Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me, who herself has been such a great leader on this issue. I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 57 disapproving the extension of Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China. We have, of course, none of us a quarrel with the 1.2 billion citizens of China. But in extending this trading status we have to ask ourselves, what has the Chinese Government done, one of the last Communist dictatorships on earth, to deserve, to merit this consideration? The Chinese Government's record reads, frankly, more like an indictment. China flagrantly violates the human rights of its own citizens and internationally recognized labor standards. It fomented anti-American hatred after our clearly accidental bombing in Belgrade. It recently began saber rattling against Taiwan, and it repeatedly, repeatedly has been unwilling to make vital democratic reforms. This past June marked the 10th anniversary of the Chinese Government's crackdown on the advocates of democracy in Tiananmen Square. Has the injustice stopped since Tiananmen? No, not at all. Over the past few months the government has once again detained dissidents, handing down sentences of up to 4 years in prison for, and I quote, ``subverting State power, assaulting the government, holding illegal rallies, and trying to organize workers laid off from a State-run firm.'' I suggest all of those are values that America holds dear. The Washington Post reported this past Sunday that Chinese security forces have rounded up in this month 4,000 people in Beijing alone during a massive nationwide crackdown against the popular Buddhist- based spiritual movement, Falun Gong. But the human rights and labor standard violations are only one in a series of provocative acts by the Chinese Government. China's recent threat of military action against Taiwan threatens the very security of that region. In addition, the breach in security at American nuclear weapons labs over the past 20 years threatens us. I say to my colleagues, reject Normal Trade Relations, adopt this resolution. Send a clear, clear message of American values.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 57, which would disapprove the President's extension of Normal Trade Relations--what used to be called Most Favored Nation status--with the People's Republic of China. Let me stress, I have no quarrel with the more than 1.2 billion citizens of China. They are a good, industrious and honorable people. But, in extending this trading status, we have to ask ourselves: What has the Chinese government--one of the last communist dictatorships on earth--done to deserve it? The Chinese government's record reads more like an indictment. China flagrantly violates the human rights of its own citizens and internationally recognized labor standards. It fomented anti-American hatred after our clearly accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It recently began saber rattling against Taiwan. And it repeatedly has been unwilling to make vital democratic reforms. Just last week, this House passed a resolution marking the 10th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the West's victory over communism. Ironically, this past June also marked the 10th Anniversary of the Chinese government's crackdown on the advocates of democracy in Tiananmen Square. An estimated 5,000 Chinese were killed on June 3 and 4, 1989, when government troops crushed pro-democracy protests. Another 10,000 were injured and hundreds more were arrested. Has the injustice stopped? Not at all. Over the past few months, the government has once again detained dissidents, handing down sentences of up to four years in prison for ``subverting state power, assaulting government, holding illegal rallies, and trying to organize workers laid off from a state run firm.'' And the Washington Post reported this past Sunday that Chinese security forces have rounded up more than 4,000 people in Beijing alone during a massive, nationwide crackdown against the popular Buddhist- based spiritual movement Falun Gong. The government banned the group last week. At the dawn of the New Millennium, China--in many respects--has barely entered the 20th Century on human rights. And that simply is not acceptable. Nor should it be countenanced by the greatest democracy in the world. But the human rights and labor standard violations are only one in a series of provocative acts by the Chinese government. China's recent threats of military action against Taiwan threaten future stability in the region. Although Taiwan's President Lee Teng- hui has retreated on remarks declaring his nation a separate state from the mainland, China has proceeded with ``war-time'' mobilization drills in protest of those remarks. In addition, the breach in security at American nuclear weapons labs over the past 20 years and recent revelations concerning the development of the neutron bomb and the long range DF-31 missile raise serious concerns about China's advancing military capability and its commitment to non-proliferation of weapons. Furthermore, China has shown no compunction about violating U.S. intellectual property rights, shipping products made with prison labor and prohibiting thousands of foreign products from entering the Chinese market through a maze of regulations. Now, in fairness, it can be said that the people of China are somewhat better off than they were 10 years ago. The government has extended some basic rights to its citizens. Whether starting a business, choosing a job, or watching a foreign movie--these rights, albeit restricted, signal some progress. But has China gone far enough in adopting democratic policies and respecting human rights. The answer clearly is no. Undeniably, China is one of the great powers in the world today, and our ability to influence its decisions is limited. But we do know that more than one-third of China's exports today are sold in the United States. In the month of May alone, the Department of Commerce reported a trade deficit with China of $5.25 billion and it is projected to reach $67 billion in 1999. The extension of Normal Trading Relations is one of the few economic levers we possess that can spur China to improve its behavior on these critical issues. We should not forfeit our economic leverage outright. Coddling has never worked. I implore my colleagues to vote for this Resolution, which would send an unmistakable message to the Chinese government that it cannot continue business as usual.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation first. I agree with the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) with reference to the product of this committee. I think it is one of the most positive products in a D.C. bill that I have seen since I have been here. I also want to make an observation, as someone who is one of the senior members from the Washington regional delegation, that I think this delegation from the Washington metropolitan area is as positive a partner in working with our co-members of this region, the District of Columbia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). In particular, I would be remiss if I did not say once again what an extraordinary job the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) does on behalf of the District. She is attentive, able, energetic, tough as nails when she needs to be, and she is smart as she needs to be in terms of dealing with a very, very difficult situation. It continues to be, however, I think, a travesty that the representative of the District of Columbia does not have a full vote on this House floor. Even absent that vote, Mr. Chairman, she does an extraordinarily good job in representing the people of the District of Columbia. I congratulate her for it. Mr. Chairman, I want to just make a couple of comments. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for, again, his work on this bill. I agree, of course, as he knows, with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) about the Committee on Rules' actions, and with respect to a couple of other provisions in the bill as well that we will discuss tomorrow. Basically, this is a good bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) I think is absolutely correct. As an appropriation bill, that is, without the riders, without the extraneous matter, it is a bill that I think all of us could support. I also would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for adding report language in the full committee that deals with the fire service. I have been a longtime advocate of the interests of the fire service. We lost a very distinguished firefighter, John Carter, in 1997. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I have been at the funeral of two of the firefighters in the District of Columbia that have died in the last 60 days. There was a report after Mr. Carter's death. That report made a number of recommendations. It was called the Reconstruction Committee. Two of the recommendations it made were dealing with assistance to battalion chiefs and the number of firefighters that were assigned to the trucks as they leave the station. I believe that matter deserves very serious consideration. I know the D.C. City Council has a concern. It is report language and not mandatory, but I am hopeful that we can work on this matter and focus on it in the months ahead. I again congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her outstanding work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the outstanding efforts of Robert Tobias on behalf of Federal employees. After 31 years of service to the National Treasury Employees Union and 16 years as its president, Bob is retiring to spend more time with his family. Words alone cannot adequately explain the impact Bob Tobias has had over the past 31 years. To say that he is a leader in the Federal employee community simply does not do him or the contributions that he has made justice. Bob has built NTEU from a union of 22,000 members located solely in the Treasury Department to a union of 155,000 employees representing Federal employees in 22 agencies. Legislatively, I cannot think of one major gain that Federal employees have made since I was elected to Congress in 1981 that has not had Bob Tobias' hand in it. The list of accomplishments is impressive: helping to create the Federal Employee Retirement System; suing the Nixon administration and recovering $533 million of back pay owed to Federal employees; allowing CSRS-covered Federal employee to have another FERS open season when he won a Supreme Court case challenging the President's use of the line item veto power; IRS restructuring; assisting me in passing the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act; working to institute alternative work schedules; telecommuting; and on-site child care for Federal employees. The one area where I think Bob's influence was most deeply felt was the creation of partnership in the workplace and in the reinvention of government. When Vice President Gore's reinvention efforts began, the Federal workplace was at a crossroads. The old adversarial relationship between labor and management simply was not working. Government needed to be more efficient and accomplish more with less resources and personnel. Participating with the reinvention effort was not easy. It took courage and vision, because, Mr. Speaker, part of the effort called for downsizing the Federal work force to its lowest level since the Kennedy administration. At that time, reinvention and partnership had a lot of detractors, but Bob Tobias and the late AFGE president, John Sturdivant, had a vision and took the risk. They took the risk, and I believe for the first time the talent of the rank-and-file employees started to be harnessed. It paid off, Mr. Speaker, because bargaining unit employees for the first time got a seat at the table. They got a say in how their agency was run. This risk did not only benefit the members that Bob represented but ultimately paid off for the American taxpayer, who benefited from a more efficient and responsive government. In his letter to chapter presidents in February, Bob wrote, and I quote: ``From my first day at NTEU, my goal has been to move us from helplessness and despair to dignity and respect; from being ignored to being recognized and included; and from acting alone to experiencing our collective power of collective action.'' Mr. Speaker, Bob Tobias has achieved those goals and NTEU members and the American people are better off today because of his efforts. We wish him well, and we wish him all the best in the future, and we thank him for his service. Mr. Speaker, I often observed to groups of employees to whom I spoke that there was no better labor leader in America than Bob Tobias. He cared about his people, he worked tirelessly on their behalf, he advocated in their best interest and, like most successful leaders, accomplished much for all of those he represented. But as I said earlier in my statement, not only did he accomplish great things for them, but he made the workforce of the American people, the Federal employees, a better, more effective, more efficient, more disciplined, more focused workforce. And for that, we in America owe him a great debt of gratitude. America and its government are a better place for the service of Robert Tobias.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time, adding that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) asked me to make his comments known and his expressions of appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others for their leadership on this, and he joins us very strongly in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and others who cosponsored this resolution and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the House Committee on Administration, in support of House Resolution 172. This action, hopefully, will help both historians, researchers and, most of all, loved ones of missing American servicemen in Southeast Asia; and we should strive, when at all possible, for a policy of openness with respect to the records of loved ones who fought overseas on behalf of our country. Simply put, this resolution would declassify the records of the House Select Committee on Missing Persons. It would authorize and direct the archivist of the United States to make these records available to the public. In the 1970s, Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee investigated and tried to determine whether American servicemen had, in fact, been left behind in Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War. As has been explained, House rules mandated when the Select Committee was dissolved that its records be kept secret for 50 years. Similar rules governed the records of the Senate Select Committee that studied the same issue. However, several years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Senate agreed to reduce the period of secrecy to 20 years and, thus, directed all its committee files be declassified. We should do the same thing, and we should do it for two principle reasons: First, the families and loved ones of missing servicemen in Southeast Asia deserve and ought to know what the House Select Committee uncovered, and they should not have to wait even another day. These families should not have to fight their government on the release of these files, particularly since many of their loved ones fought so valiantly, so bravely, on behalf of our government, our people, and our commitment to democracy. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that secrecy only fuels suspicion. While there are, of course, secrets the government must keep for national security reasons, this is not the case in this instance. As the Senate Select Committee stated in its final report, and I quote, ``Nothing has done more to fuel suspicion about the government's handling of the POW-MIA issue than the fact that so many documents related to those efforts have remained classified for so long.'' Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to end that suspicion, and we certainly should do it. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who introduced this resolution, and I am pleased to rise on behalf of its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one year ago this Friday, the Capitol Building was shaken by a maniacal and senseless shooting spree. This day reminds us once again that the risk is always present for those we ask to defend this free society. The vagaries of life are such that there are those, either demented or angry or for whatever reasons, that take unto themselves the opportunity to commit violence. We lost Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson so that many others might be safe and to indicate that the Capitol of the United States, freedom's house, will not only be accessible, but also protected. This past May we rededicated the Capitol Police headquarters in honor of Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson, and Officer Christopher Eney, the first Capitol Police officer killed in the line of duty during a training accident in 1984. This resolution complements the renaming of the headquarters building. Henceforth, every tourist, staffer, Member or head of state that uses the ``memorial door'' will remember the public service of these three men and the ultimate sacrifices that each of them made. While this resolution renaming the document door specifically honors Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, the memorial door is a tribute to all of the men and women of law enforcement who leave their homes each day and take to their duties to defend America's principles, to defend Americans, and to defend an orderly society. Just down the street from this building stands the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Since last year's tragedy, the names of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson have been added to a long list of fallen officers including their colleague, Officer Eney and others from departments around the Nation. In the last year we have taken some very positive steps in insuring that this type of incident does not happen again. While we can never guarantee that there is not another shooting, the security enhancement plan is an important step in the right direction. With additional officers, acquisition of new equipment, and a restructuring of the department, we can work to decrease the chances of another shooting while retaining the accessibility that the American public and the World over have come to know. Let us not forget the ultimate sacrifice that these two brave officers made. I thank my colleague Representative Delay, for bringing forward this resolution and I urge my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson on this solemn one-year anniversary by passing this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I came here in 1981. We had a $749 billion tax cut on the floor, and the rhetoric I heard was the same. The people need to keep their money. We do not need all the money. We need to downsize government. And so we passed a $749 billion tax cut and we quadrupled the debt on our children and on our grandchildren, because we did not pay our bills. Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked for more spending in those 12 years than the Congress appropriated. My friend says that we want to have people keep the money. That would be very nice. But guess what? The trigger which does not affect the middle class, the trigger that does not affect the middle class is that trigger which says the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and the other taxes that go to our most wealthy citizens will not be affected if the debt goes up, because they are locked in. It is only the little guys who will be adversely affected if the debt goes up. Situation normal. The same old same old or, as Ronald Reagan said in that famous debate, here we go again; on the road to more and more debt, not saving Social Security, not making sure that Medicare is there for those in the future. I would say to my colleagues that debt that they talk about paying down is all Social Security. Why? Because the trillion dollars that they use for the debt relief is the on-budget operating surplus. No money for defense, no money to stabilize and keep secure our economy. Here we go again. We did it in 1981 and quadrupled our deficit. Let us not do it again to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise now not only to oppose this fiscally irresponsible Republican tax plan, but to inject a little historical perspective into this debate. One of the first votes I cast as a member of this House was on President Reagan's ``Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.'' The heart of President Reagan's supply-side tax plan was a $749 billion tax cut over five years. Among other things, President Reagan's plan slashed individual income taxes across-the-board and allowed faster write-offs for capital investments. Those of us who were around here back in 1981 remember how President Reagan strode into office with this bold pledge: He said that a massive tax cut would fuel economic growth, thereby generating greater Federal revenues and resulting in a balanced Federal budget by 1984. Well, that's not exactly what happened, is it? The Laffer curve--named after supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, who had President Reagan's ear on tax policy--purported to show how tax cuts could lead to a balanced budget. But that turned out to be a cruel hoax on the American people. In 1980, President Carter's last year in office, the Federal budget deficit was $73.8 billion. Large, yes. But not insurmountable. Only five years later--after the massive tax cut of 1981--the Federal budget deficit had exploded to $212.3 billion. By 1990, the Federal deficit had ballooned to $220 billion. And in 1992, President Bush's last year in office, the deficit had skyrocketed to $290 billion. Consider another important measure of national economic health--the national debt. In 1980, the public debt of the United States was $909 billion. In the following 12 years of Republican administrations, the debt exploded to over 4 trillion dollars! And this happened even though Congress appropriated less money in these 12 years than Presidents Reagan and Bush voodoo economics, Mr. Speaker, voodoo economics. That's what former President Bush--not Steny Hoyer--called President Reagan's supply-side tax cut plan on the campaign trail in 1980. And President Bush was not alone when he offered that piercing two-word analysis. Former Senator Howard Baker called the supply-side tax cut scheme a ``riverboat gamble.'' and President Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, later confessed that he knew the administration could not cut taxes, provide a ``safety net'' for domestic programs and balance the budget because ``it defied arithmetic, wasn't true.'' Only our fiscal discipline, our fiscal responsibility since 1993 has allowed us to erase these record budget deficits. And last year, we realized our first surplus--$70 billion--in 30 years. The record deficits of the 1980s caused our economy to plunge into crisis. And we responded. We passed a budget agreement in 1993--which I might add did not get one Republican vote--that cut the deficit by $496 billion over five years. The 1993 budget agreement was designed to bring down an unemployment rate then running at 7.5 percent; bring down the 30-year interest rate then hovering at 8.2 percent; and bring down that $290 billion deficit. And it worked. In 1997, in more bipartisan fashion, we passed a balanced budget agreement that called for continued fiscal prudence in both discretionary and mandatory programs. And what do we have to show for our hard work--our fiscal discipline--over these last six years? Well, we now project a budget surplus of $100 billion in 1999. The national debt is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected in 1993. Interest rates are around 6 percent. The unemployment rate remains near 4.3 percent. We have the fastest real-wage growth in 25 years. Inflation--2.5 percent--is at its lowest rate in 32 years. Business investment has grown at 12.8 percent per year, the fastest growth since the Kennedy administration. And we have the highest rate of private home ownership--66 percent-- in history. What an incredible achievement. What an incredible record. And, now, we're going to throw it all away? With this irresponsible tax plan that threatens to explode the deficit, explode the national debt, drive up interest rates, and drive our healthy economy right off an economic cliff? That's not just ``egregious recklessness,'' as the Washington Post called it yesterday. That's voodoo economics. That's a riverboat gamble that we should not ask the American people to take. This Republican tax bill is so irresponsible that it even has many Republicans running for cover. It's no secret why. First, this tax plan threatens long-term growth, by producing record deficits again, and driving up interest rates. This, in turn, would lead to lower economic growth. While this tax plan purports to cut taxes by almost $800 billion, economists predict that it actually could cost us $3 trillion. Second, this tax plan threatens our ability to reduce the national debt--which is critical to our continued economic vibrancy. Simply put, reducing the debt leads to lower interest rates and greater investment and economic growth. And let's not lose sight of this fact--paying down the debt is tantamount to a tax cut because each percentage point decline in interest rates means $200 to $250 billion less in mortgage costs paid by Americans over the next 10 years. Third, this irresponsible plan--which would eat the entire projected Federal budget surplus and then some--would eliminate our ability to strengthen Medicare and Social Security. Currently, Medicare is projected to be insolvent by 2015. I submit that if we fail to take this rare opportunity to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, we deserve the harsh judgment of history. Finally, it should come as no surprise that in this Republican tax plan, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers would receive one-third of the benefits. Now, you tell me, how does that look to a young couple making, say, $40,000 a year? You might as well just tell them: ``Sorry, you are not one of the chosen few. Wealthy Americans are getting a tax cut. But you, you're just getting higher interest rates making it more expensive to buy a car, buy a house, or send your kids to college.'' Fairness, of course, is not the watchword when it comes to this tax plan. While the wealthy get a break, this plan would force cuts of $583 billion in domestic spending programs on crime and education over the next 10 years. In addition, it would slash defense spending by $198 billion over the same period. This from the party that claims President Clinton has ``hollowed out'' the military. That's not just disingenuous, it's not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, we have created the best economic times in a lifetime in the last six years. There are two paths we can take. One path calls on us to continue with the fiscal discipline that we imposed on the budgetary process in 1993 and that has produced the economic boom we are enjoying today. The other is a risky and speculative path--voodoo economics, if you will--that we know all too well. It is littered with gigantic deficits, and an exploding debt that threatens to disrupt our strong economy. I urge my colleagues to choose the right path and vote for fiscal discipline and a strong economy, and against this irresponsible tax plan. Our economic security--indeed the security of future generations of Americans--depends on our choice. Let it not be said that we took the politically seductive course and shrank from our duty and responsibility to our country, future generations, and to our economy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and applaud the work of both the chairman, Mr. Lewis and the ranking member, Mr. Murtha. I believe the priorities which they have established in this bill are good for both our nation and for our nation's defense. Mr. Chairman, we are preparing to enter the 15th consecutive year of real decline in defense spending. I am one of those who believes that we cannot continue to put the military at risk. The funding constraints imposed by the balanced budget agreement make our choices more difficult. However, we still must ensure that other priorities do not drive us away from one of the primary responsibilities this Congress has, and that is ensuring our nation's defense. The difficult choices Chairman Lewis and ranking member Murtha had to make in developing the bill before us demonstrate the bipartisan spirit and dedication to the commitment all of us must follow when it comes to providing for the security of our nation. We all realize that the United States holds a unique position in the world. People all over the globe look to us for security and stability. It may not be fair, but it is reality. While our military forces are shrinking, operations around the world are increasing. The increased pace of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and other operations is forcing our Armed Forces to do more wiht less. However, doing more with less is not always conducive with ensuring the long term readiness of our armed services. Our forces which have served admirably in support of our operations in Kosovo and in Bosnia, as well as our continued enforcement of the no-fly zone over Iraq, are just some of the recent examples of our global leadership and responsibility. I continue to support our deployment of troops in these regions and believe the work they are accomplishing makes America a better place and the world a safer one. I say to both the chairman and the ranking member that their priorities are right for our nation, we need to stand up for those priorities and pursue them. I support this bill to appropriate $266 billion for critical defense needs in fiscal year 2000 and want to commend the committee for what is in the bill before us: A 4.8% military pay raise. Mr. Chairman, I support this well deserved raise and look forward to my colleagues supporting pay parity for our federal employees. As you know, the House included a provision, which I sponsored, in the recently passed emergency supplemental, that calls for pay parity between military and civilian employees. The reform of military retirement and special pay and bonuses that will give our military personnel greater incentives to stay until retirement. $576 million for continued development of the joint strike fighter. $2.7 billion for 36 F-18E/F aircraft for the Navy. $856 million for 11 V-22 Osprey aircraft for the Marines. $272 million for upgrades to the EA-6 prowler. $207 million for 19 black hawk helicopters for the Army, National Guard and $130 million for desperately needed unfunded equipment for the National Guard. In addition, I am especially proud of the committee's funding of important medical research including: $175 million for breast cancer research; and $75 million for prostate cancer research. I applaud the committee for funding these DOD priorities and for addressing the needs of our men and women in the armed services.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding artist, William Krawczewicz, whose design was recently selected to appear on the back of the Maryland quarter, to be issued in March of 2000. The U.S Mint will issue fifty different designs of the official quarter for the fifty different states, each quarter depicting features of its state. Mr. Krawczewicz's winning design features the state Capitol building in Annapolis, Maryland, the only statehouse that also once served as the Nation's Capitol. The design was chosen from among the approximately 280 designs depicting different aspects of Maryland. This is not the first time Mr. Krawczewicz's artwork has been recognized. Over the years, he has won a number of awards and one of his designs was selected for a 1994 Olympic coin commemorative set. When he is not producing coin designs, Mr. Krawczewicz works as a graphic designer for the White House. I would like to congratulate Mr. Krawczewicz for his artistry and for his contribution to the commemoration of the state of Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have offered this motion to instruct conferees on the basis that the Y2K issue has been an ongoing issue government-wide as well as with the Treasury Department. We are very concerned. I want to make it clear that I believe that we need more than this restored; but at minimum, we need this money restored. That is why this motion to instruct has been offered. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time. J.J. Chestnut, his wife Wen Ling, and his children, Joe Janece, Janet, Karen, William; Chris Eney and Vivian and their children; Detective John Gibson and Evelyn and Kristen, John and Daniel, their children, this is a wrenching day for them. Mr. Speaker, we have gone through recently another weekend of personalizing the loss of someone that most of us did not know personally. The Nation grieves as John Fitzgerald Kennedy went down in an unexpected accident on the way to a wedding. In many respects, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson were the same. They got up, they went to work, and they did not return. One year ago this Friday, the Capitol Building was shaken by a maniacal and senseless shooting spree. This day reminds us once again that the risk is always present for those we ask to defend a free society. The vagaries of life are such that there are those either demented or angry or for whatever reasons that take unto themselves the opportunity to commit violence. And someone, too often many persons, pay the price. We lost Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson so that many others might be safe and to indicate that the Capitol of the United States, Freedom's House, if you will, will not only be accessible but also protected, so that the citizens in our gallery, the citizens in the Rotunda, the citizens who visit seeking their constitutional right of redress to petition their government or simply to see Freedom's House, a beacon, as some have said, for all the world. This past May, we rededicated the Capitol Police Headquarters in honor of Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson and Officer Christopher Eney, who was the first Capitol Police Officer killed in the line of duty. This resolution complements the renaming of the headquarters building. Henceforth, every tourist, staffer, Member or indeed head of state who is taken through that door, the Memorial Door, will remember the public service of these men and the ultimate sacrifices that each of them made. While this resolution renaming the Document Door specifically honors Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson who died just inside the door or a few feet from it, the Memorial Door is in fact a tribute to all of the men and women of law enforcement who leave their homes each day and take to their duties to defend America's principles, to defend Americans, and to defend a civil and orderly society under law. Just down the street from this building, Mr. Speaker, stands the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Since last year's tragedy, the names of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson have been added to a long list of fallen officers, including their colleague, Officer Eney, and others, from Prince Georges County, the county in which I lived for so long, the counties I now represent, and the counties and cities that every Member of this body represents who have lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors as they wore the badge and undertook the responsibility to defend freedom and a civil society. In the last year, we have taken some very positive steps in ensuring that this type of incident does not happen again. While we can never guarantee that there is not another shooting, the security enhancement plan is an important step in the right direction. With additional officers, acquisition of new equipment, and a restructuring of the department, we can work to decrease the chances of another shooting, another tragedy, while at the same time retaining the accessibility that the American public and the world have come to know and that this body wants to maintain. Let us, Mr. Speaker, not forget the ultimate sacrifice that these two brave officers made. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), so close to Detective Gibson and his family, so immediately affected by the senseless act of violence that took the life of Detective Gibson in the office of the gentleman from Texas, and those who knew Officer Chestnut, such a friendly, warm, engaging family man who cared about America, cared about his duty. We walked through that door and saw him so often and he was always pleasant, but always on alert. I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this resolution forward. This solemn 1-year anniversary that we pass this resolution should be a reminder to us all that freedom is not free and some of our friends, some of our brothers and sisters, pay a very high price indeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and I think he articulated it very well, very concisely. That really is the alternative we have of acting responsibly or acting irresponsibly, very frankly, as we did when we quadrupled the national debt and put that on our kids and the next generation. I think the gentleman's contribution was very, very significant. Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), one of our newest Members of Congress, but one of our most able Members of Congress.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with some of the real experts on defense and budget some of the issues that confront this Congress and the American public as it relates to budget, defense and veterans' issues. I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his comments just now on the impact of the budget on veterans. We plan to use the next hour, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the issue of defense spending and to dispel the misguided rhetoric and unjustified claims from the other side of the aisle that the President is hollowing out this Nation's military forces. We will show that not only is the President providing a strong defense, but because of his fiscal discipline, joined by the Congress and in many respects led by the Congress, a surplus exists, a surplus that if the Republicans have their way, would not be used to fund critical military readiness needs or other discretionary programs, but instead provide a fiscally unsound tax cut. Let me first address the over $800 billion Republican tax proposal which perhaps will be debated tomorrow. How do they pay for this? They pay for it by using the projected on-budget surplus, not paying down the debt, not saving Social Security or Medicare, not investing in readiness, research, development, T and E, but a tax cut. We are here today talking about the largest surplus ever recorded in dollar terms and the largest since 1951. Let me repeat that. We are here today talking about the largest surplus ever recorded in dollar terms under this administration and the largest since 1951 when Harry Truman was President of the United States, the largest since 1951 as a percentage of the gross domestic product, because the President's economic plan passed in 1993, and the Democratic Congress, without a Republican vote, it focused on reducing deficits, paying down debt held by the public, investing in our people and opening markets. Our publicly held debt today is $1.7 trillion below what it was forecast to be by President Bush's director of the Office of Management and Budget. Let me mention that again. In 1992, in December, President's Bush's director of OMB, Dick Darmen, submitted an analysis to the Congress in which he said today's deficit was going to be $1.7 trillion more than it actually is. It is less than projected because of that economic program. This fiscal prudence has resulted in many achievements. Our Nation is seeing record economic growth for 5 years in a row. We have an unemployment rate which is the lowest peacetime rate in over 4 decades. I would say, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said, that is a result of a program that was universally, unanimously opposed by our Republican colleagues. Real family income is up, real hourly wages are up, private sector growth is booming at the fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson was President. Business investment is at a higher rate than at any time since President Kennedy was in office, and Federal Government spending has been reduced to the lowest level in a quarter of a century. The tax cut plan by the Republican majority would bring us back unfortunately and fearfully to deficits realized during the Reagan-Bush years where we went from $985 billion in debt in 1981 to $3.2 trillion just 12 years later. We tripled, almost quadrupled, the national debt in 12 years. Let me remind everyone here that debt held by the public in 1981 was, as I said, 985 billion. Now 3.247 trillion; not now, in 1993. The tax plan that is being proposed will cost more than 864 billion over 10 years. Actually, that will be $1.02 trillion when we consider the extra interest that will be paid because we do not, as the President has proposed and as we propose, pay down the national debt and save literally the American taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars in interest that they would otherwise pay if we did not reduce, as we propose to do, the debt. It will add an additional 1 trillion in public debt over the next 10 years and balloon to 3 trillion over the following 10 years. Now I have three children and two grandchildren. I do not want them to have to pay off that added debt. I think it is immoral for us to follow that course. I think it is incumbent upon us as a generation that is doing very well to pay our debts and to leave the next generation, the young people of America, in a position where they can invest their money in the priorities of their time, not of our time. Who would end up paying for this increase in interest rates if we do not pay down the debt? Consumers, home purchasers, farmers and small businesses in the form of higher interest rates. So while on the one hand they would have thought they got a tax reduction, in fact they will get an increase because of the interest rates. By proposing a tax cut, the Republicans also in my opinion ignore something that every American depends upon every day, a strong and creditable defense. If this tax cut is realized, defense spending would be $200 billion almost, less than the President's plan over 10 years. This, Mr. Speaker, is in my opinion unacceptable and unsafe in this unstable and dangerous international community. I have shortened my discussion just a little bit because I have so many of my distinguished colleagues that have joined me. The balanced budget agreement cut defense spending to a level dictated by an arbitrary formula. That was what we adopted in 1997. I voted for it because in that time we had large debt, not surpluses, confronting us. That formula, which was as a result, has removed the careful considered judgment of the President, civilian and military leaders and this body in deciding appropriate spending levels. My colleagues saw the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) a little earlier say the assumption of the Republican tax cut is that everything will stay on hold, all domestic and defense discretionary spending, essentially on hold. There is no question that defense spending has diminished below the point many of us would like to see, but the cause of this cannot and should not be the subject of partisan finger pointing at one party or the other. We have heard too often recently the Republican side of the aisle, quick to blame the President for what they allege to be a hollowing out of our military. The President's record on defense spending has not created, in my opinion, and I think the record reflects, a hollow force. On the contrary, today's Armed Forces are well prepared, well trained and dedicated as ever. But we must continue to invest. We must continue to ensure that our military is ready, prepared for whatever eventualities may occur. Our equipment remains effective and superior to our adversaries, as we have just seen. The performance of our men and women in uniform has been and continues to this day to be outstanding. Our military needs to be supported in a responsible manner. Now frankly my Republican colleagues say that that is what they want to do, but then they propose a tax cut which will inevitably lead, as it did from 1986 to just a couple of years ago, 1986 to essentially, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) will perhaps tell us, but 1995 and 1996, to a continuing decrease in effective net defense spending. That was not prudent. We ought not to follow that course, but the tax cut will inevitably lead us to that end. The Armed Services must compete with the robust economy which has provided a market rich for the technical, mature, educated product that our Armed Forces has produced. The President has kept the Nation's armed forces strong and our military is the envy of the world. Mr. Speaker, just as we agreed in 1997 to work together to solve our economic crisis of dangerous deficit spending, we must now work together to ensure a continued, strong national defense and a continued, strong economy, and a continued reduction of the debt so that the American public and our children will be out of debt and keep interest rates low. That is the best thing we can do for our public. Tomorrow, we will debate perhaps, we do not know yet, they are talking about it, the tax scheme which, among many things, will jeopardize our fiscal commitment to our Nation's defense. We in Congress must vow never, never, never to sacrifice our Nation's defense for the sake of partisan politics, and we must pledge to work together to ensure a ready superior force, prepared always to defend our Nation and its interests throughout the world.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services from the State of Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri who, if our party were in control, which we are not, would be the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, who has served on that committee with great distinction for some 2 decades and who has made enormous contributions to the strength of this Nation. I would again reiterate that he and I and others who will speak, while we are saying that we need to make sure that the military component of our country is strong and fully funded, we are saying that the majority of the surplus ought to pay down that debt, because then our entire country and our economy will be strong, and we will have the resources to keep not only a strong defense, but a strong educational system as well, and to save and ensure the security of Social Security and Medicare, so that we can accomplish those objectives which will benefit all of our Nation and the international community as well. Madam Speaker, at this time I would now like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and the ranking member, who also would be a chairman of a very important subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, what has been the point of this special order? The point of this special order is that we ought not to throw the dice again as we did in 1981. We threw the dice in 1981 and said we are going to balance the budget; we are going to cut $750 billion in taxes. And lo and behold we thought we were going to cut spending. But what happened? For 12 years Presidents Reagan and Bush suggested that we increase spending. And they asked for more spending over those 12 years than the Congress appropriated. We quadrupled the national debt and we pushed down our kids and their generation and the generations to come. The point of this special order is to say, let us not do it again. Let us not gamble on that surplus existing. Let us take it prudently and apply it to reduction of debt, saving of Social Security, stabilizing and ensuring Medicare, and investing in our national defense and other domestic priorities, to the extent that we can, so that the next generation of Americans to come will say, ``That was a fiscally responsible generation, and, as a result, our economy continued to grow, to create jobs and opportunities for our young people and good times for our families.'' The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) talked about families, many of whom serve in the military. We need to take care of them before we take care of those who have so much. Madam Speaker, I hope, we all hope, that tomorrow, or whenever that tax bill is brought to the floor, that we look the American public in the eye and tell them honestly, ``We will manage your money so that your debt will be reduced, your economy will remain strong, and the fiscal management of America will continue to be responsible.''

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much, and I could not agree with him more; that those are the right priorities. And that, of course, is the point of this special order, and the remarks of my colleagues who have spoken, have spoken of those priorities. The gentleman from Washington and I went through the 1981 experience together, and we do not want to relive that. Madam Speaker, I will now yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a former State Senator now Member of Congress from Texas, who has now been here for a number of years and has really become an expert on a number of matters.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the intervention of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), and I hope that he will take back to his dad our thanks, not just from those of us who have heard him speak tonight, but from a grateful Nation. I think we all agree with Tom Brokaw that this was one of the great generations of all time in this country who, when the challenges came, knew that the costs would be high, but they were willing to pay it. My opinion is the American public knows that freedom is not free, that keeping our promises to our veterans is not free, that paying down that debt is not free. They have to pay down their debt all the time, and they know that, when they do, their families are better off. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) makes the point that that is what we need to do as well, and I appreciate his contribution. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), one of our most distinguished senior members of the Congress of the United States who, in my opinion, is one of probably 10 of the real experts on defense issues and the readiness issues and the status of our Armed Forces here and around the world that we have in the Congress of the United States. He is from Washington State. He has been a Member of Congress for over 20 years. He is the second ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and I am very pleased that he joined us tonight.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his contribution. I do not think we have any stronger fighter for personnel in the House and the average personnel, the guys and gals who really make it happen when this Nation needs to have it happen. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for also pointing out that there is no free lunch; that actions have consequence. While it is nice to talk about cutting taxes, it is difficult to do that when talking about $800 billion and then $2 trillion and say at the same time we want to save Social Security, save Medicare, pay down the debt so we can keep interest rates low and bring them down even further, and maintain a strong defense. Madam Speaker, I hope that, when they try to say that, I know the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) will remind them on a regular basis that it is easy to say and tough to do. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), one of our most able, new Members.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just add to the response of the Chairman, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised an issue where there is a void of information on the use of relic guns and commission of crime. I think a study would be very useful. I am pleased that the chairman will work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania and myself in including such language in the conference report, and I look forward to that occurring. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we have any further speakers on my side. I understand a member is coming, a member of the subcommittee who would like to speak, so while she is on her way let me make a comment, Mr. Chairman. The C-SPAN, of course, covers these proceedings, and they see the Members, and the Members work hard. My experience as a legislator over many years has been that the overwhelming 98 percent of the legislators are extraordinarily conscientious and hard-working, but none of us could do our job effectively without some extraordinarily able and committed staff. The chairman in his opening remarks mentioned the staff, and I would like to again thank them for their efforts. The chief clerk of our committee, Michele Mrdeza, works extraordinarily hard, is very knowledgeable about the bill's provisions and works extraordinarily hard during the course of the year to oversee the implementation of the provisions in our bill. She is assisted very ably by Bob Schmidt, by Jeff Ashford, by Tammy Hughes, by a very close friend of mine, Clif Morehead, and by Kevin Messner. On our side of the aisle: Pat Schlueter, who works extraordinarily hard as well; and Scott Nance, a member of my staff as Kevin is a member of Mr. Kolbe's staff; and I want to thank them for their efforts. We could not do this job effectively without their help and without their caring and without the very long hours that they put in day after day, night after night, to make sure this bill comes to the floor in a credible fashion. Mr. Chairman, let me make perhaps a few other comments while we are waiting. The legislation before us does, in fact, provide for Treasury law enforcement, critically important, important with respect to Customs, to make sure that what is coming into our country comes in properly, that the proper duties are paid, that the items that are excluded from importation do not come in and that smuggling does not occur. They obviously work hand in hand with others, with INS, with DEA, with Water Patrol in carrying out the efforts to make sure that our borders are secure. In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms headed by John Magaw is an extraordinary agency which has, as I have said in times past, dealt with some of the most dangerous and demented criminals in America, those who want to use weapons of, if not mass destruction, wide destruction such as the bombing of the Oklahoma office building that killed so many of our Federal workers and public citizens. It is appropriate that we fund ATF at levels that gives them the opportunity to do the job that we have given them. And then I would, before yielding to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), mention the Secret Service, one of the premier law enforcement agencies in our Nation. Most of us view the Secret Service as a protective agency. They do that function. They protect our President, they protect our Vice President, their families, and they protect, of course, visitors to our shore, foreign leaders. But they also carry out very, very critically important law enforcement responsibilities, not the least of which is the protection of our currency. The American dollar, as we know, Mr. Chairman, is the standard throughout the world for value and for monetary systems. If it were not for the Secret Service and their protection of the integrity of that currency, the international monetary situation would not be nearly as good as it is. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), one of the leaders on our subcommittee, and, I might say, for those of us who have been here for some time, the distinguished daughter of a distinguished member, Ed Roybal, who chaired this subcommittee and who, through the years, taught me the ropes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I think he raises the question that is a good question; and it should be raised, should be looked at. It will not come as a surprise to him that we do not agree on all the aspects of what he has said, but he certainly raises an issue that ought to be focused on. I know in talking to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) that he shares that concern. I want to assure the gentleman that both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and myself will be looking at this. Furthermore, as the gentleman may know, the Postal Department has made very substantial changes to its initially sponsored resolution through the efforts of the organizations that the gentleman from Texas talked to and himself and others who raised these issues with the department, so that they are moving to ensure greater privacy and protection to the individuals of which the gentleman spoke. The gentleman from Texas raises a legitimate issue. I certainly intend to, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), look at that further. I thank the gentleman for his comments.