Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we adopted Medicare.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, the gentleman is.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion to recommit at the conclusion of the consideration of this bill. The motion to recommit is not debatable, so I am explaining it at this time to all Members. The majority has included in this bill a provision which will strike the comparability adjustment for Members of Congress by 3.4 percent. The fact of the matter is that that provision will have no impact on Social Security and no impact on the deficit and, I point out to all the Members, no impact on Members. The reason it will have no impact on Members is because the Constitution precludes reducing a Member's compensation during the term of his or her office. Therefore, we are reliably informed that this provision will not take effect until January 1, 2001. It is, therefore, simply self- flagellation which will not adversely affect us. But we will pretend to the public that it will; and we will, therefore, add to the cynicism of the public as we rhetorically say we are beating our chest and not taking a pay raise, when in fact it will occur on January 1, 2000. So I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, we adopted an adjustment of pay. Why did we do it? Because for 5 out of the 6 years we had not taken an adjustment, which means that the 2.3 percent that we received in 1998, if divided by six, was a four-tenths of a percent adjustment per year. Certainly, I would hope that none of my constituents, nor any of my colleagues', would think that was an unreasonable adjustment in salaries for the service given. My colleagues, the 3.4 percent, as all of us know, is 1.4 percent, or about 35 percent, less than Federal employees will receive and less than the military will receive. That is appropriate. We want to take less to ensure that the public knows we are not here for money's sake. But it is fair to keep us even. I would hope my colleagues realize that the inclusion of this language will have a pretense to the public that we are doing something adverse to ourselves and trying to tighten our own belts. But because it is a pretense and when they find that it does not happen, they will be cynical. Very frankly, I do not think anybody thinks this is going to happen anyway, which is also adding to the cynicism of the public. I urge all Members to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) may not have been here. This budget spends, in fiscal year 2000, $1.5 billion less than the President of the United States asked for in NIH. That is what their budget does.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). Like the gentleman from Oregon, I too have watched a loved one die of cancer. I did not want her to commit suicide nor be put to death. I wanted her to be healed, as the previous speaker has said, and I believe all the doctors that dealt with her wanted to do that. But anybody who has gone through that experience, I think, is convicted of the fact that they want the doctor to have the latitude to use such means and devices as in the doctor's judgment is best to relieve that patient from the agony of death. I will vote for this substitute and urge the adoption of this substitute because I believe it gives that latitude. It states as a policy that we are against assisted suicide, but it also goes on to train and to offer counseling and education in this very difficult time for families and individuals. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rothman-Johnson-Maloney- Hooley ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' to H.R. 2260--``The Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Assisted suicide remains a divisive issue around the nation. For young and old alike who suffer from terminal illness, finding a way to ease excruciating pain is a complex and difficult task. The ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' provides a viable alternative to the ```Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Not only does it express this body's opposition to assisted suicide, but it implements a variety of programs to provide information on pain management and learn more about the importance of controlled substances in treating the seriously and terminally ill. The ``Conquering Pain Substitute'' puts more emphasis into research and insuring that health professions have the information they need in making pain management decisions. The substitute expands access to pain management by establishing family support networks, a pain guidelines web-site, and insures that all Medicare recipients are informed of their insurance coverage of pain treatment. The bill also calls for a report by the Surgeon General on legal and regulatory barriers to pain management as well as establishing an advisory committee on pain to coordinate efforts to the Federal Government. This substitute provides a sensible approach to a difficult and emotional issue and I hope my fellow colleagues will join me in supporting it. From time to time a few egregious cases, like assisted suicide, lead us to adopt legislation with broad implications and possible unintended consequences. However, if the substitute fails, I will vote for final passage of H.R. 2260. Representatives Hyde and Stupak have made a concerted effort to win wide-spread support of their bill including support by the American Medical Association, and the National Hospice Association. This bill is far superior to the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act that was introduced in the 105th Congress. Once again I urge my colleagues to support the ``Conquering Pain Substitute''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I attended the Eighth Annual Wreathlaying Ceremony commemorating the Anniversary of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial's Dedication. Although I have attended these commemorations in the past, this year's ceremony was particularly touching. Over the course of this decade, our federal, state and local law enforcement officers increasingly have faced dangerous conditions in communities around the Nation. During the 1990s, an average of more than 62,000 officers were assaulted, more than 21,000 were injured and 160 were killed in the line of duty each year. The walls of the Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial are lined with more than 14,000 names, including three of our very own Capitol Police Officers--Officer Jacob J. Chesnut, Detective John Gibson and Officer Christopher Eney. Every single day, the men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect and serve large and small communities across this Nation. They risk their lives to make ours safe and secure. Whether as a border patrol agent, state trooper, or community-oriented police officer, all face the ultimate sacrifice in upholding the laws that serve as the foundation to our democratic form of government. Below you will find that text of remarks made by Mrs. Shirley Gibson. Mrs. Gibson is the mother of Officer Brian Gibson, one of 160 police officers killed in the line of duty in 1997 and one of three officers from the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department to be killed during a three-month period in that year. Officer Gibson was brutally gunned down outside of a District night club not far from this Chamber. Since Brian's death almost two years ago, Mrs. Gibson has formed a local chapter of the Concerns of Police Survivors. I salute her efforts to remember Brian and the thousands of other officers that have left behind family and friends while making the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Mrs. Gibson: I feel qualified to stand here today and represent the survivors of each name inscribed on the walls of this beautiful Memorial. I see so much more than names on these walls. I see husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. I see my son's face. His name was added to these walls two short years ago, along with the names of two fellow Metropolitan Police Department officers, Oliver Smith, Jr. and Robert Johnson, all killed in a span of three months. 640 law enforcement officers' names from the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan area are included in the more than 14,0000 names that line these walls. This Memorial recognizes all law enforcement, whether federal, state or local, and pays tribute to those officers killed in the line of duty. There are no boundaries in the family of law enforcement. The grief, shock, and anger felt that the deaths of U.S. Capitol Police Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, and the support from MPD and other departments here and around the country, is an example of how law enforcement is truly a family. To survivors, this is a place that evokes a flood of emotions. I remember seeing my son Brian's name being inscribed on the wall, and the pride I felt mixed with the pain. Pride, knowing that my son was an outstanding officer who was killed during what he loved most, and that his name was being memorialized for all who love him to see and remember. Pain, because I realized that Brian's name would not be the last name inscribed here. Since Brian's death, there have been many more names added, and as much as we pray that there will be no more, we realize that it is inevitable. To those law enforcement officers who diligently continue the job that Brian and the thousands of others here died for, the message this Memorial sends is that you are appreciated, you are needed and you make the world a safer place for law- abiding citizens. On this, the eighth anniversary of the dedication this Memorial, another message is clearly sent. That message is that the role of Law Enforcement Officers will never be diminished, that the names inscribed here and the names attached to every law enforcement badge, convey the strength, courage, and valor symbolized by the imposing lions with guard the entrance to this Memorial. The survivors who visit this Memorial find a quiet place of remembrance, dignity and pride. A mother from New York called me a few weeks after Police Week this year. Her only son had been honored. When she returned home, the desire to come back to the Memorial was so strong, that a few days later she boarded a train to Union Station, got a taxi and came here to simply spend the day looking at her son's name and remembered faces of those who advocated peace. A place where the wind whispers ``Always remembered. Never forgotten.'' A place worthy of the name of those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. God Bless the Gibson Family and God Bless the thousands of families whose loved ones are remembered on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Their tremendous sacrifice will never be forgotten. We will forever be in their debt.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's comments are very important and relevant. We need to keep focused on that. Too often we tend to denigrate Federal service at whatever level, from the administrative law judge level to a file clerk. The fact of the matter is they are very important to the fair and proper administration of the people's government. We certainly want to make sure that we have people at these positions who have sound judgment, significant legal ability, and can wisely dispose of the issues that confront them. I also want to say that I very much appreciate the leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, who has been the ranking member of this subcommittee, and as such has worked with the chairman in a very positive way in ensuring that we have a sound, wise public employee policy in this country. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former Speaker pro tem of the Maryland House for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 915, which, as has been stated, is a bill that will provide the President with the authority to provide annual cost of living adjustments to our Nation's more than 1,300 Federal administrative judges, the same authority he now has, frankly, with respect to members of the Senior Executive Service. Currently the pay and step levels for administrative law judges are tied to the Executive Schedule, so they are unable to receive an increase in pay in the years when the Executive Schedule remains unchanged. Since 1991, the basic pay for administrative law judges has increased only three times, in 1992, 1993 and not until 1998, and only one time in the last 5 years, as the figures reflect. That is in contrast to employees under the General Schedule and the Senior Executive Schedule, who have received a COLA increase in 4 of the last 5 years. This legislation will bring the pay of administrative law judges into line with career employees in the General Schedule and Senior Executive Service. Mr. Speaker, prior to 1990, administrative law judges fell under the General Schedule and were paid at the GS-15 and 16 rates. In 1990, as part of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, a legislation which I had the honor of sponsoring, the judges had their pay linked to the executive schedule. While this legislation, H.R. 915, will not change the current grade and step structures for administrative law judges, it will tie each grade and step to fixed percentages of the SES. I support this legislation, and hope this bill will provide increased competition, and draw the highly qualified candidates that these judgeship positions require for the sound administration of the Federal Government and Federal rules and regulations. I urge my colleagues to join me and the gentlewoman from Illinois and the gentleman from Maryland in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a timely bill, and hopefully every Member will support it. The House is indeed fortunate to have such an excellent Child Care Center. At present, Mr. Speaker, the center is open only to children of employees of the legislative branch, with Members and employees of the House having priority. Numerous Members and staff have entrusted their children to the center over the years. My own granddaughter Judy, as a matter of fact, when my daughter was working here was at the Child Care Center and she was enriched immeasurably by that experience. The House Child Care Center is a wonderful place, and I wish there were many more like it for parents across the country who desperately need safe, reliable, high quality child care. The House center, which occupies space in the Ford House Office Building, receives no direct appropriations. Except for its space, utilities and benefits for its staff who are House employees, the center must sustain itself through its tuitions. Like many child care centers, the House center has difficulty filling all its places for 3- and 4-year-olds. There is a long waiting list, Mr. Speaker, for infants and strong demand for places for 1- and 2-year-olds. This is because new working parents without family-based child care alternatives often find few options for child care outside the home. However, as children approach the school age, other options become available to many parents. These options may include free or low cost public preschool programs. Parents may enroll in prekindergarten programs that virtually assure later acceptance in a particular school. The arrival of younger siblings may render it more economical for one parent to stay home or to hire a nanny to care for children in the home, if that is financially possible. For child care centers, the loss of 3- and 4- year-olds, who are the most profitable since child-to-adult ratios can be higher, has a great effect on the bottom line. This legislation will ease this problem for the House center by expanding the population it can serve to include employees of other Federal agencies. The center will continue to give first priority to children of the House, then to other legislative branch children. If places remain, however, available thereafter, it will then be offered to children of other Federal employees. This is a sensible move that will make the House center more efficient. It will ease the upward pressure on the center's tuition rates which are already frankly beyond the reach of many House employees. Equally important, it will make the benefits of the House Child Care Center available to Federal employees throughout the Washington region. There are undoubtedly numerous Federal workers across this area who would appreciate the chance to enroll their children in the House Child Care Center. We should certainly offer them placements in our center that would otherwise go unfilled, and that is the key. We are simply providing for vacant spaces being available. We will not in any way compete with the House employees. Mr. Speaker, by strengthening the House Child Care Center, this bill is good for the House and other legislative branch employees who need child care. By expanding the eligible population to include all Federal employees, it is good for Federal workers in this area and the government generally. I certainly rise in strong support of this legislation and ask for an affirmative vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Guam for his contribution. I might want to say, as well, that I had the opportunity of being on the West Coast just a few days ago and there was a former broadcaster on Guam, a journalist with whom I talked, and she said whenever there was a problem from an historical or political perspective that the media had in Guam and wanted some expert information, they would call Dr. Underwood who was a distinguished historian and teacher and get advice and counsel and he always knew the answers. He makes an appropriate point, the 440 Members indeed that make an impact on this body. Mr. Speaker, I again want to congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the former President pro tempore of the Connecticut Senate, now a very, very active and effective leader in the House of Representatives, the sponsor of this legislation. (Mr. LARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the chairman for his comments and his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this important legislation, sponsored by my good friend and our colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). This legislation has 311 cosponsors, including the Speaker and the minority leader. I understand that a few more have been added even this day. H.R. 2303 is an extraordinarily timely initiative, given the massive institutional changes which have affected the House over the last few years, and as we move into the 21st century. Earlier this year, the House recodified its rules for the first time since 1880, another recent useful effort to reexamine and hopefully to improve things which we tend to take for granted. We benefit as Members of the House, and the American people benefit, when Members can take some time away from the constant pressures of legislating, meeting our constituents, traveling back and forth from our districts and keeping hectic schedules, to think about the environment in which we work and the legacy of all those who came before us. And we have so little time even to do that. In my earlier career, I was president of the State Senate in Maryland, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) was president pro tempore of the Senate in Connecticut, roughly equivalent positions in two parliamentary bodies which are older than this House of Representatives. As such, we had some responsibility for managing the work of our legislative institutions and the environment in which State Senators worked, environments rich in history. Here in Washington it takes real work and effort for Members to learn about the history of the House, however. We rarely think of the historic figures who populate artwork throughout the Capitol as having been persons of great accomplishment in legislation, oratory, and the philosophy of democracy, rather than figures we may notice momentarily as we dart through the corridors from meeting to meeting. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution requires that Congress assemble to do its work and that we can exercise our priorities only by working collectively. Too often Members can feel isolated managing their individual offices tending to constituent problems in their district and come to the floor only for a few minutes to vote. But it was not always like that in this chamber, and we do well to remember that. It would benefit this House if the public had a better understanding of not only what we do on a daily basis, but what our predecessors did and how we stand up compared to them. Certainly, the public has more than enough exposure to the politics of the House. The bill offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) would offer interested citizens a chance to appreciate, in addition to the politics of the House today, the historic role of the House as the representatives of the popular will. Mr. Speaker, the bill would direct the Librarian of Congress, at no cost to the Government, I might add, and with the ability to accept private funds, to prepare an illustrated narrative history of the House of Representatives. The Librarian could use the extensive scholarly resources at his command and would be authorized to consult, commission, or engage the services of eminent historians, Members, and former Members of the House to produce a book accessible to the public at large as well as to the House and to the scholarly community. The Librarian has informed us, Mr. Speaker, that once the bill is enacted into law he intends to appoint a scholarly advisory board to engage an eminent historian or historians who would conduct the principal work of writing the book. The Librarian will also consult with the House Administration Committee led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). The bill would also authorize the Librarian to accept materials relating to an oral history of the House as told by its Members and former Members. The bill states the sense of the House that orientation programs for freshmen Members of the House should include a seminar on the history of the House and that the Speaker should conduct forums on the history of the House. As ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, I participate in orientation sessions on many occasions; and I believe that they would be benefited greatly from the inclusion of a big picture view of the House, the Members' place in it, and its historical role. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation and that it has received the strong bipartisan and leadership support needed to give the history of the House project momentum to get it underway quickly and do it thoroughly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the occasion of the Third Annual Caucus for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail to be held October 22 at Oxon Hill Manor, in my District. Since Congress designated the Potomac River corridor as a National Scenic Trail in legislation enacted in 1983, grassroots organizations have joined forces with federal, state and local government agencies to identify new opportunities to provide for public enjoyment of a trail that follows ``Our Nation's River.'' Protection of our river--which is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed--and its historic sites and natural areas must be a top priority for our region in the years ahead. The National Park Service requires sufficient tools to help facilitate public involvement with this National Scenic Trail, which is why I support full funding of this effort under the Service's budget. I congratulate the community of grassroots supporters of the Potomac Heritage Trail including the Potomac Heritage Partnership, Prince George's County government, the Accokeek Foundation and many other local groups and individuals. They are leading the regional effort to encourage conservation, historic preservation and sustainable commerce along the Potomac River corridor. They deserve our full support for their efforts.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on Budget. I tend to agree with him, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said earlier, that the who struck John and back and forth is really not of much interest to the American public. But the budgets that people submit are of interest because they presumably do suggest policy. The chairman of the Committee on Budget historically has offered budgets, also when it was Democrats in charge and so that budget would not have been adopted, which suggested spending either all in the sense that we exceeded the Social Security surplus or most of the Social Security surplus in his own budgets submitted to the committee and/or the House. It is not, I think, very useful as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, to pretend that, to date, we have not passed bills which, if ultimately enacted, would not spend Social Security revenues. They would in the sense that we would exceed the off Social Security surpluses in our total spending proposals. What we are here today to do is pass a continuing resolution. We are here today to pass a continuing resolution which will give us one more week to try to complete our job. I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who now talk about going down to the White House, I am pleased they are doing that. But their leader about whom we have read so much recently said that, in effect, they were going to pass appropriation bills, hold the Labor, Health bill, and negotiate with the President with him on his knees. I do not think the American public are interested in that kind of political discourse. I think they expect honest discussions between the White House and the Congress. I think they expect and deserve an honest treatment of this budget process, not threats, not pretense, not emergency funding which, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin, is now in the neighborhood of $20 billion plus. As my friend, the chairman of the committee, who in my opinion is supporting this policy, but is not the author of this policy, knows full well, it will have deep and drastic and adverse consequences next year. So in the name of responsibility, we are creating a major problem in the next year. Everybody on the Committee on Appropriations knows that. Everybody who knows anything about the budget knows that to be the case. The fact of the matter is Social Security is in better shape now because of, frankly, the 1990 budget agreement, the 1993 budget agreement, and, yes, the 1997 agreement. But let me say something about the 1997 agreement that has become the Holy Grail. The premise was we would still be in deficit today of the 1997 agreement. We were wrong. Happily, we were wrong. We have done much better than we thought we were going to do. We are in surplus, not in deficit. So the premise underlying the 1997 agreement is not presently applicable. That does not mean, therefore, that we ought to prolifically spend. We ought not to. But in fact, the President of the United States in February came to this House and said we are going to be paying down a substantial portion of our surplus on the national debt, the first time it has been done. Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked us to spend more money than we spent in those 12 years. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said that. I reiterate it. No one on the floor denies it because it is the fact. So that in terms of all this fiscal discipline that we hear about from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, that may be, but their Presidents, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, whom I supported in many of their policies, in particular their build up of defense, which I thought was appropriate, signed every nickel that was spent. We never overwrote a veto to spend more money. Never. Never. The gentlemen on the Republican side say, well, the President will not let us do this, so the President is doing this, that, and the other because he vetoes it. Yes, that it is true. The President has a lot of power. Ronald Reagan signed every nickel that was spent and put us $4 trillion in additional debt. Were we responsible? Yes, we were. But, clearly, it could not have been done without Reagan's and Bush's signatures. In 1990, we adopted a program. In 1993, without any Republican help, we adopted another program. As a direct and proximate result, we have a surplus. Let us deal with it responsibly. I am going to vote for this CR to give us another 8 days. But let us go down and discuss with the President positively and productively, not in a way that tries to bring the President or the Congress to its knees. The American public does not want us there. They do not deserve to have us there.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) mentioned Harry Truman's remarks about the disabled community. I had the privilege of cosponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act that President Bush signed in July of 1990. That bill said that we were going to give opportunity to 43 million Americans who were disabled. What this bill does, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) has pointed out and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has pointed out so well, is to facilitate the entry into the workplace for those who, but for this bill, may not be able to risk it or afford it. The good news is that the bill for a portion of time made optional the payment of some of these expenses. I want to thank the committee and those who worked on this bill to reinstall the mandatory nature under Medicaid of the payments that have been provided for. That is essential not to discriminate against those who might be disabled and who do, as the gentleman has said, want to enter the workplace, want to be taxpayers, and want to enjoy the full opportunities that America has to offer.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, very frankly, I will say to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, his side of the aisle is so intent on making the political point, and a point with which I agree with reference to the use of marijuana, that it is not listening to what the gentleman from Virginia said. So intent are they on the politicization of this debate that they are ignoring the substance of this debate. What the gentleman from Virginia said, they have seven riders on this bill. He said with respect to one rider, to which I am vigorously opposed and believe is exactly contrary to what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and that is the restriction on the District of Columbia to press its rights in the courts of this land by refusing it the opportunity to use its corporate funds, that is, tax dollars paid in by its citizens to its government, for the purposes of saying, we are being denied our rights under the Constitution of the United States, that is what my friend is trying to preclude the District of Columbia citizens from doing. But he is so intent on making his political point that it is the drugs issue that he wants to focus on, solely. The gentleman from Virginia said nothing about that provision. What he said was that we would agree to this bill if that side added one word to the provision that prohibits 600,000 American citizens from pursuing their rights in the courts of this land, corporately. The gentleman is the chairman of this committee said what I was saying was hogwash the last time we had this debate. One could make their own analysis of the substance of that kind of debate. But the fact of the matter is that he does prohibit in this bill the use of funds to pursue constitutional relief. All the gentleman from Virginia is saying is, add ``Federal funds.'' I think that is wrong, but add ``Federal funds.'' Just because we have the power to do so, I would say that parents have the power to do things they ought not to do, and the State has the power to do things that it ought not to do. The fact of the matter is that we ought not to preclude Federal funds. Let us assume that their side of the aisle, which has the majority votes, wants to preclude the District of Columbia from pursuing its constitutional relief by saying that they cannot use Federal funds. All the gentleman from Virginia is saying is, all right, let them use their own locally-raised funds to ask the Supreme Court or the circuit courts or the District court for relief. If that is added, just that one word, what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is offering is that we will support this bill and let it go; not because we agree with the other six, we do not necessarily agree with the other six, although I tend to agree with the gentleman's provision with reference to the provision that he is so offended by, but because we believe that this is the single most egregious provision I think we have included in any piece of legislation since I have been here, to say to 600,000 American citizens, we are not even going to allow you to use your corporately- raised funds for the purposes of redressing your constitutional grievances and protecting your constitutional rights. Surely the gentleman from Georgia, who has talked about the Constitution, cannot support that provision.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, who is the senior Member of this House, for yielding me this time. His father introduced health care legislation long before I knew anything about what Congress was doing. He has followed in that distinguished tradition. I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for his courage, his commitment, his focus to ensuring that patients and families and doctors had the opportunity to provide the medical care that the patients needed. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by one of the most distinguished and conscientious and honest Members of this House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). I say to the gentleman, with all due respect, that we stand on the edge of an opportunity to pass historic legislation. This amendment will undermine that, not because this amendment, per se, is inherently bad, but because this amendment raises very complicated issues that, frankly, could have been raised in another way and could have been considered, in my opinion, much more straightforwardly and honestly as an amendment to the bill as opposed to a substitute to the bill. I am reminded somewhat of what we did on campaign finance reform, not what the gentleman is doing, but the procedure that is being followed. I urge my colleagues who have come this far to ensure that we complete this historic effort with the Norwood-Dingell bill and reject this amendment. Vote overwhelmingly to pass this legislation. Let it go to conference where it will be worked on by, not only the Senate and the House, but by the President as well. We will have an opportunity this year to do something that the American public will say is the best thing that we have done this year in ensuring that patients and doctors have the right and the opportunity to provide health care that the patients and doctors believe is necessary, not some third party. Defeat this substitute.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 1, 1999, I celebrated a final day of work with twenty-seven members of the Architect of the Capitol staff from the House Office Buildings. Of the twenty-seven employees leaving us, eighteen are my constituents. These valued employees are retiring under a buyout program developed earlier this year by the Architect of the Capitol and approved by the House Administration Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member. The buyout program has provided excellent retirement opportunities, which at the same time creating new avenues of advancement for the staff of the Architect who continue with us. The staffers retiring today have an average of twenty-nine years of service each, and together, they have provided 798 years of service. The Architect of the Capitol fields a work force that is indispensable to us, and often labors unnoticed in the shadows, or more aptly, in the basement and tunnels of these buildings. Like public employees everywhere, they do some of the toughest jobs under the most adverse conditions in the country. They do it always with smiles and friendly greetings, and a job well done. These employees were never looking to get rich and they do not do it for public acclaim. They do their jobs and they do them well because they know we all rely on them. Lyndon Johnson understood this. He said of public service ``so much of what we achieve as people depends upon the caliber and the character of the civil service.'' I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you on behalf of all my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. Farewell to those employees leaving us today, we will miss them and we thank them for their contribution to our daily lives. They are: Lewis Bowles, Jr., John Callahan, Jr., Douglas Colbert, Ernest Cook, Margaret Donnelly, Lillie Drayton, Alvin Gayan, Hubert Gray, David Ingram, Solomon Landers, Earl Lemings, Carroll Lumpkins, Jr., Norman Lynch, James Mattingly, Luke Mattingly, William McWilliams, Bernard Merritt, Robert Merryman, Walter Montgomery, Allen Nichols, Talmadge Nowden, Anthony Pilkerton, James Quade, Robert Quade, Raymond Stager, George Stein, and Leonard Vanryswick.