Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for her statement, which was excellent. She is a pleasure to work with on issues relating not only to our region but particularly to Federal employees. She is always a very strong advocate of our Federal employees and treating them with fairness. I also want to commend her. She did not mention it, but I wanted to call attention to it earlier; I do not think the gentlewoman was on the floor. I regretted the fact that we deleted the $55 million for the FDA facility which is to be located in Montgomery County. The gentlewoman has been a leader on this effort, and I know that she will work with me, with the chairman, that it is in the Senate bill, and I am hopeful that the chairman and the committee will in conference include that language, and the gentlewoman may want to comment on that.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) leaves the floor, I want to again make the comment that he has done some extraordinary work, positive work, helpful work on this entire issue. He is of course from the authorizing committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate his remarks. Because this is not a partisan issue. The service of our taxpayers is not a partisan issue. The IRS reform effort, which as I pointed out I voted against the first time because I had concerns about it and, as I said, we needed to do it at budget time and we needed to do it at tax-writing time or no matter how good our people were, they could not implement it. He has reiterated and made more strongly, I think, that point, but the purpose of my rising is to thank him for the leadership that he has exercised on this issue and his continuing shepherding of this effort so that it can be successful. I thank him for his efforts. Mr. Chairman, let me now reiterate the concerns that we have on this IRS cut. As I mentioned, Mr. Rossotti was hired in an unusual way. That is to say he was hired as a manager, not as a tax policymaker, to make this system run well. He has sent a letter today, and I would like to read excerpts of that. I quoted a previous letter, but he says this in a letter to me and to the chairman on July 15: A funding reduction of $135 million would severely restrict, if not completely impair, IRS' ability to deliver on restructuring and reform act mandated by Congress in 1998. Went on to say that it would undermine customer service. Says further that it would undermine the funding of efforts to implement congressionally mandated reform requirements. Also says that it will jeopardize the congressionally mandated goal of 80 percent electronic filing. And the last two points he makes is that this cut would impair the creation of operating units to help specialized groups of taxpayers, including small business and ordinary wage earners. Lastly, he says this cut would delay implementation of important taxpayer rights initiatives, the point being again that if we ask the IRS to accomplish these objectives it is incumbent upon us to fund their ability to do so. I regret that that has not happened and, as I say, as a result, as strongly as I support the product from the subcommittee, I will not be able to support final passage of this particular bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting once again the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for the excellent job he and his staff have done with the bill this year. I thank them for their diligent work on this bill and for their spirit of bipartisan cooperation. Within the 302(b) allocation level that had been provided for this subcommittee, $13.6 billion in discretionary budget authority, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) produced a very good bill that he presented to the subcommittee. Even though we were not able to fund courthouse construction within the constraints of this allocation, which I think is a significant and important shortcoming of this bill, this bill deserved bipartisan support as it came out of subcommittee. And indeed it came out of subcommittee, I would remind my colleagues, unanimously. This bill, as the chairman has said, funds the Department of the Treasury at $12.19 billion, $18.6 million below the request of the President. Included within this amount is $3.433 billion for the Treasury. Five important law enforcement agencies, as the chairman has pointed out, over 40 percent of law enforcement in the Federal Government falls within this bill. This bill also funds antidrug activities, including $46.9 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This important office has the lead role in coordinating all of this Government's efforts in the war against drugs. Within this money, $192 million is for the very successful high intensity drug trafficking areas; $19.5 million is for ONDCP's national youth and antidrug media campaign; and $30 million is for the third year of the very popular and widely supported Drug-Free Communities Act. Mr. Chairman, I remain disappointed that this bill contains almost no construction funds. We have the responsibility in this appropriations bill to fund most of the construction of Federal buildings for the entire Government. But this year there is no attempt to fund any of the Federal courthouses on the Judiciary's 5-year plan. Let me make it clear to the Members. The chairman, with the committee's support, last year funded courthouses but not those that were requested by Members but those that were agreed to by the Judiciary as the most critically needed in this Nation to assure the timely administration of justice. This bill eliminates requested construction funds furthermore of $32 million to buy five border stations. They are needed, as the chairman knows. $4.3 million is eliminated for the project to replace the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York City, badly in need of replacement. $55.9 million was deleted from the President's budget to fund the long overdue consolidation of the FDA, and $15 million for a secure location for the currently vulnerable ATF Headquarters building. Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, these deletions are very unfortunate and, in my opinion, penny wise and pound foolish. I understand, however, why this bill does not include funding for these important construction projects. It is because this is the third year of the Balanced Budget Agreement and the very stringent budget caps have not been raised. The 302(b) allocation is only 1.8 percent over the 1999 level. I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman, for Members of the House and, very frankly, for all those listening. This bill represents only a 1.8- percent increase over last year's funding. That is for all salary increases and expenses of utilities and other related expenses that are required both of families and of the Government. This is clearly not enough to cover basic pay and inflationary increases. So, in fact, we have an effective cut. So by eliminating requested construction projects and not adding back courthouse construction, which this committee did in the 1999 budget, the chairman has managed to almost fully fund the remainder of the requested amount in this bill. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe the chairman did an outstanding job within an allocation that was simply too low because it was based on unrealistic budget caps. Mr. Chairman, I very sincerely regret that the bill before this House today is a bill I cannot support. Why? I have said that the bill that came out of subcommittee was unanimously supported, strongly supported by me, again, realizing that it was deficient in the areas that I have talked about but realizing, as well, that the chairman and the committee had done the best it could given the fiscal constraints with which it was confronted. However, not because the Committee on Appropriations thought it fiscally appropriate to do so, not because the Committee on Appropriations believed that there was waste within any of the numbers provided in the subcommittee's reported bill, not because the majority of the Committee on Appropriations members felt that we ought to cut this bill, but because, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, a relatively small group in this House has decided that we are going to make cuts notwithstanding the needs of this Nation. The unilateral actions of the House majority leadership in cutting the funding of this bill by $240 million below the 302(b) allocation has hindered this bill. Let me make an aside, Mr. Chairman. The 302(b) allocation comes about as a result of the budget resolution passed by this House and the Senate. Let me repeat that. The 302(b) allocation that this bill was reported on out of the subcommittee was consistent with the allocations made pursuant to the budget passed by this House and the United States Senate. It was not overbudget. It was not over the 302(b) allocation. I believe that the almost quarter of a billion dollar cut in this bill has rendered it unsupportable. This reduction passed the Committee on Appropriations on a straight party-line vote, 33-26. Mr. Chairman, you chaired a retreat. It was a retreat on civility. It was a retreat with the objective of trying to bring us together and make us a more unified, cooperative body, looking at things that were in the best interest of this Nation, not what was in the best interest of party. Very frankly, the subcommittee did this. Very frankly, the Committee on Appropriations would have supported that. But there continues to be a group who does not want to work in a bipartisan fashion, who does not want to bring us together but wants to drive us apart, who wants to, in my opinion, for either political or philosophical reasons, create differences where they ought not to be. I regret that I rise in opposition to the bill as it stands now. We were told that this reduction is necessary to relieve pressure on other appropriations bills that follow. However, this $240 million will not begin to solve the more than $30 billion shortfall in the 302(b) allocation of other appropriations bills. What really is happening here is that the leadership is undercutting the committee process to satisfy a few of the members of their conference. This is the fourth appropriations bill to be cut based not on the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations but on the judgment of the leadership. The worst part of this reduction is the damage it does to core government functions. Funding for the IRS is reduced by $135 million. The General Services Administration repairs and alterations is reduced by $100 million, and the Treasury Department's efforts to automate human resources management are cut by $5 million. These cuts are troubling and extremely ill-advised. After scores of hearings, days and days of deliberation, the subcommittee made a judgment that the appropriate numbers were $135 million more in IRS, $100 million more in GSA and $5 million more in the human resources management of the Treasury Department. Mr. Chairman, I know that you voted for the legislation that resulted from the ``Vision for a New IRS.'' Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, you will remember, perhaps, that I was one of four people when the IRS reform bill was considered on the floor to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I do not expect you to remember what I had to say, as compelling as it was, in the debate that day, but I got up on the floor and I said, ``I am voting no, and very frankly, if you're going to be for IRS reform, you've got to be for IRS reform at appropriations time and at tax-writing time.'' What I meant by that is that we needed to give it the appropriate resources. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) of this body and Bob Kerrey of the other body were critically important in passing this legislation. In the report that they issued, they said this: ``The Commission recommends that Congress provide the IRS certainty in its operational budget in the near future. We recommend that the IRS budget for tax law enforcement and processing, assistance, and management be maintained at current levels of funding for the next 3 years.'' Why did they say that? They said it because if we are going to have reform in IRS, we need to fund the resources to provide the taxpayer services that that bill contemplated. In the cuts that confront us today, we are not doing that. Last year, the House voted overwhelmingly for that reform bill. That act followed recommendations of the commission that studied the IRS which stated concerning budgets that, and I quote, the IRS should receive stable funding for the 3 years. Furthermore, they said a stable budget will allow the IRS leadership to plan and implement operations which will improve taxpayer service and compliance. Mr. Chairman, in a recent letter, IRS Commissioner Rossotti stated the following concerning the fiscal year 2000 requested level: ``This level is the absolute bare minimum necessary to meet the congressional demand to reform IRS.'' Mr. Chairman, as you may know, Mr. Rossotti is a Republican. I do not mean he is a partisan. He is a registered Republican and he is a businessman who ran an 8,000-person firm in the private sector, had offices worldwide, and was asked by Secretary Rubin to come in to manage this department. He is not a tax lawyer as most of his predecessors were, he is a manager, a business manager, asked to make this agency run efficiently, effectively and cognizant of the needs of its customers, the taxpayers of this country. He is doing so. He says further, ``Without these funds, the reform effort mandated by the restructuring act will be in jeopardy and could in fact fail.'' It is not enough to pass legislation which says we are going to reform the IRS. It is, as this report indicated, necessary to fund it at stable levels. We have not done so. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and in doing so I would like to observe that he is one of the senior members, as the chairman knows, of the Committee on Ways and Means but more importantly for the purposes of this bill was a member of the IRS reform task force and was intimately involved in the recommendations that that task force made. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, critics often hasten to draw attention to government agencies' failures, while ignoring successes if they notice them at all. Today I want to draw the House's attention to two prestigious awards and other accolades recently received by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for its leading role in electronic information dissemination through GPO Access, its acclaimed Internet information service (www.access.gpo.gov). First, the Vice-President's National Partnership for Reinventing Government has honored the GPO and the Energy Department (DOE) jointly with a ``Hammer Award'' for the ``Information Bridge,'' a project which makes available thousands of unclassified DOE scientific and technical reports in electronic format. Using the World Wide Web, users enter the DOE electronic dissemination system through GPO Access, where they can view over 30,000 DOE reports already on-line, with more becoming available every day. The Information Bridge eliminates the need to disseminate these reports to depository libraries in printed form, thereby saving production and distribution costs to the government, and processing and storage costs to the libraries. This is GPO's second ``Hammer Award'' for GPO Access; the first came in 1997 for reengineering the Commerce Business Daily with the Commerce Department. In 1998 Vice-President Gore and Government Executive magazine named GPO Access one of the 15 ``Best Feds on the Web.'' In addition, the legal community has recently lauded GPO Access. Law Office Computing magazine's April/May issue named GPO Access one of the top 50 legal-research web sites for 1999. The magazine's top 50 web sites, which included only seven federal sites, were chosen as favorites of law librarians, attorneys and paralegals based on experience with the sites and their usability. Further, the April 1999 issue of Chicago Lawyer magazine reports that the newsletter legal.online has selected GPO Access as both the ``best research site for laws'' and the ``overall best Government site.'' Finally, the GPO just received the first American Association of Law Libraries' ``Public Access to Government Information Award'' as the ``official, no-fee, one-stop public access point for the growing universe of web-based electronic Government information.'' These accolades follow GPO's selection in February by In-Plant Graphics magazine as the top in-plant operation in the country, and in March as a top technology innovator by PC Week magazine. Public- and private-sector entities alike appreciate the leading role GPO is playing as we advance into the information age. Let's join in the applause for the dedicated professionals of the GPO.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would like to commend the work of both the chairman, Mr. Hobson and the ranking member, Mr. Olver. I believe the priorities which they have established in this bill are good for both our nation and for our nation's defense. 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 the Congress has, and that is ensuring for the nation's defense. The construction of quality family housing and barracks, as well as hospitals and child development centers all relate directly to the quality of life issues so important to retaining our men and women who serve our nation and who deserve the best that we can provide them. We have witnessed our military forces time and again respond to our nation's call and demonstrate the courage, commitment and dedication that make our nation's defense the envy of the world. I want to thank the subcommittee for providing these men and women a quality of life that makes the burden of leaving their families behind a bit easier to bear. I also rise the support this bill which appropriates $8.5 billion for critical military construction needs in fiscal year 2000 and want to applaud the chairman and ranking member for what is in the bill before us: --$4.2 billion for military construction, including: $789 million for barracks construction, $24 million for child development centers, $165 million for hospital and medical facilities, and $497 million for Guard and Reserve components. --$3.6 billion for family housing, including: $747 million for new construction and renovation of family housing units and $2.8 billion for operation and maintenance of existing units. --$700 million for expenses related to base realignment and closure. I also want to point out some of the projects included in this bill that will have such a positive impact on the defense installations in my district such as; For the Patuxent River Naval Air Station: $3.06 million for a ship & air test and evaluation facility, $1.5 million for a indoor firing range, and $4.15 million for an aircrew water survival training facility. For Fort Meade: $10.07 million for a sewage treatment plant. In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for funding these military construction priorities and for so effectively addressing the needs of our men and women in uniform and their families.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 33, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of our flag. And, in this respect, I take no pleasure in doing so: Like the vast majority of Americans, I too condemn those malcontents who would desecrate our flag--a universal symbol for democracy, freedom and liberty--to grab attention for themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Further, I fully appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer and support this amendment, particularly the patriotic men and women who so faithfully served this Nation in our armed services and in other capacities. Their strong feelings on this issue should neither be questioned nor underestimated. They deserve our respect. However, I respectfully disagree with them and will oppose this amendment for the reasons so eloquently articulated by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, Senator McConnell stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution at its very center: the First Amendment.'' He added, ``Our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.'' Those of us who oppose this amendment do so not to countenance the actions of a few misfits, but because we believe the question before us today is how we--the United States of America--are to deal with individuals who dishonor our Nation in this manner. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a constitutional amendment is neither the appropriate nor best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the late Justice Brennan wrote for the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson: ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own.'' Furthermore, it troubles me that this amendment, if approved, would ensconce the vile actions of a few provocateurs into the very document that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. That document, of course, is our Constitution. In more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times, and nearly all of those amendments guarantee or expand rights, liberties and freedoms. Only one amendment--prohibition--constricted freedoms and soon was repealed. I simply do not believe that our traditions, our values, our democratic principles--all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights--should be overridden to prohibit this particular manner of speech, even though I completely disagree with it. Free speech is often a double-edged sword. However, if we value the freedoms that define us as Americans, we should refrain from amending the Constitution to limit those same freedoms to avoid being offended. Finally, while even one act of flag burning is one too many, I do not believe that flag desecration is rampant in our Nation or so harms the Republic that nothing short of a constitutional amendment is needed. I remind my colleagues that if we approve this amendment, we put our great Nation in the company of the oppressive regimes in China, Iran, and Cuba--all of whom have similar laws protecting their flags. Needless to say, when it comes to free speech, the United States of America is the world's leader. It does not follow China, Iran or Cuba. Our flag is far more than a piece of cloth, a few stripes, 50 stars. Our flag is a universal symbol for freedom, liberty, human rights and decency that is recognized throughout the world. The inflammatory actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish those ideals. We can only do that ourselves. And I submit that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech--even speech such as this--is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time, and I thank my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for listening to those constituents and responding to those constituents and allowing the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who represents the City of Baltimore in which Fort McHenry is located, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) from Montgomery County, in which, of course, there are many historic sites of the War of 1812, and, of course, I have represented the City of Bladensburg for many, many years, another historic site in the British effort to turn aside the revolution and the Peace Treaty of 1783, signed, as my friend knows, in the old Statehouse in Maryland, which is pictured, the Senate Chamber in which that Treaty of Paris which ended the war was signed on the 14th of January 1784 in Annapolis, and the picture of the Senate Chamber is on the wall in the rotunda. Mr. Chairman, all of us are reciting some degree of history. It is important that we learn from history. It is important we not forget history so that we are not condemned to live the worst parts of history. The historic trails are important assets for our country and for our generations yet to come. The eloquence of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) in reciting that song that, yes, brought a smile to my face as well, because I remember it well. I loved that song. It is a catchy tune. But as he points out, it relates a tragic event. The history of Maryland is replete with events that surround the founding of this Nation and the establishment of the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and certainly its most long-standing democracy in the world. So I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so. In order to designate a historic trail, we need to research that issue. This bill will provide for that effort to be undertaken. I think it is very appropriate. The proposed trail would provide an opportunity for citizens to learn about the British Washington-Baltimore campaign during the War of 1812 and to experience the story of how our national anthem came to be written by Francis Scott Key. The Star Spangled Banner Trail would be the first national historic trail in the mid-Atlantic region. As currently envisioned, it could take visitors through six counties in Maryland as well as Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. The route, which would follow the path taken by the British in the War of 1812, would begin in my district where the British landed in Calvert County Maryland and launched their campaign to destroy the Barney Flotilla and, after the Battle of Bladensburg, burn Washington, D.C. The trail would then follow the path of the retreating American army up through Georgetown, through Montgomery County, and onto Baltimore where they ultimately defeated the British forces at Ft. McHenry. Mr. Speaker, the War of 1812 and this campaign is a fascinating, but untold, chapter in our Nation's history. Creating this trail will provide a critical link in this turning point in our Nation's history. I want to thank my good friend Mr. Gilchrest for sponsoring this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico, who I might say does such an outstanding job and who, I hope at some point in time, will represent the 51st State. That is an aside, that is not the issue today, I understand that, but this bill is about freedom, this bill is about stars in the Star-Spangled Banner, and perhaps we will add one for the representative from Puerto Rico in the near future. I thank also my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his leadership in getting this bill to the floor. The gentleman is a very fine Member of this House and his attention to details large and small has been appreciated by this body, and I appreciate his leadership in bringing this to the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I feel constrained to respond in light of the fact that our manager is not here. When you lose 17-1, not showing up is probably the best advice. But I want to say to my brother Oxley, he and I are fraternity brothers and good friends. He is the manager of the Republican team. This was his first year as the manager. I hope it is not a preface of what is to come, because if it is, we on this side of the aisle are in a lot of trouble. But it was a good time. We played at one of the beautiful stadiums in America, in Bowie, Maryland, in my district. On behalf of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our manager and all the players on both sides, I want to congratulate all of those who were responsible for raising over $100,000. That is the purpose of the game, to raise dollars for young people, for organizations in the city and in this community, to enhance the lives of children. And some very old people feeling much older today than they felt the day before played last night so that much younger people, probably much better athletes, will have opportunities that they might not otherwise have. I want to congratulate both Manager Oxley and Manager Sabo for their leadership.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can there be any doubt now that the leadership wants to kill campaign finance reform? If my colleagues will listen closely, they can even hear the leadership trying to talk this issue to death one more time. The leadership has ordered 2 months of hearings. Last Thursday was our first. What did we learn? Nothing, nothing that we did not learn in 15 hours of floor debate last year on the Shays-Meehan bill, a bill that passed this House by 252 to 179; nothing that we have not learned already in the 12 committee hearings on the issue since the 104th Congress. Mr. Speaker, the time for talk has long since passed. The Americans want and expect action. We can pass the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill right now. These hearings are a sham designed to delay actions. As our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), observed, if we wait until September, the Senate will just run out the clock. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition to bring Shays-Meehan to the floor. Otherwise these hearings promise to be the death knell for meaningful campaign finance reform this year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding to me. I want to congratulate the gentleman for focusing on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we do so because I think we need to reflect upon what the lessons of this operation are. Many had doubts. Many were concerned that we were going to lose large numbers of people. Many were concerned that those who had been expelled from Kosovo would not want to go home. Many frankly were opposed to the President's leadership on this issue because they thought it was wrong. Mr. Speaker, the butcher of Belgrade, however, is in full retreat. NATO's 78-day air campaign operation allied force has harnessed Slobodan Milosevic's unbridled barbarism. It is producing the results we knew it would. It has made the world, in my opinion, a safer place today. When we look at Southeastern Europe tonight and compare it to the situation there just 3 months ago, what do we see? First, of course, as I have said, we see a weakened Milosevic, both at home and abroad. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) mentioned and I will repeat that just this morning the Washington Post reported that demonstrations denouncing Milosevic's genocidal rampage in Kosovo have begun to occur in Belgrade. We expected them in Pristina, but they are occurring in Belgrade. One Serb protester complained, and this bears repeating, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) just used this quote, ``Milosevic lied to us. He led us in the wrong direction. We should be entering the European Union and cooperating with the rest of the world. Instead, we are completely isolated.'' Second, we see 1.3 million Kosovars who were forced to flee their homeland or displaced within their province preparing to return home. We have some measure of confidence that the nightmarish scenes and gross violations of human rights in Kosovo are at an end and will not be replayed there soon. Third, we see the unified, decisive action by NATO forces can repulse a ruthless dictator, protect and preserve the sanctity of human rights, and help stabilize the entire region. Can anyone seriously question whether the threat to Macedonia or the Yugoslavia Republic of Montenegro is less tonight because of NATO's unwavering action against Milosevic and his henchmen? No one can doubt that the same could not be said had we fallen prey to the isolationist experts who coached appeasement. In 1940, as the European continent was about to explode into a Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of appeasement, no man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with the incendiary bomb.'' Milosevic's ruthless actions, his rejection of reasoning during the entire decade, left us little alternative but to confront him with force. Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat, for the entire decade. This was not something that was sprung on the West. In fact, in my opinion, the West waited too long. But it is never too late to do the right thing. With President Clinton, an extraordinarily courageous and forceful Prime Minister of Great Britain, and other leaders in NATO who obviously had in their own parliaments voices of doubt, voices of nonsupport, but notwithstanding that, they courageously stood as a NATO alliance to say that this kind of genocidal activity will not stand in the bosom of Europe. Fourth, we see that the credibility of the United States has been enhanced throughout the world. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote recently in the Weekly Standard, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure my colleagues well know, neither Mr. Kristol nor Mr. Kagan are known as spinmeisters for the Clinton administration, but they said this, the victory in Kosovo should ``send a message to would-be aggressors that . . . the United States and its allies can summon the will and the force to do them harm.'' We have sent, I think, a very simple message to would-be aggressors in Europe and elsewhere. Do not do it. Do not do it. Do not do it. The West has the will, and the West clearly has the ability to confront you, stop you, defeat you, and drive you back. Do not do it. If one takes aggressive hostile action against one's neighbors or one's own people, one will pay a very high price indeed. Fifth, we see that a policy that recognizes and embraces basic human rights, decency, and democratic values is not just the right thing to do, but, Mr. Speaker, a strategic imperative. This policy, in this case, has been vindicated. Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he wrote recently, ``International moral standards of conduct, long derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle.'' How proud Americans ought to be of their President, this Congress, and their young men and women in the armed forces of the United States who align with those in NATO made that quote possible. That the cynics, the realpolitiks of the world who said that we did not have a strategic interest there, yes, of course, there was a moral imperative, but we did not have a strategic interest; therefore, perhaps as we did during the 1930s we ought to stand and simply watch, perhaps lament, perhaps wring our hand, but not take action. The Clinton administration with the support of this Congress not only unified, not always out front, but nevertheless united in our conviction that we would let this policy go forward and congratulate themselves for standing for what is right. Why? Because of NATO's unified unwavering action in Kosovo, we have made it clear that international wrongdoers can and will be confronted. This does not mean we can intervene, Mr. Speaker, in every instance. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated recently, and again I quote, ``In copying with future crisis, the accumulated wisdom of the past will have to be weighed against the factors unique to that place and time.'' Unfortunately, for Milosevic, Kosovo was the place and the time. Finally, in closing let me state our efforts to secure peace in the Balkans are not over. We must keep the faith. We must keep our will. We must keep our focus. We must keep our ties to our allies strong and unbroken. Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. He, Mr. Speaker, and those who committed crimes allied with him or, very frankly, those who committed crimes on the other side must be held accountable. Our policy goal now should be, not only his removal from office, but his being held accountable for the atrocities for which he is clearly responsible. If we do not, Mr. Speaker, if we do not hold those who have committed war crimes accountable, then I fear we will see a continuation of the cycle of violence and revenge that has plagued the Balkans for so many years. If, however, we hold accountable those responsible, then there will not be cause for the victims and their families and their successors to again strike out, to in vengeance, to restore the honor that has not been restored because we did not hold the criminals accountable. We should encourage the Serbs to remove Milosevic and the brutal leaders who have caused this tragic suffering and misery. Serbia also must be clear about this. So long as Milosevic remains in power, it will not and should not receive financial assistance for its reconstruction. Humanitarian aid, yes. Reconstruction aid, economic aid, no. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the Members of this House who has traveled to Macedonia and Albania, been to Pristina and Kosovo, and seen with my own eyes the devastation and the consequences of genocide. These images are seared into my memory forever. We will not always be able to intervene to stop injustice wherever it occurs, but we have laid down a powerful precedent in Kosovo. Our credibility, as I said, earlier has been enhanced. NATO has been strengthened. A brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for human rights has been advanced. If those are not good causes, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what are. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who has himself been such a leader in this effort and who is ensured that the American public had the facts and were themselves focused on the objectives we sought, the means we used. Parenthetically, let me say that we were extraordinarily lucky, the redress of the wrongs that were occurring, if they occur in the future, may not be as costless as this enterprise was. But having said that, the enterprise will be worth it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished whip for yielding, and I will say to my friend, the Majority Leader, I quoted him yesterday in hearings that we had in the Committee on House Administration saying that he hoped initially that this would be on the floor in July, campaign finance reform. I also quoted the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who indicated that if we delayed until September he was fearful that it would kill campaign finance reform. As the distinguished Majority Leader knows, we had over 50 hours of debate on the Shays-Meehan bill last Congress and we had 252 Members vote in favor of passing that bill, and frankly with all due respect the hearing that we had yesterday, three good Members of Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), came and testified, but very frankly, Mr. Leader, they testified on bills they have had in it for at least two congresses. Very little change in their testimony. They indicated to me it was essentially no different than it was before. So I fear that the hearings will simply delay us and will be a device to kill rather than pass campaign finance reform. I would hope that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) would consult with his leadership and see if we could accelerate that so we could bring Shays-Meehan to the floor as quickly as possible, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for yielding, and I thank the leader for his consideration of that request.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary woman, Mrs. Marie Crump, as she celebrates a birthday and as the community celebrates her years of leadership and service to Prince George's County. Mrs. Crump began her service to Prince George's County in the 1950s when she became active in the 14th District Democratic Club and was elected treasurer. She also became quite active with the Young Democrats and soon distinguished herself as an invaluable resource of effort and knowledge. In addition to volunteering for campaigns, Mrs. Crump also volunteered her time in service to Prince George's County's nonprofit community. She served as the local chair for the Red Cross, The Community Chest and the March of Dimes. In 1962, Mrs. Crump was selected as the Mother's March Chair for Birth Defects of Prince George's County and served in that capacity for 5 years. As she retired in 1979 from an illustrious career with the County Treasurer's Office, she joined the Board of Directors for the Prince George's Civic Opera and has since devoted countless hours to its development for the enrichment and enjoyment of all Prince Georgians. Mrs. Crump has spent over 40 years working to improve Prince George's County for all her citizens. She has made a profound impact on all those with whom she has worked and her life has been an example of the noblest of ideals--that of service to others. Today, on behalf of the citizens of Prince George's County, I offer our thanks and our deepest gratitude for Mrs. Crump's lifelong work and I wish her the best as we recognize the magnitude of the difference she has made and as she celebrates her birthday with family and friends.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule on H.R. 1501 and H.R. 2122. On May 25, the Speaker stated that we should consider this bill in a ``timely yet responsible way'' and that ``rushing it to the floor . . . will not result in a better product in the long run.'' The actions of the Rules Committee late last night has been anything but timely and responsible. After the majority pledged to work together to draft a bipartisan bill that contained the reasonable gun-safety legislation in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee canceled the scheduled mark-up and took the juvenile justice and gun violence proposals directly to the floor. Now, just twelve hours after passing the rule, we are debating two bills that Members and staffs have had inadequate time to prepare for. Mr. Speaker, after the events of the past two months, this should not become a partisan debate. We must take as many steps as we can to eliminate the environment of violence and reduce risk to our children, families and neighbors. The culture of violence is magnified every day by rapidly expanding communication technology. Television, movies, the internet, violent video games all conspire to make violence a part of the lives of each of us every day. The Senate has done its part to provide sensible legislation, and it is now up to us to adopt a package of legislation that addresses the violence that has frightened families and communities across the Nation. No legislation alone is potent enough to stop youth violence, but it is truly unfortunate that we could not come up with one bill that addresses both the need for juvenile justice programs and sensible gun safety provisions. As the Ranking Member on the Appropriations Treasury-Postal Subcommittee, I was prepared to introduce an amendment in the Treasury Postal Appropriations Bill that would close the gun-show loophole just as the Senate bill did. But a last minute decision by the Republican leadership that gun violence would be addressed in a timely and substantive manner kept me from offering my amendment. We were reassured that this issue would be addressed swiftly and cooperatively. But here we are today debating a pair of bills that never made it through Committee debate and were brought to the floor in a haphazard and truly partisan fashion. I urge members to vote against this rule.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the most difficult and divisive issues facing the public today. Like most Americans, I would prefer that there were no abortions. Also, like most Americans, I believe the decision is one that is for the woman and family involved, not the Government. However, I oppose late-term abortions, except for the most serious and compelling of reasons. I am specifically and adamantly opposed to what some refer to as ``abortion-on-demand''--after the time of viability. For that reason, I and others have introduced the ``Late Term Abortion Restriction Act of 1999.'' The specific intent of this legislation is to adopt as Federal policy, a prohibition on post-viability, late-term abortions. Critics of this legislation point out that there are exceptions. They are correct. We believe that in the event that the mother's life is in danger or where the continuation of the pregnancy will pose a threat of serious, adverse health consequences to the woman, then and only then can this prohibition on late-term abortions be overcome. I introduced this legislation in both the 104th and the 105th Congress. I did so then because I am opposed to abortions being performed after the viability of a fetus, except for the most serious of health risks if the pregnancy is continued. This prohibition is similar to restrictions on late-term abortions in 41 of our States, including my own State of Maryland. Those States believed that it was appropriate policy to prohibit late-term abortions ``on demand.'' We share that view. Those who oppose abortion under almost all circumstances at any time during the course of pregnancy have criticized this legislation as meaningless. They do so because they believe that some doctors will contrive reasons to justify a late-term abortion. I do not doubt that may happen. But if it does, it will be illegal under this act and subject the doctor to the penalties set forth in the bill and to such professional sanctions as are imposed by the appropriate medical societies and regulatory bodies. This legislation is much broader than the partial-birth abortion bills introduced by others in the 104th and 105th Congress. Those bills and the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1999 recently introduced in the Senate had and continue to have at their purpose, the elimination of a particular procedure to effect an abortion at any time during the course of the pregnancy. To that extent it is inaccurate and misleading to define it as many proponents and press reports have, as a prohibition on late-term abortions. It is both much narrower and, at the same time, broader than that. It is my belief that its terms would not prohibit the performance of a single abortion. They would simply be performed by a different procedure. Congressman Jim Greenwood and I are introducing this legislation today with 14 other bipartisan original cosponsors. This bill, in contrast to the partial birth abortion bills, would prohibit all late- term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure that would be employed. While there are exceptions to this general prohibition, we believe that our bill will, in fact, prohibit all post- viability, late-term abortions that are not the result of a serious cause. This legislation establishes a clear Federal policy against late-term abortions. We would hope that the Judiciary Committee would hold an early hearing on this legislation and bring it to the floor so that the Federal Government could adopt this sensible prohibition, which is similar to that adopted by over 80 percent of the States. They did so because their legislatures wanted to make it clear that late-term abortions were, in almost all circumstances, against public policy and against the law. We should do the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the critics were wrong. The headline in today's paper says, ``Kosovo Pullout to Start Today.'' NATO's 11-week, 78-day campaign to stop the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo is producing the results we sought. Today's pullout is the first step towards a complete victory. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly Standard, the victory in Kosovo should send a message to would-be aggressors that the United States and its allies can summon the will and force to do them harm. Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he wrote recently, ``International moral standards of conduct, long derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle,'' said Bill Safire. Why? Because of NATO's unified, unwavering action in Kosovo. The threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact on the butcher of Belgrade. Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as President Clinton consulted his military advisers on options for ground troops. Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, Milosevic caved when he knew there would be no escape. President Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the credibility of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout the world. Finally, let me state, our efforts to secure a peace in the Balkans are not over. Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, and he must be held accountable. Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been strengthened, a brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for human rights has been advanced. If those are not good causes, I do not know what are. In that context, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt the Taylor amendment, I urge that we adopt the Skelton amendment, and I urge that we reject the Souder and Fowler amendments, which will declare defeat, not victory, which is appropriately our task today. Mr. Chairman, the doomsayers and the critics were wrong. The banner headline on today's Washington Post says it all: ``Kosovo Pullout Set To Start Today.'' NATO's 11-week, 78-day air campaign to stop the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo is producing the results we sought. Today's pullout is the first step toward complete victory. Soon we will be able to count these as our accomplishments: Success in providing the 1.3 million Kosovars who have been forced to flee their own country or displaced within the province with a safe re- entry to their homeland. Success in stabilizing this most unstable region of Europe. And, of utmost importance, success in vindicating the credibility of NATO--and the United States--in rejecting and punishing Milosevic's unbridled barbarism. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly Standard: the victory in Kosovo should ``send a message to would-be aggressors that . . . the United States and its allies can summon the will and the force to do them harm.'' With the Serb invaders retreating and the NATO peacekeepers ready to restore order, it's not too soon to consider the lessons in this campaign and what still must be done. First, NATO's air campaign in Kosovo decisively demonstrates that the alliance can engage in military action to protect basic human rights and to deter aggression on the European continent. This policy is not just the right thing to do--it's a strategic imperative. Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he wrote recently: ``International moral standards of conduct, long derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle.'' Why? Because of NATO's unified, unwavering action in Kosovo. Would-be aggressors everywhere have this message ringing in their ears--don't do it. If you take aggressive, hostile action against others, you may pay a very steep price indeed. Further, we have learned that our awesome military might--coupled with the will to use it--provides a very real strategic advantage. Clearly, the threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact on the butcher of Belgrade--Slobodan Milosevic. Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as President Clinton consulted his military advisers on options for ground troops. Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, Milosevic caved in when he knew there would be no escape. President Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the credibility of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout the world. We make good on our word. American credibility is a strategic asset of the highest order and well worth fighting for. Finally, let me state our efforts to secure peace in the Balkans are not over. Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. And he must be held accountable. Our policy goal now should be his removal from office. But we should encourage the Serbs to remove Milosevic and the brutal leaders who have caused this unnecessary suffering and misery. Serbia also must be clear about this: so long as Milosevic remains in power, it will not receive financial assistance for its reconstruction. Mr. Speaker, like some of my colleagues who have traveled to Macedonia and Albania, I have seen the devastating consequences of genocide. These images have been seared into my memory forever. We will not always be able to intervene to stop injustice wherever it occurs. But we have laid down a powerful precedent in Kosovo. Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been strengthened, a brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for human rights has been advanced. If those are not good causes, I frankly don't know what are. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Taylor and Skelton amendments and reject the Souder and Fowler amendments.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to serve with the gentleman on the National Security Caucus, and the gentleman does an outstanding job in that. I am going to join the gentleman and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the chairman of the committee in the effort he speaks of, but I believe we ought to perceive this on a bipartisan basis. I will be speaking about what I think the President's role has been and what Congress' role has been, both parties, in terms of under funding our defense. We have not passed bills that were adequate to the task. The President has not vetoed any bills. We simply have not passed them. I want to work with the gentleman, and I appreciate his comments.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is worse today than it was 3 years ago?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman Bosnia-Herzegovina is in the Balkans.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Prince George's County School System as one of our Nation's most innovative and successful school violence prevention programs. In the wake of the tragedies at Columbine and Conyers High School, it is important to highlight those schools which serve as a model for other school districts to follow. As the 18th largest school district in the nation, the faculty and staff of the Prince George's County Public School system educates one of the most diverse student populations of any district in the Nation. This week, as we continue our dialogue and focus on solutions to making our schools a safer place to learn, perhaps we can look to many of the programs already in place in Prince George's County and across the State of Maryland. Under the direction of retiring Superintendent Dr. Jerome Clark and Dr. Patricia Green, Chief, Divisional Administrator for Pupil Services, Prince George's County has implemented a regimen of programs including peer mediation, early intervention, and placement of probation specialists within schools. The Peer Mediation program has been one of the most successful. By placing a peer mediation teacher on staff at each of the 20 high schools and 26 middle schools, students are learning now to intervene and peacefully resolve conflicts. The program has recently been instituted on the elementary school level where teachers and guidance counselors at more than 100 of the district's elementary schools are trained on the importance of creating a healthy learning environment. Another program, called the ``Justice in Cluster Program'' has been so successful that the State of Maryland used the program as the model to create the statewide ``Spotlight on Schools.'' By teaming up with the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice, each cluster of schools is able to provide two probation specialists who work with the local high school, middle school, and elementary schools to assist guidance counselors, peer mediation teachers, school psychologists, and administrators in working with troubled students and ensuring that they remain out of the juvenile justice system. Early intervention programs are also proving to be successful. ``Second Step,'' a program featured in a 1997 study by the University of Washington, teaches children to change attitudes which may lead to violent behavior. Through learning empathy, impulse control and anger management, students in kindergarten through grade six are learning how to react nonviolently to various situations. The program is currently in place in 67 elementary schools and the Prince George's County School System has been asked by the Maryland State Department of Education to become the regional training center so that other school districts can replicate this successful program. These are just three of the many positive programs being implemented just beyond the borders of our Nation's Capitol. With a number of successful federal programs in place like D.A.R.E., G.R.E.A.T., and the COPS program, we are in a position to provide a comprehensive plan for reducing school violence. I salute the Prince George's County Public School System for its dedication to safety and encourage my colleagues to look to this school system as one which may have solutions to the many problems facing our education system.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for yielding, and I join the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts). I do not know how many Americans have seen Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is a woman small in stature. But that belies the fact that she was a giant in her courage and in her commitment and in the impact she made on America, not just on African Americans, though an impact she had on their lives and the respect accorded to them, but on the lives of every American who live today in a better country, more conscious of our need to give to each individual within our country the respect that they are due as human beings and children of God. Rosa Parks, Mr. Speaker, is a giant in the history of America. On December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks looked up from her seat and said, ``No, I will not give you my seat. I was here first. I'm an American citizen. I paid my fare. And I ought to be able to sit on this seat.'' Mr. Speaker, she was absolutely correct. But as Martin Luther King observed some 8 years later, in August of 1963, America had yet to live out the reality of the promises made in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, that Rosa Parks, like the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), was endowed not by government but by her Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And our Constitution said, particularly in the 14th amendment and the 15th amendment, that color would not dictate lesser Americans. Rosa Parks is a giant, and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Oklahoma in setting aside, as the gentleman from Oklahoma so ably articulated, the Rotunda, a revered spot not only in this country but around the world, to honor Rosa Parks, to say to her, ``Thank you. Thank you for helping America be a better country.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I have a speech that is written here on this bill. Let me read my colleagues the first paragraph. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support this bill. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) have fashioned a bill that will serve the legislative branch well next year. That paragraph, of course, was written before a determination was made unilaterally to change this bill, to undermine the premise on which that paragraph was written. I regret that unilateral change which, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, was not taken in a bipartisan way. I said this earlier on another bill. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) both led this bill through its two phases, subcommittee and full committee, in a bipartisan, fair fashion. It was that procedure that I respected and that bill that I was going to support. Unfortunately, however, after it left the bosom of our committee, other forces were brought to bear, the bill will now be changed, and I do not believe it will serve this institution as well as it should. There are some things in this bill that I am pleased about, such as the transit subsidy program for the roughly 4,000 employees of the Library of Congress. Approximately 140 Federal agencies, including the House and Senate, and numerous private-sector employers, offer their employees similar benefits to encourage use of public transportation. Last year we extended those benefits to our own employees at the option of each Member. That was a good step for us to take. This year we are extending it to the employees of the Library of Congress, another significant step forward. By expanding this transit-subsidy program to Library employees, we can help to ease highway congestion, reduce demand for scarce parking, reduce pollution. I was very pleased that the bill, as reported, funded the succession initiatives in the Library and the Congressional Research Service, and hope the reductions to be taken in the Young amendment can be restored in conference. Over the next few years, numerous senior Library/CRS employees will leave Federal service for their well-earned retirement. These succession initiatives would enable the Library to ensure that key personnel pass their knowledge and expertise on to successors prior to their departure. I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the reported bill includes the amendment offered in the committee by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). The committee adopted it by voice vote. But as the gentleman from California, I am sure, will observe and as I will lament, the only provision in this bill that is not protected by the rule is a provision to say that we will protect the environment and recycle paper, as we expect every other Federal agency to do. It is a shame that the Committee on Rules would not see that as a sufficiently important policy position for this bill to take for our institution. This is not extraneous. This is about the legislative body. I would hope that no one would rise to make the point of order. I would say that this matter is in the jurisdiction of the committee of which I have the privilege of being the ranking member. I would hope that we would not claim jurisdiction on this issue. It ought not to be controversial. As the gentleman from California pointed out, the House recycling program does not work as well as it should. One year it earned $7.51. Last year, however, it earned $25,000. But it has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that the program could earn $150,000 if we recycled just 60 percent of our high grade paper. Think of that, $25,000. Now, the good news is what happens with this $25,000 under the Farr amendment. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that recycling proceeds would go to our child-care center. Is there one of us that does not have an employee with a problem getting proper child care, and therefore needs the House child care center? Under the Farr amendment, not only do we get the opportunity to recycle, and to help our environment by reusing materials that are fully reusable, but we can also get to help our employees' children and be a more family-friendly institution. Mr. Chairman, most Members and staff want to recycle, and they deserve a program that will facilitate it. Finally, there is one item not in this measure but which I believe should appear in the final version. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, our chairman, who has been very receptive to this issue. I believe in the final version we should include funding for the U.S. Capitol Police Information Technology Services. These services are mission-critical, but are now provided through the Senate Sergeant at Arms at whatever level of funding and support he has available after his primary responsibilities to the Senate are met. This item ought to be included in our bill and I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue in conference. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose the Young amendment and support the bill as originally reported by the subcommittee and full committee.