a sense of opportunity, a sense of future. We know that if young people do not have a sense of future, as too many do today, that they do not work for a future. They work only for today. That inspiration that the gentleman's mother gave him and his exposure to Albany State has enriched us all in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of California, from Oakland, (Ms. Lee).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order this evening.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am honored today to join a number of my colleagues in celebrating National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. The contributions made by HBCUs to the African American community, to our country, and to our culture cannot be overstated. As President Clinton noted in proclaiming the week of September 17 as HBCU Week, ``Generations of African American educators, physicians, lawyers, scientists, and other professionals found at HBCUs the knowledge, experience and encouragement they needed to reach their full potential.'' The alumni rolls of HBCUs are very long. They include two very distinguished, extraordinary Americans, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Booker T. Washington. In addition, they include a number of my colleagues who will be joining me today. Today, Madam Speaker, Historically Black Colleges and Universities comprise about three percent of all colleges and universities. However, they confer nearly 30 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded each year to African Americans. HBCUs, Historically Black Colleges, also confer the majority of bachelor's degrees and advance degrees awarded to black students in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, engineering, and education. More than half of all African American professionals, including 70 percent of African American dentists and physicians, graduated from Historically Black institutions. The real story, Madam Speaker, that underlies these figures is the story of hope and opportunity. We cannot, we should not, we must not run from our history no matter how painful, no matter how disgraceful. Before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, African Americans were routinely and wrongly excluded from institutions of higher learning. It did not matter how smart they were. It did not matter how much talent or potential they had. The only thing, tragically, that mattered was the color of their skin. But out of that rank injustice, that indefensible racism, was born a fortitude and a determination to rise above, to overcome, to overcome through education. Thus, the first black college, which is now known as Cheyney University in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837. To appreciate the magnitude of this, remember that Cheyney was created a full 28 years before the ratification of the 13th amendment established to train free blacks to become school teachers. Today Cheyney is one of the 105 HBCUs that continue to serve with great pride as an avenue for African Americans to attend college and indeed for other Americans to attend college, as well. Four of those Historically Black Colleges are located in the State of Maryland, including Bowie State University in my own district, which was founded in 1865. Bowie State University is the oldest Historically Black University in Maryland. The others, Madam Speaker, are Morgan State, Coppin State, both in Baltimore, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Shortly, I will be joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a graduate of Morgan State, who will join me in this special order. I want to make specific note of the four presidents of those distinguished institutions: Dr. Calvin Burnett, president of Coppin State College; Dr. Earl Richardson, with whom I had the privilege of being today, president of Morgan State University; and Dr. Dolores Spikes, president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Our newest president is the president of Bowie State University, which I just mentioned, Dr. Calvin Lowe. Madam Speaker, let me say, as a current member of the Board of Regents of the University of Maryland systems, as someone acutely interested in education and the needs of our youth, I see the manifest vision and the determination of HBCUs practically every day. I see it in the faces of the young people in my district who know that they will have the opportunity to develop their skills and talent, whether they choose Bowie State University, the University of Maryland College Park, or any other school. I see it in the faces of young professionals who have attended an HBCU and who are now working hard to build their careers and contribute to our society. And I see it in the faces of those here tonight who appreciate the unique role and history of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and who understand the importance of their continued vibrancy. In the past 20 years, at least 10 Historically Black Colleges and Universities have closed. Others, Madam Speaker, face financial hardship. We have in my opinion in this House a duty to help them, and not just with dollars, though dollars are very important. The bottom line, adequate funding, will continue to be important. But we must also recognize, Madam Speaker, that our strength as a Nation lies not just in the quality of the University of Maryland at College Park or any of the other great universities but in the excellence of another great university, Bowie State, Morgan, Coppin, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and the institutions from which so many of our distinguished colleagues have graduated. We must realize that while we celebrate the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we also must take joy in the accomplishments and excellence of North Carolina A&T. Historically Black Colleges have strengthened our country and enriched our culture beyond measure. They have nurtured and fostered the talents of millions. And while they can take great pride in their glorious past, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that they enjoy an even brighter future. Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting with Dr. Richardson, as I said, and many other presidents of Historically Black Colleges. They brought up some critical issues with which this Congress must deal. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in doing so to ensure the continued vibrancy and success of these extraordinary institutions. Madam Speaker, I am now privileged to yield to my good friend, distinguished colleague and graduate of Howard University. I said Morgan, but Howard, University. He is on the board of regents at Morgan State University, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I also thank him for his service with Morgan State University, one of the great schools in this country and in our State, and also would mention that his alma mater, Howard, of course, has a particular relationship with the Federal Government; and we are very supportive of that institution, and Dr. Swygert is doing a very outstanding job as its leader.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that testimony. It is as strong a testimony as you can get. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is just extraordinarily interesting to learn of the history of families that have been impacted by HBCUs and the enrichment of those families being passed on to generations that then benefit so much their district, their State, and their Nation. We very much appreciate his contribution and his recitation of not only his history but his family's history. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), who probably was interested in the history of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, it is now a great privilege of mine to yield to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), one of our most dynamic members of the House.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentlewoman for participating in this Special Order.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her very important contribution and her giving us another example of an extraordinary American leader who has been impacted in her family and by the images and inspiration given by Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We are advantaged by the service of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) in the Congress; and that, I am sure, is in part due to the inspiration she received by all of those who were enriched and given hope and opportunity and vision by Historically Black Colleges. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks, and I believe her remarks were very cogent. I think it is a very significant fact that the six highest choices made by students in the District of Columbia who could go anywhere are historically black colleges, which speaks not only to the fulfillment of their mission, but to the quality of their work. So I thank her for her comments. I yield to my very distinguished friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a graduate of one of the most distinguished educational institutions in America that is also a historically black college, Morehouse College.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding the time to me and, Mr. Speaker, I also want to join with my other friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Montgomery County, Maryland (Mrs. Morella) in strong support of this Federal Employee Health Benefits Equity Act of 2000. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) have explained very well the purposes of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise to, perhaps, discuss this in a little different perspective, but I think an important one. Many pieces of legislation come to this floor and we focus on them because they seek to focus on personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in America today too many people believe that having children is not a personal responsibility. They believe that perhaps it is biologically their child, but somehow not their responsibility. We have passed legislation and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is on the floor, and he and I have cosponsored legislation which seeks to ensure that once somebody is blessed with a child that they will meet their responsibilities to that child. We passed legislation, as the gentleman from Baltimore pointed out, in 1993 which said that we were going to ensure that children would be covered under the health care policies of their parents. However, we did not also include Federal employees, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, under that provision. We thought we had. I think that was our concept but we had not and this legislation seeks to cure that defect in the language. Now, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and I are unreserved supporters of Federal employees; but Federal employees, like every other individual in our country, need to meet their responsibilities. I believe that I had and continue to have a personal responsibility for my children. It is not the responsibility of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or the responsibility of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), it is my responsibility. They are my children. Now, they are all adults now, but I view them as a blessing. I view it as a blessing that I have the opportunity and the wherewithal, very frankly, to help them. I would hope every parent would do that; not only would I hope they would do it, it is my expectation that they would do it. And this legislation simply says, as the gentleman has pointed out in correct detail, that if a court orders you to carry your child on your policy and provide them with health care coverage, critical to every child in America, then the Federal employer, like every other employer, will comply with the law in making sure that you meet that personal responsibility. So I rise in very strong support of that. Some will say it is an additional burden on Federal employees; I say it is not. It is an equitable treatment of Federal employees as we want every other employee in America to be treated so that children in America will be better cared for and will grow up more secure and safe and better citizens. Although this bill will not get national publicity, it is a very important bill, not only for the children that it will immediately affect, but for the principle that it adopts of responsibility of parents for the welfare and well-being of their children.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I are not managing this conference report, as was noted. In fact, it is being managed by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). That is a testimony to the process, the convoluted process, that has brought us to this floor today. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) rose and said that this was never considered in the legislative bill to be added. As far as I know, it was never considered in the legislative conference, not the conference that I participated in. At no time did the legislative conference meet and add this as a part of its bill. I am on the legislative committee, at least as far as I was invited to. I do not know whether the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was invited to a conference of the legislative committee or the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), but I think the answer to that is no. Notwithstanding that, I and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) have tried to work together to try to bring this bill to a point where we could all support it. Very frankly, I think that that is possible. I think it is still possible. I talked to the Speaker about it just an hour and a half ago. I am sorry that we are here today in a mode of not being in agreement on this bill. So, first of all, the process has been very convoluted. The Senate, of course, has not considered this bill on the floor and there was no real conference on a Senate bill and a House bill and the differences. This process, from the very beginning, has been a difficult one, if not incorrect one. In the committee's report when we came to the floor on this bill, the committee said we needed $1.3 billion more, I think they were correct, at least $1.3 billion more, to meet the responsibilities of our committee and of the agencies that we fund. That was the majority's observation, not mine. But they brought a bill to the floor which was $464 million low on IRS. I am going to talk about that in a second. It ended up being more than that because we cut $25 million on the floor to add to HIDTAs. So it was $491 million low on IRS when it left this House. Now, we did not have convened a conference in the sense that we had two bills. There were meetings. That is correct. There were invitations to come to meetings, some of which were attended. The final conference or whatever conference occurred, I was not at. The perception of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is that is by choice. I think that is from his standpoint. I understand that perception. But it was also a choice that was made in the context that we really did not know what was going on, and there were no discussions with us as to exactly what was to be added. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) represents there were discussions with the White House. The White House is not for these numbers in this bill, still thinks they are substantially low, as I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) knows. Now, the legislation bill comes back to us $1.2 billion over what the House passed, mostly Republicans but some Democrats as well. That $1.2 billion was added essentially without participation of a full conference. That should not happen. There were an additional $18.8 million that included projects and priorities of various Members, none of whom were Democrats on this side of the aisle. That should not happen. Let us deal now with the IRS within the time frame that we have, because that is really the most important issue that we deal with in this bill. It is, after all, the agency that collects all the revenue that allows all of us who support a ready and appropriate national defense to fund it. Education, health services, law enforcement, all the other items for which government is responsible, IRS has to collect the money. Now, we adopted a vision of a new IRS and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and others, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a lot of others, brought this to the floor. We had a bill. We passed that bill. The budget recommendations of the Portman report were, and I quote, the commission recommends that Congress provide the IRS certainty in its operational budget. We recommend the IRS budget for tax law enforcement and processing assistance and management be maintained at current levels. Why? Because they said in order to carry out our responsibilities in passing this reform and restructuring bill, we need to have consistent and appropriate budget levels. Now, around that time we hired a gentleman named Rossotti, Charles Rossotti. I think the chairman respects Mr. Rossotti. I know I do. Furthermore, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) does, and Mr. Roth does. They believe he is doing the kind of job that they expected to be done if we were going to meet our responsibilities under the Reform and Restructuring Act and have an IRS that was taxpayer friendly; that is to say that answered questions in a timely fashion, responded to taxpayers and were able to go personally over tax returns with taxpayers who had a particular problem. After the conference was brought back to the floor and I expressed my concern that I had not seen the conference, had not talked about the conference, I asked Mr. Rossotti, I said does this allow you to do what we expect you to do? Here was his comment in a letter to me of September 8, 2000: ``Please recognize that this level of funding, that is the funding level, that is provided for in this conference report, would lead to a further decline in the already low levels of compliance activity.'' I have an article which indicates that some people are saying that there is $300 billion in uncollected but due revenues. Why is that? Because compliance levels are so low and audit levels are shamefully low. I think the chairman knows that. Mr. Rossotti, who is a Republican, hired as a manager, a business manager to carry out reform and restructuring and taxes modernization, says without funding for the Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity Initiative, otherwise known as STABLE, the IRS effort to provide increased service to taxpayers and reduce the decline in audit coverage are at risk. Substantively, the administration has a problem with this bill unrelated to politics. I share that view. So that in sum on the IRS title of this bill, we are dangerously low in providing services to the American taxpayer, and I had a discussion with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) on this. I think he shares my view that it is insufficient to carry out their duties. Mr. Speaker, courthouses, the chairman mentioned the courthouses. The administration asks for seven courthouses to be funded. The conference report, frankly without discussion as to what courthouses we were talking about, came back and funded four courthouses. Now, that courthouse list is an interesting list: California, Washington, Virginia and ends with Mississippi; the next, D.C., Buffalo, Springfield, Miami. There is a list of 19 courthouses that are in the mix and deemed not by any politicians for pork purposes, but by the GSA and by the court administration as being priority needs. We are not going to do all of those, but the conference, the so- called conference, again, without any discussion with me or other members on our side of the aisle, decided that we were going to fund four and forward fund for others. Now, forward funding adopts the premise that these are necessary, but we are going to fund them next year. So, in effect, we are using next year's money this year. That is what forward funding means. That is somewhat of a gimmick, a budget gimmick; and I know many of the conservative action team has decried budget gimmicks. But now guess what, and I hope that my conservative action team friends are listening, in addition to that, we have now moved the dates for paying veterans compensation, SSI, and other pensions from one year to another. The problem with doing that is we changed it in the supplemental the other way just a few months ago. Now, I do not know how many people know that that is in this bill. It surely was not in the bill when it left here. It was never discussed in any conference in which I participated, and it was never informed to me that this was happening. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is probably a Member on the floor that knows that that has happened; maybe the chairman does, it has not been discussed. In addition, we shift $2 billion in this bill out of defense into nondefense domestic discretionary spending so that we can solve a firewall problem in the United States Senate. I cannot believe that the Contract With America that wanted to have a pristine process open and cleared to all without gimmicks that, of course, Democrats were alleged to perpetrate on the Congress, would support these provisions in this bill. Mr. Speaker, obviously, one could go on for a long time and talk about the necessity of these bills; but one of the items that is not in this bill that the administration feels very strongly about and may well veto this bill on alone is the absence of the response to the counterterrorism initiative included in the administration's request. There was some response in the conference report, but we left out the largest part of the administration's counterterrorism request. We think that is a problem. The last thing I would indicate again in a process that is supposed to be an appropriations process, we have added a tax provision to this bill that was never discussed in the legislative conference. It was never discussed in any Treasury Postal conference, and anybody who gets on this floor and says that was a conferenced item that was agreed to by any conferees on the Democratic side in an open way is simply incorrect. It was never, ever discussed. I would hope that my chairman would not make such a representation, because he knows that would be not true. I do not know how that provision became an emaculate conception on this bill, but it is now on this bill. So for all of those reasons, I would hope that we would either recommit this bill to conference and sit down and discuss it and come up with a bill on which we could all agree or, in the alternative, defeat this conference report.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have concerns about both the process and the substance, which is why we mentioned both.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin and I have had suggestions and in the interest of time, I think we will not, in light of the fact that the motion to recommit is probably redundant in terms of the vote on passage, we will not offer the motion to recommit so that we do not take the additional time of Members.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Reauthorization bill. This is an exciting week to bring this legislation to the floor as the crew of the Space Shuttle Atlantis prepares the International Space Station for full-time service. In addition to the Space Station, this bill provides funding for NASA's other priorities including the Space Shuttle Program and for the Earth and Space Science program. I opposed this legislation when the House first took it up because of efforts to kill the Triana Satellite Mission. Triana, a project directed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California in conjunction with the Goddard Space Flight Center in my District, would provide not only a real-time view of the Earth for distribution on the Internet, but will also include instruments to study solar influences on climate, ultraviolet radiation, space weather, and the microphysical properties of clouds. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for taking the partisanship out of this important program. This conference report also authorizes significant funding for the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Account. The $2.3 billion for Space Science will insure that the Hubble Space Telescope Program continues to provide us with phenomenal data over the next ten years. It is crucial that Hubble's successor, the Next Generation Space Telescope, receive the necessary support to match and surpass Hubble's success. In addition, the $1.5 billion for NASA's Earth Science programs will insure that programs like the Landsat, a cornerstone of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, can continue to study the Earth's global environment, and that the Terra Satellite, which has been vital in the past week in fighting wild fires in the west, receives the funding necessary for continuing operations. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and support NASA as we continue to explore our last frontier.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that Ron is not on the floor, but I want to rise on behalf of all of us on this side of the aisle. The gentleman from California indicated that Ron Lasch has been helpful to his side. That is of course very true. He is, after all, assigned that responsibility. On the other hand, I want my colleagues to know and I want everybody to know that those of us on this side of the aisle who happened to be on the gentleman's side of the aisle and needed a question answered felt very comfortable talking to Ron Lasch. Because Ron Lasch, although he served in a partisan role, clearly felt himself an institutional person who wanted to facilitate the workings of this institution on behalf of the American people. I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration in saying that we share his congratulations and appreciation for all the work that Ron Lasch has done and the service that he has performed for everybody on the floor of the House and for the American public.