Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know he has mentioned that a couple of times. As I think he knows, that is not a unique situation of this project, but that statement is applicable to a number of the safety-related projects in this bill as well as previous bills.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), yield on that issue?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, this is about dredging. It is contrary to the letter that all of us signed receiving it as a State project in 1986. No doubt about it. This was not perceived by any of the delegation to be a local project. It was a Statewide project, which is why all eight Members of the delegation signed. In the letter that I reference, we also strongly supported and urged the inclusion of the straightening of the S-turn, the Tolchester Channel. Why did we do that? July 14, 1998, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) says he has talked to the Coast Guard. Now, with all due respect to the gentleman, until 4 hours ago, I did not know of any of this. My office was not talked to. I got no information. I did not know about his conversations with the Coast Guard. I do not think the committee knew about his conversations with the Coast Guard. Maybe they did. But at any event, let me read a letter, 26 August 1994, signed by Rear Admiral Eckart of the United States Coast Guard, Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District. I quote a part of that, Mr. Chairman. ``The S-turn in Tolchester Channel presents one of the most difficult navigational challenges to a large ship within the Fifth Coast Guard District, not just within Maryland, not just within the Chesapeake Bay, but within the entire district.'' Yes safety is going to be raised. Now, July 14, 1998, some 2 years later, this is a Vice Admiral, United States Coast Guard, then Commander, I am not sure whether he is still Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District. A letter referring to the Tolchester Channel. ``With increases to vessel size, the severity of the turns have caused difficulty with maneuvering. The Coast Guard would prefer to be proactive in preventing any potential serious mishaps. The removal of the S-curve in the Tolchester Channel would be a significant step.'' Now, I do not have a subsequent letter from the Coast Guard saying, no, we did not mean that. Apparently they have had a personal conversation with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who claims this is in his district. Technically I suppose, if one surrounds waterways, they are in one's district, but the fact of the matter is I would again reiterate this is perceived by the State legislature, by the governor, and by the majority of our delegation as an issue of our State and of our port. Mr. Chairman, the 1996 water bill directs the Corps to expedite review of potential straightening of the channel, Tolchester Channel S- turn. It came out of a committee of which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was a member. If determined to be feasible and necessary for safe and efficient navigation, and I have just read my colleagues two letters of the Coast Guard that indicated it was necessary for the safe and efficient movement of vessels through this channel, to implement such straightening as part of the project maintenance. Now, earlier the gentleman said he was not opposed to maintenance dredging. Now, I am not sure what maintenance dredging he refers to, but the fact of the matter is he tried by saying that, if we had ships going through, then children were going to drown. I do not know that any children had drowned, and that would be a serious problem we would have to protect against, apparently in anticipation of the safety argument that somehow making the water flow faster could be dangerous. I have not heard the oyster problem before, but we ought to look at that problem as well. But the fact of the matter is this is essential. In two letters from the Coast Guard, I do not have a more recent letter telling me they were wrong, the 1994 and 1998 letters say it is a safety issue. It is a problem. It is not only a problem, it is the worst problem in the Fifth Coast Guard District. That is why they believe this project is absolutely critical. I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) is going to speak on this. We have a bipartisan position on this issue, I think. In fact, the committee has included this money at the request of the administration, this is not an add-on project, this has been a planned project that is moving ahead to provide for safer navigation. It is essential. We would ask our colleagues to reject this amendment which, again, is designed to stop dredging. I understand that that is the objective of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I agree with him to stop dredging if it is entirely harmful. But until that finding is made, then we need to proceed to make sure, A, the economic viability of the port and, B, directly related to that the safety of the vessels using the channels that access and egresses the port of Baltimore.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to again thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a distinguished graduate of an institution that was led so ably and whose service to this country, not only leading Notre Dame but service to this country, is so deserving of recognition, which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has assured will happen. I congratulate the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for facilitating this resolution moving forward. I particularly want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for sponsoring this resolution and for all his hard work in getting this body to pass legislation giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh, the President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. I leaned over to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and said that when we talked about him being a doctor or this, that, or the other, that really what he was was a parish writ large, not just for the United States but all the world. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) I know is extraordinarily proud that his district is the home of Notre Dame, one of our Nation's great academic institutions. Whether it is in the classroom, the laboratory, or the athletic fields, Notre Dame is rightfully known for producing extraordinary leaders, including, I might say, our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who received both his masters and his Ph.D. at that school. I was, as all of us were, pleased to support the legislation granting Father Hesburgh a Congressional Gold Medal. I am honored to rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 344, which will grant use of the Capitol rotunda on July 13, 2000, for the presentation ceremony. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor, Mr. Speaker, that Congress can give to a private citizen of this Nation. We have given them to the heroes of our history, those who have displayed uncommon valor on the field of battle, courage in the pursuit of civil rights and insight in the quest of knowledge. Last October, Congress gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Father Hesburgh. We now will provide for the awarding of that medal. For 35 years, Father Hesburgh guided one of our country's finest universities, through a period of unparalleled growth. I spoke at the beginning about the excellence of Notre Dame, not just on the athletic field but in the classroom and in the community. In large measure, it is because of the extraordinary people that have led Notre Dame, none of them more extraordinary than Father Hesburgh. When he stepped down from the University's presidency in 1987, his tenure was the longest among active American college and university presidents. During his years as president of Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh used his leadership to seek the advancement of civil rights, peace and justice around the world. He has held 15 presidential appointments, confronting such diverse issues as the peaceful use of atomic energy, campus unrest, immigration reform and Third World development. Throughout these efforts, Mr. Speaker, Father Hesburgh maintained an unwavering commitment to fairness, equality and justice. In 1964 when President Johnson awarded the Medal of Freedom to Father Hesburgh, he could have sat back and rested on his laurels as one of the most respected leaders of our Nation. He could have; but, of course, we know he did not. Rather he used his mantle of respect to fight for those whose voices are not always heard, whose issues are not always respected, and whose needs are not always met. In those pursuits, he served not only his country, but most importantly, I am sure, to him, his God, and his faith. There is not enough time in this debate to review all the good work that Father Hesburgh has done in his life, but let me review just a few highlights. He sought to bridge America's racial divide as chairperson of the Commission on Civil Rights from 1969 to 1972. He fought for the interests of the underdeveloped nations as chair of the Overseas Development Council for 11 years. He helped heal the scars of the Vietnam War with his service as a member of President's Ford's Presidential Clemency Board. He worked to promote peace by organizing a meeting of world class scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain urging the elimination of nuclear weapons. After the meeting, he organized a convention of religious leaders who endorsed the views of the scientists. In addition, Mr. Speaker, to his honors, which include the Franklin Roosevelt Four Freedoms Medal, the Distinguished Peace Leader Award and the National Service Lifetime Award, Father Hesburgh has received 135 honorary degrees, the most ever awarded to any American. Father Hesburgh is a wonderful, magnificent example of a good man who rose up and did great things. He however, was a humble person, walking closely with his God. I can think of no person for whom the honor is more appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, as I know they will, to unanimously support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member on the Helsinki Commission who has served with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for approximately 18 years, I want to thank the gentleman also for his willingness to work with us in conference regarding the Helsinki Commission budget. The OSCE region is of vital interest to the United States, and this work that we do is critical. The Commission truly provides good value for the dollar, and hopefully will be provided the resources necessary to fulfill its legislative mandate. I join the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) in thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their focus on this issue.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's proposition. I understand the administration has increased somewhat the monies for international peacekeeping, but the monies are critically needed, and although I did not have the opportunity, unfortunately, because I was late getting to the floor, to hear all of the comments of my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Illinois, I think we all agree that the United States' interests, our strategic interests, are served by fully participating in the U.N. peacekeeping process. It is my understanding that there is not an American soldier right now involved in U.N. peacekeeping efforts outside of Kosovo, which is an OSCE, essentially, with U.N. participation. The fact of the matter, though, is I think we are foolish if we do not fund our fair share. One could argue about fair share, but in my view, we are certainly at this level, at this level, paying a share that is less than some other countries on a per capita basis.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to speak, but I went to Suitland High School, so I went to high school 5 minutes from this Census facility. I have been around for a long time, and graduated from high school over 40 years ago. Those buildings were in need of repair at the time I graduated from high school in 1957. They were built, of course, during the war as temporary facilities. I appreciate the gentleman's making a comment on that for the quality of life of our Federal employees who work there, and I appreciate very much the chairman yielding me the time to make that comment, and his focus on that issue.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think we should pay our fair share. My father was born in Copenhagen. I visited Bosnia some years ago. There were 985 Danish troops in Bosnia. That was more troops per capita than any other Nation on Earth. Obviously, they were not the largest contingent that was there, but in terms of the commitment they were making it was, relatively speaking, the largest. The United States continues, obviously, to make the most significant contribution in many areas of the U.N., relatively speaking, not only to our wealth and our capabilities but also relative to the consequences that will occur if the U.N. peacekeeping efforts are not successful. In other words, the investment we are making in keeping the peace frankly is not only saving us money, it is also saving us risk at putting additional assets deployed in those areas. So I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and increase to the President's level.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, at the end of our journey in this life, if we can answer a few questions in the affirmative, then I believe by most measures we will have led a blessed and well-lived life: Did we try to do our best? Did we try to do the right thing? Did we try to leave this world a better place than when we entered it? When he passed from this life on May 30, surrounded by the love of his wonderful wife of 47 years, Ellen, his children, and his many grandchildren, there was no doubt that my friend, the former Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, had lived a blessed, full, and well- lived life. Those of us touched by it should count ourselves fortunate. As both a private citizen and a public servant, Governor Casey leaves a rich legacy that all of us should strive to emulate. He was caring, compassionate, committed, idealistic, principled, honest, devoted, articulate, tenacious, and, of course, by any measure, he was courageous. In the famous passage from Profiles in Courage, Senator John Kennedy, whom the Governor and I both admired, wrote, and I quote, ``For without belittling the courage with which men have died, we should not forget those acts of courage with which men have lived. A man does what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstruction and dangers and pressures, and that is the basis of all human morality.'' Courage, Mr. Speaker, was a recurring theme throughout Robert Casey's life. The son of a coal miner, Governor Casey put himself through law school and won a seat in the Pennsylvania State House at the age of 30 before winning two terms as State Auditor General. He overcame three early, unsuccessful campaigns for Governor, at a time when lesser men would have quit, to win that position not once but twice, the last victory by the largest margin in the history of Pennsylvania. In the twilight of his career, he battled a rare disease that devastated his body but never, never extinguished his spirit. In June, 1993, he became only the sixth person in the United States to undergo a heart-liver transplant. Thereafter, he not only returned to the Governor's office, but also proposed and signed one of the most comprehensive State organ donor laws in the country. Since 1994, more than 4,000 people in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions have received lifesaving organ transplants, due in large part to Governor Casey's leadership. No one ever doubted that Governor Casey had the courage of his convictions. He never wavered from the principles that guided his life, including his core belief that government could level the playing field and protect the most vulnerable in society. He maintained to the end a deep commitment to education, the environment, workers' rights, and the underprivileged. The Governor took heart from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's observation that, ``In our democracy, officers of the government are the servants and never the masters of the people.'' During Governor Casey's service, Pennsylvania enacted mandatory recycling reform, auto insurance reform, and the Child Health Insurance Program, which, as we know, became a national model. The State also broadened special education programs, rebuilt aging water and sewer systems through the PENNVEST program, and enacted a State Superfund to reclaim hazardous waste sites. Governor Casey, Mr. Speaker, was also instrumental in bringing family and parental leave to Pennsylvania, initiating economic development and high-tech efforts from the Philadelphia port to the new Pittsburgh airport, and overhauling the workers' compensation system. He did not seek public service for fame or glory, he sought simply to help people. In an era of unabashed cynicism towards public service and public servants, Governor Casey reminded us of why we serve. It is fitting that upon his passing, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that Governor Casey left an example for all Pennsylvanians: to fight for what they believe in, to be unafraid of the odds, and to nobly accept the defeats along the way. Governor Casey's legacy endures not only in the principles he stood for and the improvements he brought to his beloved Pennsylvania, but also in the wonderful family that he and Ellen have raised. They, too, carry their father's commitment to public service and community. Mr. Speaker, it is proper to remember a man of such worth and dignity and character. Our Nation was blessed by Governor Casey's service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the public must be confused in listening to this debate. No one has stood on this floor, no one, to say that we should not spend the money that the committee has included in the bill for the object in the Census Bureau, nobody. Everybody agrees that we are underfunding the Patent Office, including me, in this bill. This bill is $2.7 billion under what the committee almost to a person determines are the needs of this bill. Committee does not have that money, and they had to make hard choices. My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), spoke passionately for this amendment, because the objective of this amendment is to ensure that the Patent Office has sufficient funds. I agree with that objective, but I most emphatically do not agree that the solution to solving that problem is to take money from someplace where everybody also agrees the money is needed. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), in his inimitable fashion said this is a shadow debate about a shadow budget. What did he mean? This is not real. It is not real, because we know in the final analysis there is going to be more money in this bill. There is not an honest person who is a Member of this House that does not know this bill is going to be higher when we adopt finally the conference report than it is today; therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coble amendment, not because I oppose the objectives of the Coble amendment, because I believe that those in this floor who support both the census funding, and I might say there is too little census funding in this bill, we ought not to take more of it and decimate the objects that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has articulated, who has done such an incredible job on the census issues, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) who spoke earlier. The solution is not to take money from census, the solution is to get money to the Patent and Trade Office. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) mentioned the arcane scoring process, where actually PTO makes money. They charge fees. They have the dollars available to them, but because we have lowered the cap, in effect, our 302(b)s, it cannot be spent. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) had to make hard choices, their hard choice was we ought not to underfund census. We are going to look to do better for PTO as this proceeds through the process. I, therefore, come down on the side of allowing this bill to move forward, and I will tell my friends who, like me, support those in the high-tech industry, in particular, who are critically concerned about these PTOs that they are going to be lobbying heavier than those who are concerned about the census. Therefore, I am convinced that if the tactic, if you tackle that, the tactics should be let census remain as it is in the bill, confident that those who are concerned about the Patent and Trade Office, as I am, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who are here in front of me, we can be confident that that will be made whole in conference before it gets to the President. I think we have more confidence in that alternative than we can be and that the census will be made whole. I urge my colleagues in conclusion to leave the bill as the committee has reported it. It is not sufficient. It is not sufficient, but we are more likely to make PTO sufficient in conference than we are census. Both are critically necessary as every speaker has articulated on both sides of this issue. In sum, this is a tactical determination, not a substantive one, because no one disagrees with either substantive proposal. But to rob from Peter to pay Paul, when Peter perhaps will be less attended to than Paul does not make good tactical sense. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support additional funding for PTO.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on the job that he has done. During committee markup of this bill, the subcommittee chairman urged the members to support it despite in my opinion, which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has also reflected, its substantial flaws, saying at that point in time we were in the second round of a 10-round fight. In my opinion, the committee got knocked out in the third round. Having struggled to its feet, the committee now offers a somewhat better bill if the manager's amendment is adopted. But, in my opinion, this bill is still not a winner. We should knock it out again and demand even better for the people we serve. As members recall, the committee bill was so underfunded that it drew widespread, justified criticism. It would have cut over 1,700 employees from an already pared down legislative branch. It would have denied COLAs to the employees who remained. It would have dramatically impaired our ability to function, and not because the legislative branch is overfunded. It is not overfunded. This subcommittee has in the past under Democrats and Republicans been quite frugal. The committee's report admits that the cuts were, and I quote, ``not necessarily reductions the committee would have made if not constrained by the budget resolution.'' This is the immaculate-conception argument that has been used repeatedly with respect to our appropriation bills. Translation: these cuts were required to finance the GOP's election-year tax cuts. The most egregious cut in the committee bill, of course, has been discussed. It would have cut 438 Capitol Police officers from the rolls, 338 by a reduction in force. Let me say something with respect to the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) observations. I do not have figures yet as to uniformed personnel, but our Committee on House Administration of which I have the privilege of being the ranking member, has authorized 1,511 personnel for the Capitol Police. Why? Because unlike the cities that the gentleman from Florida mentioned, we have millions, yes, millions of visitors to this Capitol complex every year, our constituents from all over the country. The bill as it was originally presented by the committee would pare security back below where it was 23 months ago, before our review generated by the deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. The committee refused the Police Board's request for 100 new officers that the two postshooting reviews urged are needed to make the Capitol safe for visitors, staff and Members. Today's somewhat better bill, if the manager's amendment is adopted, funds 1,354 officers on the rolls, about 160 less than are authorized; it fills at least some of the 100 or more vacancies expected next year; and funds a class of recruits that just started training. But in my view, Mr. Chairman, it fails to provide adequate security for thousands who work in or visit the complex, including the police, themselves, on a daily basis. Police funding is not the only problem with this bill. The committee bill would have slashed spending for the General Accounting Office, which helps us find waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending, so deeply as to cut 707 staff. The manager's amendment somewhat solves that problem, and I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman for supporting it. But the somewhat better bill still cuts GAO by $8.7 million below this year and 230 FTEs. So it is not like we are making anybody whole here. In 1999, GAO recommendations yielded savings of $57 for every $1 we spent on the GAO. That is a good return, 57 to 1. I believe our taxpayers would think if we saved $57 by spending $1, we are ahead of the game. The committee bill also took, in my opinion, a meat-axe to the Government Printing Office, lopping over 25 percent of its funding and 400 staff. The Senate bill increases GPO spending, only by four-tenths of a point, but increased it. The committee bill would have effectively ended the depository library program used by thousands and thousands of Americans weekly in most of our districts, eliminated entire classes of congressional printing and even printing for next January's inauguration which we know is coming. The improved bill still cuts GPO by 7.4 percent and 176 FTEs, including RIFs for 13 people who compile the Congressional Record Index. It restores most cuts to the depository program, I am referring to the manager's amendment, but still cuts printed publications, the kind most library customers actually want to read, going into libraries by 15,000. It restores the inaugural printing, but leaves Members without publications like ``Our Flag.'' It may sound silly, but every school child in America loves that publication and learns more about the flag. It cuts ``How Our Laws Are Made'' and delays reprinting of the only official version of the U.S. Code. The committee bill would have cut 156 staff from the Architect's office, many of them custodians and laborers who perform the basic maintenance of the Capitol. The somewhat better bill does fund the Architect staff but rejects his request for 13 FTEs to work on life safety matters, including fire safety which should be a priority for this institution. Overall, the bill still cuts 368 FTEs legislative-branch wide, after we have under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina and his predecessors made substantial cuts every year over the last 5 years and indeed, as Mr. Lombard knows, even before that under Democratic control. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably cannot support this bill even with the manager's amendment. It shortchanges Capitol security and life safety programs, depository-library patrons, oversight of Federal spending and other functions to pay for election-year tax cuts. For most accounts, the Senate figures are where we should be after conference.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the sponsor of this amendment and most of the folks who are supporting this voted for a budget that cut less from the national debt and took more time to get to balance than did the Democratic alternative which they voted against. I serve on the Committee on Appropriations. We have 13 separate appropriation bills. Every Republican chairman as he has reported his bill to the full committee has said, we do not have enough resources to fund the priorities that we have within our responsibility. Every one of the Republican chairmen has said that. This is not a case where the Committee on Budget has given the Committee on Appropriations so much money it does not know what to do with it. We cut $3 billion under the President's proposal for education, and 2.7 million children will not be served because of the budget that we passed. Now, the fact of the matter is, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) talks about bringing down the deficit. I am for that. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment; I voted for the 1997 agreement. I have been a fiscal conservative in the sense that we need to bring down spending. I voted for the 1993 bill, which, in my opinion, has made the most contribution to really bringing down the debt, not nickel and diming by this project or that project, but by hundreds of billions of dollars. That took courage. That is the way we ought to go, not, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) says, by adopting gimmicks that are easy for a lot of people to adopt.

Mr. HOYER. I did not have the opportunity because of time constraints to mention this amendment, but I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, one of the senior members of the Committee on Appropriations, and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who have correctly pointed out the deficiencies of this lock-box amendment. I hope the chairman of our committee also believes that this would be harmful to our decision-making process and our flexibility, and would undermine our ability to make judgments on priorities as we proceed through the process, which is of course the point the gentleman from Pennsylvania made. This amendment, of course, did not come out of the subcommittee, did not come out of the full committee, but was made in order by the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, correctly observed the harmful effects that this would have on the entire House in a bipartisan way. I join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging our colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment. I want to say at the outset that I believe that the chairman of this subcommittee is not necessarily in theory opposed to the dollars being added back and, therefore, I think in terms of substance, we can all support this amendment. The ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) will argue that we are constrained by funding priorities, but I believe that this is a priority. I believe that is why the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has offered it. If we think NASA's work is confined to scientific esoterica that only a handful of Ph.D.s can understand, we need to think again. Research and development conducted by NASA for our space program has led to widespread social benefits, everything from improvements in commercial airline safety to understanding global climate change. NASA's research also has benefited medical science. For example, its research on the cardiovascular systems is leading to breakthrough discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors, self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images. You would not think of that at first blush. The amendment before us would restore $322.7 million in funding for NASA's space and aeronautical programs, funding that was cut in committee from the President's number. The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into focus, which is, in my opinion, what we ought to do. It would restore $260 million to NASA's space launch initiative, which is critical for our future space needs. In addition, this amendment would restore $16.6 million in funding for NASA's Living with a Star initiative, a project that will be run at Goddard Space Flight Center. Mr. Speaker, the tapestry of our national history is woven together by exploration and discovery, from the first settlers in Jamestown to the expeditions of Lewis and Clark, to Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon 31 years ago. Today, let us reaffirm our national commitment to the latest frontier, science and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me state my strong support for this amendment on NASA funding. It's not about pork-barrel spending and pet projects. It's about our Nation's peace and prosperity, and our quality of life. If you think that NASA's work is confined to scientific esoterica that only a handful of PhDs can understand, think again. Research and development conducted by NASA for our space program has led to widespread social benefits--everything from improvements in commercial airline safety to understanding global climate change. NASA's research also has benefitted medical science. For example, its research on the cardiovascular system is leading to breakthrough discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors, self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images. The amendment before us would restore $322.7 million in funding to NASA's space and aeronautical programs--funding that was cut in committee. That's certainly a lot of money. However, before I describe the NASA programs that would be forced into a stare down with the budget ax, and why funding for these programs ought to be restored, let me ask this question: Are our national priorities so out of whack that we're willing to sacrifice our commitment to science and technology on the altar of enormous and irresponsible tax cuts? Despite the pioneering spirit that courses through our national character, the majority party apparently thinks so. Last year, they pushed their huge tax cut scheme through Congress, even though it could have put at risk the healthiest economy in our lifetimes. This year, they're back with equally irresponsible tax schemes. That's what this cut to NASA funding is all about--funding tax cuts that would benefit the wealthiest among us. The Republican Party--with its $175 billion in tax cuts over five years, which, according to some estimates, would rise to nearly $1 trillion over 10 years--has to make its budget numbers add up somehow. Today, NASA's neck is stretched out on the chopping block. Yesterday, it was our school modernization and class-size reduction efforts. And tomorrow, it will be our initiative to put more police officers on our streets. All of these vital programs--and our effort to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare--face the budget ax because the Republican Party would rather pass tax-cut schemes than invest in our Nation's future. The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into focus. It would restore $260 million to NASA's space launch initiative, which is critical for our future in space. Safe, low-cost space transportation is the key to expanded commercial development and civil exploration of space. This NASA program would enable new opportunities in space exploration and enhance international competitiveness of the U.S. commercial launch industry. It's no wonder that NASA believes this program could impact space exploration and commerce as deeply as the Apollo program. This amendment also would restore $16.6 million in funding for NASA's Living With a Star initiative--a project that will be run at Goddard Space Flight Center in my district. The Living With a Star initiative will enhance our understanding of the Sun and its impact on Earth and the environment. It will enable scientists to predict solar weather more accurately, and understand how solar variations affect civilian and military space systems, human space flight, electric power grids, high-frequency radio communications, and long-range radar. In addition, this amendment would restore $46.1 million in funding for two programs that are developing solutions to expensive delays in commercial airline traffic. NASA uses its unique research capabilities to diagnose problems with current air traffic systems and develop technology solutions. Mr. Chairman, the tapestry of our national history is woven together by exploration and discovery--from the first settlers in Jamestown to the expeditions of Lewis and Clark to Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon 31 years ago. We have never turned our backs on challenge. We have never been content with the status quo. We have always dared to peer over the next horizon. Today' let's reaffirm our national commitment to the latest frontier, science and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for the information. I note that the prescription drug bill is not on the calendar for next week, Mr. Leader; but I am wondering, notwithstanding that, can the gentleman confirm for us the discussions we have had that, because this is a matter of such importance to the American people, that when the bill does come up, that the minority will at a minimum have the opportunity to offer our substitute proposal that has brought this issue to the floor when it does come to the floor?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his reply, and I understand the fact that he may not be able to predict what the Committee on Rules would do, but can the distinguished Leader, based upon what I understand are conversations that I have not participated in, but I think some have, can the Leader advise me whether or not it would be his intention to advise the Committee on Rules that the minority have the opportunity to offer its substitute on an issue of such magnitude to the American people?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response, and, again, would hope very sincerely that on a matter of this magnitude that the House would have the opportunity of considering at least two substantive alternatives and the substantive alternative offered by the minority party as it sees fit to offer it.