Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCARTHY). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and they will control that time, leaving myself with 6 minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge its passage. What did he say? What kind of doublespeak is this? Is he speaking out of both sides of his mouth? I will leave it for the Members to determine, and I will discuss this rule and why I think it ought to be passed, and why I think it is an unfortunate rule in that context. Mr. Speaker, there is a disease infecting American politics today. That disease is cynicism--cynicism towards our public institutions and our public officials. The symptoms are plain to see: civic disengagement, voter apathy, detachment, disaffection, and erosion of trust. In my view, this cynicism is inextricably linked to our current campaign finance system. In the 1996 presidential election cycle, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans contributed the maximum $1,000 per election for any candidate, according to the Advocacy Group on Public Campaigns. Yet, Americans cannot help but be awe-struck by the so-called soft money contributions pouring into our politics. In the 1996 election cycle, the two major parties raised $260 million in soft money. The same group predicts this figure will explode to $750 million in this cycle. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a rare opportunity to attack this cynicism before it hardens into a more debilitating contempt. We also can show the American people that we indeed can work together in a bipartisan manner. Just 13 months ago this House overwhelmingly passed the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, 252 to 179, 61 Republicans, 190 Democrats. There is no reason that we cannot pass this important measure by even a larger margin today. As we all know, Shays-Meehan would chip away at this cynicism by banning soft money contributions. In addition, it would regulate issue advertising that is clearly aimed at electing or defeating a specific candidate. While I am hopeful that we will pass Shays-Meehan once again, I am mindful that the path to victory is treacherous. That is because the rule governing today's debate in my view is designed to do one thing only, to kill Shays-Meehan. That is why I said at the beginning that I rise in opposition to this rule but urge its support, because I fear if it goes down, we will not have the opportunity to consider Shays- Meehan. Here is what the Washington Post said about the 10 amendments made in order by this rule: ``They were written and chosen either to vitiate the Shays-Meehan bill, or to poison it for Democrats who might then take the lead in killing it. Perhaps even worse, this rule pits noncontroversial Federal Election Commission reform, the Thomas substitute, against Shays-Meehan.'' If the Thomas substitute receives more votes than Shays-Meehan, the latter, of course, dies, and we will never even get to vote on it. The substitute on FEC reform is not nor was it ever intended to be campaign finance reform. I ought to know. The Thomas substitute we will consider under this rule incorporates many of the provisions that I sponsored in H.R. 1818. But make no mistake, FEC reform is not campaign finance reform. FEC reform should have been on a suspension calendar or made as an amendment to Shays-Meehan. It was not. It was not because if it is adopted, it will automatically kill Shays-Meehan. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thomas substitute, which I support, but I support Shays-Meehan today, and we can support Thomas tomorrow. I should note, too, that not one of our four committee hearings this summer, not one, was focused on FEC reform. Frankly, as best I can tell, their only real purpose was to try to discredit Shays-Meehan. Finally, despite the fact that this is an unfair rule, as I said at the outset, I urge my colleagues to adopt it, to adopt it so that we can consider legislation critical to trying to allay the cynicism of which I have spoken. Rules, of course, are not always fair, but there is no reason we cannot overcome the obstruction in our path, pass the bipartisan Shays- Meehan bill, and chip away at the cynicism toward American politics that exists today. I urge my colleagues to reject the poison pill amendments, to reject the Thomas substitute so we can adopt it on another day, to leave standing Shays-Meehan, and to vote in a bipartisan, overwhelming fashion to tell the American public that we are in fact, as our leader has said, going to return this House to the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about extremism. I ask my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, to perhaps listen as we talk about extremism. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), with whom I agree so much of the time. I say to him, the good news is that if we reject this conference report, I do not think we will ultimately lose any of the good things of which the gentleman spoke. If we do, it will be a mean-spirited action, indeed, because I presume they are included, because the gentleman's side of the aisle as well as my side of the aisle think those things are positive. We agree on them. I do not rise because I want to legalize drugs. No matter how many times the chairman tries to articulate my reason for taking my action, it will not make it so, Mr. Speaker. Nor will I oppose this bill because the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) tells me to, although I will tell my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), I believe that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is due great deference on this issue, because in this democracy she has been elected by Americans, American citizens, almost 600,000 of them, as we have seen, to represent their views. Those views represented by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) are due deference, in my opinion. But I will oppose this bill for what I believe to be one of the most extreme, tyrannical, dictatorial provisions that I have ever seen in a bill on this floor. It is a shameful provision in this bill. For the American Congress to take the position that an American citizen cannot seek redress in the courts of this land through its corporate structure I say is un-American. It is contrary to the principles that the people's houses ought to represent. I am shocked that it was not dropped in conference. The fact of the matter, the chairman has said, oh, it was in last year's bill, so those who hear that statement will say, oh, well, it must have been, and it was. But last year's bill was included in a bill that appropriated $400-plus billion. It was incorporated in a bill that we had to pass at the last minute because of the failure of the Committee on Appropriations to pass its appropriations bills seriatum, so we did them all in one package, so the President was left with really no alternative. So in this bill we incorporate a provision, and Mr. Speaker, it is not made better because it was included last year. It is made worse that we would repeat this error, this egregious denial of democracy, where we say to the citizens of the District of Columbia, you cannot go to court and say that the way you are being treated is unconstitutional. That is the basis of our government. Why? Because it says to every individual, no matter how small, whether they are 99 and 9 tenths percent not agreed to by the rest of us, that they have the inherent right as a citizen of this country to go to the courts and seek redress of their grievances. Mr. Speaker, this provision of the bill is offensive to democracy, offensive to our Constitution, offensive to the basic rights of individuals to redress their grievances in the only way the Constitution sets forth ultimately for the minority. The majority can redress its grievances by voting in this body. The majority can always redress its grievances. But the genius of our system is that we provide a procedure where even the minority can redress its grievances. That is addressing the court. This bill ought to be rejected for the inclusion of that provision alone.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in the ranks of federal workers are many exceptional people. I want to draw the House's attention to the latest achievement, and lifetime of service, of one federal employee who lives in my congressional district: Ms. Virginia F. Saunders, of Beltsville, Maryland. Ms. Saunders, a dedicated Government Printing Office employee for over fifty years, was recently presented the James Bennett Childs Award by the American Library Association's Government Documents Round Table. This prestigious honor, reserved for persons making extraordinary contributions in the field of government documents librarianship, was awarded to Ms. Saunders in June at the ALA's annual convention in New Orleans. She received the Childs Award in recognition of her work in the compilation and publication of the U.S. Congressional Serial Set, which since 1817 has collected all numbered Senate and House documents into an authoritative, permanent record of the U.S. Congress. Mr. Saunders has served with distinction at the GPO since 1946, when Harry Truman was President. For the last 30 years, she has been the individual primarily responsible for the Serial Set, a publication of incalculable value to library collections, historians, researchers, and students everywhere. In the words of historian Dee Brown, the U.S. Congressional Serial Set ``contains almost everything about the American experience . . . our wars, our peacetime works, our explorations and inventions . . . If we lost everything in print, except our documents, we would still have a splendid record and a memory of our past experience.'' As the GPO's 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group pointed out, researchers and librarians agree that the Serial Set is ``without peer in representative democracies throughout the western world as a documentary compendium.'' Throughout her career, Virginia Saunders has worked tirelessly to improve the Serial Set, and has generously shared her knowledge with document librarians across the country. In 1998, she delivered an overview of the Serial Set's history at the 7th Annual Federal Depository Library Conference. In addition, she has served as a penalist at the ALA's annual conference. This latest award is not Saunders' first recognition for her exemplary service. In 1989, her timely, common-sense suggestion that duplicative House and Senate reports stemming from the Iran-Contra investigation be assigned serial numbers as required, but not bound, saved the government more than $600,000, and earned her commendations from the Public Printer and President George Bush. Her nomination for the Childs Award summarized her work with the Serial Set as follows: ``Ms. Saunders has not only meticulously maintained a set for records of vital importance to the Nation, but has worked with information professionals and Government officials to improve it, to lower costs, and to enhance its accessibility to librarians, researchers, and the public.'' Mr. Speaker, let's join in offering our heartfelt congratulations to Virginia Saunders for her latest achievement, and our sincere thanks for her lifetime of service and a job well done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, like so many who have risen before me, I understand that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the committee are constrained by the dollars which have been allocated to their subcommittee for expenditure. Having said that, that was the initial error. This bill ought not to be supported, because it is in the context, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, of being constrained by what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and others have said is the 1997 Act. Yes, we voted on that act; but the fact is when we voted on that act we thought last year and this year would be in deficit. We thought we would not have balanced the budget by this time, consistent with OMB and CBO hypothesis at that time. The context is different, and we ought not to do what we are doing, in my particular case, to NASA, basic science research. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2684. Over the past 7 years, NASA has restructured, reduced personnel without layoffs and reduced its costs over those 7 years by $35 billion. This is not an agency that did not give at the office and at home. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) knows that. I am extraordinarily concerned. The agency has kept America at the forefront of science research. This bill severely cuts NASA by a billion dollars and undermines our role, in my opinion, as the world leader in science and technology. In fact, according to administrator Dan Golden, two centers, if this budget were carried into place and followed, would have to be closed. The reduction of the research program will eliminate an estimated 600 grants to universities, NASA centers, and other agencies in every State, not just mine. Bill Brody, the President of Johns Hopkins University, wrote to me expressing his concern about the NASA cuts. In his letter he states that 75 percent of Hopkins' applied physics laboratory space department is funded through sources cut by this bill, basic, top flight, world- class research. I know the chairman does not want to cut that, but his bill does that. Brody estimates that within the next year, Hopkins' ability to maintain core engineering capabilities will be crippled for years to come, and the bill threatens the loss of ongoing research and analysis. According to the National Business Coalition for Federal Research, who also contacted me, and I quote, ``Republican cuts to scientific research under this bill are a recipe for failure.'' I agree. NASA funding made tracking the 1997 El Nino weather pattern easier and possible because of the satellite that followed its movement across the Pacific ocean. Clearly, our Nation's quality of life benefits from NASA's commitment to earth science research. In my district, space science research programs are carried out by Goddard. Because my time is short, I will not be able to fully explain the consequences to Goddard, but let me say that this bill funds certain science and says to NASA Goddard, information can be collected through the Earth observation system but it then cuts the funding for the dissemination of that information on the Internet and throughout the country so that universities and scientific organizations can utilize the information we are collecting. That makes no sense. I would say to my colleagues, we ought to reject this bill. We ought to send it back to committee, not because the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) or the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have done anything wrong, but the constraints and the parameters that they were given were inappropriate, wrong, constrained, I would say, and add that as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did, by a $792 billion tax cut proposal. If we have $792 billion, surely we have the money, surely we have the money, to fund, as my friend from New Jersey says, veterans adequately and surely basic science adequately. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1981 when we cut $749 billion in revenues. Those on this floor represented that this would be a great step forward. Howard Baker, the then majority leader of the United States Senate, said, no, that it was a riverboat gamble. It was, Mr. Speaker, a riverboat gamble that we lost. We quadrupled the national debt. Now, that is a nice phrase, but what does it mean? It means we plunged the children of America deeply into debt, because we did not provide for the spending that our generation votes for. Let us not take this risky step again. Let us not put at risk the solvency of Social Security. Let us not put at risk the vitality of Medicare. Let us not put at risk the defense of this Nation. My Republican colleagues talk about just taking $1 trillion of $3 trillion. $2 trillion is in a lockbox for Social Security, they say. But the appropriation bills we have been passing belie that lockbox theory because we are about to spend that Social Security revenue. My friends, reject this risky, riverboat gamble. Ensure that our children's security is safe. Do not again go on the path of quadrupling the national debt. Rather, let us be fiscally responsible, target tax cuts, give relief to Americans who are most in need, working Americans, Americans with children who need care, Americans who are sending children to school. Do not take this risky road to further debt and unsureness.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of Air Force Colonel Eileen Marie Collins as the first female space shuttle commander. Col. Collins represents the best in America's space program and I congratulate her and the crew for the successful deployment of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory during the STS- 93 Mission aboard the Shuttle Columbia. With three missions under her belt, Col. Collins has certainly become one of our most experienced astronauts. I look forward to seeing the results of the time and resources invested in making the Chandra X-Ray Observatory a reality. The telescope will give scientists an important tool to study phenomena like exploding stars, quasars and black holes. Chandra and other major projects like Hubble and Landsat are the results of a team effort of NASA scientists, engineers, contractors, educational institutions and the highly trained astronauts who place these satellites and observatories into orbit. While we commend the efforts of this mission and NASA's many previous accomplishments, I am deeply concerned by the $1 billion cut in NASA's overall budget of $13.6 billion and the impact this will have on future programs like Hubble's successor, the Next Generation Space Telescope. Goddard Space Flight Center is one of NASA's premier research and program management facilities and the facility that will be most impacted by the cuts. The $1 billion dollar cut would adversely impact NASA's Space and Earth Science Programs based at Goddard. These are serious cuts and I am deeply concerned with the impact this will have on the almost 12,000 employees that work either directly as employees or indirectly as contractors. So as we recognize the success of STS-93 and Col. Collins' tremendous achievement, let us also keep in mind that future programs like Discovery and the Next Generation Space Telescope--programs that will utilize the shuttle program--face an uncertain and unnecessary fate, as a result of these cuts.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. In other words, there would be nothing to preclude her from doing so?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to join her in her expressions of concern about the process. The gentleman from California, myself, and others as well as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) throughout the process of consideration of legislation, the history of which Mr. Rohrabacher gave a little earlier, have raised very significant concerns. Those concerns were raised not for those who can lobby this House very effectively, but for those small inventors whose lifeblood relies on the integrity of their patent application. Because of that concern we have raised repeatedly the reservations, I do not even want to say opposition, but reservations to this bill that were expressed to us by hundreds of small inventors, perhaps thousands of small inventors, represented by them around this country. My concern tonight is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for whom I have a great deal of respect, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), for whom I have a great deal of respect, who signed a letter with me, with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) with reference to the bill in its previous form, we did not want it to move quickly. We have now had changes in the bill which the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has referred to which, frankly, I have not had the opportunity to review fully, and I have a sense that maybe I am with the 430 people in this House. There perhaps have been four or five who have reviewed this legislation. But I am very concerned that we are moving this tonight on suspension. We are not going to vote until tomorrow, I understand that, without having the opportunity to fully review, debate, the provisions of this bill. The gentleman from California made a very good statement, I thought, going through various provisions in the bill about which we had concerns. I regret I do not have more time to speak.

Mr. HOYER. I understand.

Mr. HOYER. The Speaker's response was, as I take it, if the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) were recognized as an opponent to the legislation, she could yield such time as she desired to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) who obviously has been asked by the committee to represent the minority side of the committee in this action.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Am I correct that under the rules as they now exist, that if in fact the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) were recognized in opposition, she would receive half of the time allotted to the minority side of 20 minutes? Is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. So if she were in opposition, she would receive the entire 20 minutes?

Mr. HOYER. Further parliamentary inquiry. If that in fact occurred, could the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 10 minutes?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I was constrained to rise and respond to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). The gentleman revises history. On a normal night, perhaps no one would rise to say that it was revisionist history at best, or at worst, depending upon one's perspective. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for President of the United States, and he put forward a document called The New Covenant. Not a contract on America, a new covenant, a new promise, a new commitment, a new cooperation, a new working arrangement with America. And in that new covenant he said that, yes, we expect government to do good things for people. Government, in my perspective, is our community at large trying to work together trying to make lives better. But in that new covenant, that my Republican friends so quickly forget, I am sure, Bill Clinton said that we need to expect of each American personal responsibility; that they will commit themselves to use their best talents to enhance their own lives because that, in turn, would enhance the lives of our community, if each and every one of us carried our share of the load. It was the President, in 1992, who said that personal responsibility ought to be a key word for America's revival. America heard that, and America elected him. And in that new covenant as well, when he talked about personal responsibility, he said we need welfare reform. I guess the Republicans forget that. They chuckle, Madam Speaker, but I will remind my colleagues of some history, for those who were not here, when every Democrat voted for a welfare reform bill sponsored by Nathan Deal. Does that name ring a bell? He was a Democrat at that time, but he had a bill that we worked on that demanded personal responsibility; the expectation that if we could, we would be expected to work, because the work ethic is critical to the success of a family, of a community, and of a society. That bill did not become law, but we had other bills. Now, my colleagues, how many times have we all heard it complained, oh, if the President would only let us do this, we could have done great things? They know that they could not possibly have overridden the veto of the President of the United States. If he had not been committed, and if he had not led the fight for welfare reform, the Republicans could not have done it. And they know that. Period. My friend, the majority whip, likes to say we did it, we get the credit. Very frankly, everybody in this House deserves the credit, and Americans deserve the credit, and governors deserve the credit, and State legislators deserve the credit. Why? Because we all perceived that there was a system that existed which did not encourage and have the expectation of work. But for the fact that Bill Clinton was president and led that effort, it would not have happened because he could have vetoed it. And all of my colleagues know that his veto would have been sustained because there were more than 146 Democrats in this House and more than 40 Democrats in the United States Senate. Now, let me go on to balancing the budget. Frankly, my colleagues, what the Republican Party has been responsible for since I have been in Congress, since 1981, is the gargantuan deficits and debt that confronts our country. Period. Why? Because Ronald Reagan and George Bush proposed in their budgets those deficits. Now, my Republican colleagues may say it is absurd that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) would say that. Well, look at the budgets. Presidents Reagan and Bush asked for more spending in those 12 years than the Congress appropriated. Now, if they did, obviously they planned for those deficits. Now, were the priorities slightly different? They were. But the fact of the matter is Ronald Reagan never vetoed a bill for spending too much that was not sustained by the Congress. In other words, not a nickel could have been spent in this country that Ronald Reagan did not put his signature on. Not a nickel. So the budget balancing came at the hands of Bill Clinton, when for 7 years in a row now the budget deficit has decreased, for the first time in this century.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue I have raised in this Chamber many times before: the Czech citizenship law. For 5 years, as a member of the Helsinki Commission, I have argued that the law adopted when the Czechoslovak Federal Republic dissolved, on January 1, 1993, was designed to and had the effect of leaving tens of thousands of former Czechoslovaks de jure or de facto stateless. I have argued, and as Czech officials eventually admitted, all of those people were members of the Romani minority. And I have argued that to have a law with such a narrow and discriminatory impact was no accident. Most of all, I have argued that this law needed to be changed. In 1996, the law was amended in an effort to placate international critics of the law, but that amendment was mere window dressing and the Czech citizenship law still left tens of thousands of former Czechoslovaks stateless, every one a Rom. Moreover, there was an important principle at stake: citizenship laws in newly independent states which discriminate against permanent residents who were citizens of the former state on the basis of race, language, religion or ethnicity are not compatible with international norms. That failure to uphold this principle in the Czech Republic could have critical reverberations in every former Soviet Republic and, more to the point, every former Yugoslav Republic. Many people working on this issue believed that the 1996 amendment was all that was politically possibly; that we would simply have to resign ourselves to a generation of stateless Roma. The leadership of the Helsinki Commission, including the current Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith, held our ground and insisted that the Czech law should be amended again, to bring it into line with international norms. Meanwhile, throughout this first post-Communist decade, the number of violent attacks against Roma climbed, year after year. By the fall of 1997, some 2000 Czech Roma had requested asylum in Canada. By 1998, NGO's reported that there had been more than 40 racially motivated murders in the Czech Republic since 1990, more than the number of racially motivated murders in Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia combined--countries with much larger Romani populations. Midway through 1998, the city of Usti nad Labem announced plans to build a wall to segregate Romani residents from ethnic Czechs--a ghetto in the heart of Europe. Fortunately, the Czech Government elected last year appears to take the human rights violation of Czech Roma much more seriously. Early after taking office, Deputy Prime Minister Pavel Rychetsky announced that amending the Czech citizenship law would be a priority for his government. Acting on that commitment, the Chamber of Deputies adopted an amendment on July 9 that will enable thousands of Roma to apply for citizenship. This amendment must still be passed by the Czech Senate and signed into law by President Havel--both steps are expected to take place this year. More critically, it will be necessary to ensure that there is an active campaign to reach all those who have been denied citizenship, to make sure this right is fully exercised. But for now, the Czech Chamber of Deputies has upheld an important principle and, even more importantly, upheld the rights of the Romani minority.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is unlike any of the other amendments that are pending. This amendment deals with the most fundamental right of every American, each and every American, whether they live in the District of Columbia, Maryland, the State of Georgia. Wherever they may live, this deals with the fundamentals of our democracy. I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) on the floor who argued passionately to uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United States to the President of the United States. Conservatives correctly focus on the rights of minorities against what could be an oppressive government and rule by majority. Liberals correctly focus on the rights of individuals as they may be adversely affected by an oppressive majority. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers anticipated that problem because they dealt with an oppressive king against whose judgment there was no appeal. So in that most basic document of, really, world government, the Constitution of the United States, I say world government to the extent that all the world looks at it as a model, we guarantee to citizens the right to redress of their grievances through the courts of this land, not because we agree with what they seek, but because we believe it is fundamental to prevent governmental abuse and the denigration of the rights of each and every American. This deals with our most fundamental rights. Let me say, the chairman says that this was considered last year, was included in the bill. He said that Tuesday night on the floor. But the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) knows full well that this was in a bill of about $400 billion in appropriation, eight appropriation bills. The President opposed this provision, but clearly could not veto that bill in the last days of our session, as we were about to leave town in October before the election. So he signed, yes, the bill, but not because he agreed with this provision. Very frankly, no Member has debated this provision. Secondly, he says there was a vote in committee. I was shocked, saddened, chagrined to find every conservative voting with a provision that says to citizens of America, you cannot go to court and use your corporate funds to do so. I tell my colleagues, Oklahoma City goes to court using taxpayers' funds to redress grievances against the Federal Government. I tell my colleagues that happens in Tulsa as well. It happens in Baltimore. It happens in San Francisco and L.A. and Chicago. Large and small cities, counties, and States bring suits against the Federal Government for the redress of grievances. Is that not a fundamental American right? How can we say in this bill, corporately, the District of Columbia, through its government, not with our funds, not with Federal dollars, with their own funds, cannot redress the grievance and say our representative on the floor of the House of Representatives ought to have a vote. That is our constitutional right. Is it our position that we will say, no, we disagree with that objective; and, therefore, they cannot go to court? The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says, oh, well, we are not doing that. Shoot, they can get pro bono expenses. They can get people to donate it, or they can get private donations. They can. The gentleman is correct. So can every other State, county, and municipality in America. Would any of my colleagues support legislation which says that Tulsa or Oklahoma City or Baltimore or Upper Marlboro could not bring suit for the redress of grievances and saying that something is either against the Constitution or against the Federal statute or against the regulation? I cannot believe my colleagues would do that. This is so fundamental to what we believe about our country. I want to tell my colleagues, I was chairman of the Helsinki Commission until 1995, and I traveled to Sophia in Bulgaria. Bulgaria would not tell Sophia, the capital of Bulgaria, they cannot bring suit. They would under the Communist government, because one could not bring suit at all. That made us really different. Bucharest in Romania the same thing, Warsaw in Poland, Prague in Czechoslovakia.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this ought not to be a partisan issue. This is an issue we fought a Cold War over. We did not fight it, luckily, for the most part, with bullets. We fought it with a commitment to our ideals of freedom and individual liberty. Not collective liberty, individual. No citizen, no matter how wrong they might be, is precluded from coming to the courts and saying, everybody may disagree with me, but I think I am right. Mr. Chairman, I hope that, on this issue, my colleagues summon up the wisdom and the courage to say we ought not to do this because it is inconsistent with what we believe about our country, what has made our country different. Do not tell the residents of the District of Columbia that they have a grievance, but only if they get the largess of some private donor will they be able to seek constitutional relief. Do not do that to them, not because they are the District of Columbia under the Constitution as a State or a District that we have authority over, but because there are 500,000 Americans, just as I am an American, just as my colleagues are Americans, 260 million of us, not D.C. Americans, Maryland Americans, Oklahoma Americans, but Americans, protected by the best document man ever forged, the Constitution of the United States, that holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, each one of us, endowed, not by the D.C. subcommittee, not by the House of Representatives, endowed by God with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what they seek. Do not preclude it. Admit mistake in this area. Support this amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have again seen the face of courage. It is Lance Armstrong's. Lying in his hospital bed just 3 years ago, Mr. Armstrong was fired by his French bicycle racing team. He suffered from testicular cancer and was given less than a 40 percent chance of survival. He underwent two operations and 12 weeks of chemotherapy, but he refused to succumb and now has prevailed by winning the Tour de France last Sunday. Lance Armstrong was not alone on this long journey back. The one team willing to take a chance on Mr. Armstrong was sponsored by the United States Postal Service. The Postal Service deserves great credit. This wonderful story reminds me of a poem by another American trailblazer, Amelia Earhart. She wrote: Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace. The soul that knows it not knows no release from little things; knows not the livid loneliness of fear, nor mountain heights where bitter joy can hear the sounds of wings. Lance Armstrong knows both and inspires us all.