Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the appointment of my good friend, Mrs. Sally Jameson as executive director of the Charles County Chamber of Commerce. For the past six years, Sally has been affiliated with the Charles County Chamber of Commerce; five of those years she served the legislative committee. Prior to her appointment, Sally was the director of the Waldorf Jaycee Community Center since it opened in 1992. Today, it has evolved as a focal point for Charles County and is currently undergoing expansion. Mr. Speaker, she is working with the Charles County Public Schools on a student exchange with students in Walldorf, Germany and with the Charles County Commissioners on a twin-city establishment between Waldorf, Maryland and Walldorf, Germany. Sally is a life-long resident of Charles County and resides in Bryantown with her husband, Gene and two children, Donnie and Michelle. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Sally will be a tremendous asset to the Chamber of Commerce and southern Maryland. I am proud to be her representative in Congress and I ask you and the remainder of my colleagues to join with me in acknowledging the appointment of this fine American.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today's historic and tragic vote is not about whether any of us condone the private behavior of the President. It is, however, about whether we are committed to uphold the Constitution, the touchstone of our freedom and the articulation of the genius of our democratic government's separation of powers and adherence to the democratic transfer of power. Nor is this vote about whether the President of the United States is above the law. He is not. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated over the past 6 years, even the President, as must each of his fellow citizens, must respond to the demands of the law. Moreover, it is clear that upon leaving office, the President could be held accountable in a court of law if charges were to be brought against him alleging the wrongdoing of which the Committee on the Judiciary Republicans have accused him of today. Nor, as some claim, is this vote about process or simply moving this weighty matter from our calendar to that of the United States Senate: A Pontius Pilate-like act, presumably designed to rationalize the profoundly precedent-setting action that this House now contemplates. Nor do I for one second believe that this vote is about setting a marker for the young on what conduct will be sanctioned or allowed to stand. Our Nation and our sustaining values will survive one man's failings. But our democracy will be threatened if we destroy the due process and high standard that the Founding Fathers established over 2 centuries ago. The process that the majority has pursued in this matter has been partisan, driven, I believe, by animus, and exceedingly unfair. Like so many other acts of these last two Congresses, it has been unworthy of our duty and of our responsibility. At the beginning of this Congress, after almost 30 years of House precedent, the Committee on House Oversight moved to allow a case to go forward to remove the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who had been elected by the people of California to this body. They spent over $1 million to do so on the expressed theory that they were simply moving the process forward. It was my contention then that there was no case at the outset, and it was the irrefutable conclusion that there was no case at the end. Later on, because the President defied them in 1995, they shut down the government. They threatened to do so again this year, if the President defied them. Today they seek to substitute, in my opinion, their judgment for the will of the American people and remove their nemesis from the position to which the American people, over their objection, elected him. If I believed that the conduct of this President had threatened our Nation's security or undermined the operation of our government, or put at risk the principles of our democracy, I would vote to impeach. But I am absolutely convinced of the opposite. I have said that the President's conduct has defamed himself and his Presidency. But it has not amounted to treason. It is not a case of bribery. And, as so many scholars of all political and philosophical stripes have testified, it does not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors endangering our freedom or our democracy. The President may well be accountable on another day. But, today, I clearly see it as my duty, consistent with the oath that each of us took to preserve and protect the Constitution, and to the stability of our democracy for generations to come to reject and oppose these articles of impeachment. And, I shall, therefore, vote ``no'' on each of them.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and of our men and women in the Armed Services and of our Commander in Chief, the President who has made a courageous and correct decision. This action has been undertaken for strategic reasons and pursuant to tactical judgments of our military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon. The President has taken appropriate action to confront and weaken one of the world's most dangerous tyrants who has savaged his own people and threatened Iraq's neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, too often we have historically learned the lesson of failing to act in the face of eminent dangers. Saddam Hussein, through his policies of dissembling and lack of cooperation and following the promises he made following his loss in a war that he precipitated, has made the Middle East a more dangerous region and the world a more dangerous place. The world is a safer place because of the courage and willingness of our brave men and women in our armed forces, willing to go in harm's way to protect, not only this country, but the interest of international stability. I hope that all of my colleagues will stand with the President, stand with our brave young men and women in the armed services, and stand, yes, indeed, with our allies in confronting this, one of the world's most dangerous tyrants.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the gentleman from Arizona in a colloquy. I would like to take a moment to clarify a provision included in this bill. There has been confusion as to the scope of subsection (d) of section 117. It was my understanding when subsection (d) was added in conference, that it applies to the entire section, to both the new subsection (f)(1) and (2) of section 1610 of title 28. Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker's comments did not add to this debate. They were representative of some of the unfortunate kind of rhetoric that has put this Congress in a position where it is at this last minute, at this last gasp, trying to redeem itself. It is hard to do that because we have done so little up to this point. I will vote for this bill, like the ranking member of the committee will vote for this bill. I, like others, have worked hard on much of this bill. But those speakers who have carried this bill, this 40-pound bill, to the floor and indicated that this was not the process that should be followed are absolutely correct. The Committee on Appropriations was made late in its work because the budget resolution did not pass. It did not pass, not because there were any Democrats that opposed it or the President could have vetoed it, because he could not. He does not involve himself in the budget process. It did not pass because the chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the Senate who is a Republican said that the House Resolution is dead on arrival. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations said the House Resolution is dead on arrival. We could not work under this resolution. So the majority party in the House and the majority party in the Senate could not agree, so we deferred and deferred and deferred. The labor-health bill, which is one of the most important, I think, in this bill, was not even brought to this floor except to make a point, a political point in the last days of this session. This is an unfortunate process, but we have little alternative at this point in time but to fund the government. I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), I am pleased that we put some more money for defense. We need to look at the defense budget. We are underfunding it. So I will reluctantly vote for this bill, but this bill is a demonstration of failure.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James N. Woodruff, who has recently retired after a distinguished career with the Office of Personnel Management and its predecessor, the Civil Service Commission. It may seem unusual for the Congress to honor the service of a long- time Executive branch employee, but I can assure my colleagues that Jim served the Congress effectively for many years. The vast majority of Jim's tenure was devoted, either directly or in his supervisory capacity, to the drafting and analysis of measure addressing many of the most significant and complex Federal personnel issues. He contributed immeasurably to major initiatives such as the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Acts of 1970 and 1990, the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. In addition, many members of personal and committee staffs have benefited from Jim's quick and able assistance over the years. Whether on the most arcane technical matters or the broadest constitutional concerns, Jim's expertise and counsel reflected sound judgment and were always readily available. We would be remiss in allowing only the Executive branch to express regrets at Jim's departure. His career-long commitment to excellence is in the finest tradition of public service and we wish him well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically rise to join my colleagues in praising the passage of legislation renaming the North/South Center at the University of Miami for my friend and our former colleague and Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Dante B. Fascell. This legislation is well deserved. The North/South Center should bear his name, for he was its creator. Dante, now 81 years old and living in Clearwater, Florida, served in the House for 38 years, from 1954 through his retirement in 1992, representing South Florida with dignity, reverence for his office, and the rare ability to please all the members of his diverse constituency. He was one of the most respected Members during the time he served in Congress, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with him and to learn from him. Known as an outstanding legislator and negotiator, Dante fine-tuned his interest in foreign affairs with his particular focus on Latin America and the Caribbean. He conceived of the idea for the North/South Center, a scholarly institution for the free exchange of views to promote understanding, cooperation and democracy in the region. This idea became reality in 1990. Importantly, ahead of his time, Dante had the clairvoyance to see the increased interdependence of the two hemispheres, and that trend's connection with the City of Miami. The North/South Center at the University of Miami has turned Fascell's ideas into reality. The school plays an invaluable role in helping the Administration and federal agencies conduct American public policy, and is called upon frequently to present its views. Moreover, it provides research, public outreach, and cooperative study opportunities on a variety of timely issues, as well as education and training programs for scholars and others throughout the Western Hemisphere. I applaud the decision of the University of Miami to rename the North/South Center in honor of Dante B. Fascell. It's new name will ensure that the contributions of this fine public servant to the common good of South Floridians, and the nation, will always be at the forefront of our minds.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who does such an able job representing us on this committee and in the Congress, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.Con.Res. 120, a concurrent resolution to rename the Capitol Police Headquarters in the memory of Officers Christopher Eney, Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader and I had the opportunity today to participate in the laying of a wreath at the memorial which commemorates those brave American police officers, our domestic defenders who have laid down their life for peaceful and safe communities. Mr. Speaker, almost 15,000 Americans wearing a uniform or in the service of our law enforcement levels at the Federal, state and local have lost their lives. That is a big number. This year alone, Mr. Speaker, 64,000 officers will be assaulted on the streets and in the communities of America. An officer will be killed once every 54 hours in America. Twelve officers, in addition to Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Gibson, Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut, were killed in July of 1998. These stark statistics were given at that memorial service in which the majority leader and I participated today. I introduced a resolution similar to this in the House with Senator Paul Sarbanes on September 18, 1998, passed Senator Sarbanes' resolution, nonpartisan-bipartisan, no pride of authorship, but a pride only in the service that these brave men have given. It passed the Senate on October 8. I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and, as I said earlier, my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) for bringing this bill to the floor in a timely fashion. Susan Brita of the Democratic staff I would also like to personally thank for her attention to this bill as well as the majority staff for their hard work in ensuring its consideration here today. This resolution names; the building does not have a name right now, but this resolution names the United States Capitol Police Headquarters as the Eney, Chestnut, Gibson Memorial Building. It is right and proper that we do this. This name was selected not by any of us, but by the Capitol Police themselves and reflects the order in which each man lost his life. These men are fallen heroes of the Capitol Police Force. Let me read now, if I can, Mrs. Eney's remarks that are included at the memorial. She said this: It is not how those officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived. I hope Mrs. Eney is watching today along with Mrs. Chestnut and Mrs. Gibson. I had the opportunity to talk to Wendy today and to Lynn and see the pain of their loss and the anguish that they were experiencing. There is nothing that we can do perhaps to relieve that pain, but it is proper for us to recognize the sacrifice and service of those they loved. These men are fallen heroes. Officer Christopher Eney lost his life during a training exercise in August 1984, training to be ready to defend this Capitol with his life, if need be. Just as Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson had trained and were prepared and did, in fact, give their lives in the defense not just of the people in this body, not just of those who work in this building, not even just for those who visit this building, or a combination of all, but in a very real sense in defense of the democracy for which this building stands. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were struck down in the line of duty on July 24 of this year while defending innocent citizens, staff and Members from a maniacal and senseless shooting spree in our Nation's Capitol. Last week indeed, Mr. Speaker, a grand jury indicted the shooter, charged him with murder in the shooting deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Hopefully that trial will proceed speedily and will reach a just and appropriate result. Mr. Speaker, August 24, the day on which Christopher Eney died, and July 24, the day on which Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut gave their lives, those two dates should forever remind us that the risk is always present for those we ask to defend a free society. As a Capitol Hill family, we in Congress wish to join the Capitol Hill Police Force and the families of the deceased in honoring the memory of their colleagues and loved ones who died while performing their duties by renaming their headquarters after them. It is appropriate for the Congress to pass this resolution. The men and women of law enforcement, like those we ask to join the Armed Services and defend freedom abroad, are responsible for us being able to meet in this body, in a society that honors peace and order. The least that we could do, as a body and as a people, is to honor our fallen officers by naming the headquarters where they served with dignity and pride and commitment and courage. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I rise in support, as the previous speakers have, in support of the continuing resolution and to lament the fact that just a few years ago the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered, I offered, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) on the Republican side of the aisle offered clean continuing resolutions to keep the government going while we tried to work out our differences. That was the way to do it. We are now doing it the proper way. And I would reiterate what the chairman and what the ranking member said. The President has indicated he has no intention of shutting down this government and will, in fact, sign short-term CRs while we come to grips with important priorities. The President stood at that podium in early February and set forth an agenda. The response to that speech was overwhelming. He indicated that the State of the Union was good. It is. Most of us, or many of us believe it is good because of the 1993 economic program the President put on this floor and was passed in the Congress and signed by the President, which has, in fact, brought us that balanced budget. The fact of the matter is, I say to my friend from Alabama, there are some bills that even the people in south Alabama would like and southern Maryland would like, and that is legislation to make sure that our kids have enough schools in which to be educated; that they are not crumbling down around them; that they are not dangerous and unhealthy. The President put forth before the Congress a program to help communities build additional classrooms. And then the President said, from this podium, we understand that there is a teacher shortage, that classes are overcrowded. We have 35 to 40 students in a class, and that even the best of teachers cannot educate our children to compete around the globe with that many students. So he said, let us put 100,000 new teachers in our classrooms; just as he said, let us put 100,000 COPS on the Beat, back in 1994, and we have seen the crime rate go down. My suggestion to my colleagues, if we came to grips, yes, even in the next 42, 48, or 72 hours with putting those 100,000 teachers in our classrooms, as crime went down, I suggest that our educational level would go up. And, yes, my friend from Alabama has been one of the most responsible Members of this House. As he knows, he is one of my favorites. But, frankly, my fellow Members, we said we were going to pass IMF a long time ago. We promised we would get IMF done. We know the world economy is in a critical situation. We know that the stability that IMF lends to it is absolutely critical at this stage. But where is IMF? It is not yet. Y2K was promised to be passed months ago, to make sure our computers know that the 2000 year has come and continue to operate so that our airways are safe and the taxpayers get their money back on time and all the things we need to do. Yes, this CR is a good one, but let us come to grips with the important priorities this President has brought before us, pass them, and then we will have a success.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today we confront one of our most solemn responsibilities as Members of Congress, that of the question of impeachment of a President of the United States. In doing so, we consider embarking upon a task of the gravest consequence in democracy: the removal of the elected leader of our Nation by other than electoral process. We have considered this course on only two other occasions in the 209 year history of our Constitution and Government. It is plain that we should proceed judiciously and fairly in carrying out this duty. Today's vote is how we should undertake this task. There are two proposals: The Republican proposal suggests that we authorize the Judiciary Committee to pursue an open ended investigation, consider all things that the Committee majority deems relevant for such time as that inquiry might take. The Democratic proposal provides for the Judiciary Committee to pursue an analysis of the facts referred by the Independent Counsel and the law and to make such recommendations to the House as it deems appropriate after such review. I shall vote for the Democratic proposal and against the Republican one. My constituents should know why. First, I believe the President's conduct and public representations merit the disdain and deep disappointment, and, yes, even anger, of the American people. Having said that, I believe we must act according to the Constitution, the facts, and with a view to the precedents of history and the precedents we will establish for the future. In many ways the situation that confronts us is unique. This matter comes to us from the Office of Independent Counsel after four and one- half years of extensive investigation, at a cost of over forty million dollars. In addition the House and Senate have themselves spent over ten million dollars and thousands of hours on hearings, depositions, investigation, and consideration of allegations against the President and his administration. I believe the Republican proposal to undertake additional investigation and hearings is not only unnecessary and redundant, it is also not in the best interests of our Country. I have stated before that I think this is the conclusion of the American public. Whatever action they favor, I believe they strongly support a prompt resolution so that whatever the outcome we can again focus on a public agenda reflecting the concerns, aspirations, and realities of our people's lives and our Country's in the international community. To do otherwise will jeopardize our future both in the short and long term. We must not continue to mire our public discourse in muck, ridicule, and nationally demeaning debate. Secondly, I am convinced that we must decide whether the allegations contained in the referral from the Office of Independent Counsel, even if true, constitute impeachable offenses. It is clear that there is disagreement on that question among legal scholars. The Republican resolution is clearly focused on procedures for further investigation and fact finding rather than a consideration of the information, allegations and conclusions referred by the Independent Counsel. It is difficult for me not to conclude that this is simply intended to prolong this matter for another year or two for political rather than Constitutional reasons. From circus-like delivery of the Counsel's report to the Congress the purpose of which, as quite obviously, to heighten public frenzy and expectation; to the almost immediate release of a salacious report designed, in my opinion, for sensationalism and to add to the debasement of the President, to the subsequent release of volumes of raw material for consumption by the public; to two days consideration weeks before a national election with the gag procedures imposed upon debate of the two alternatives, it is impossible to view these deliberations as either fair or judicious. Such action ill serves our Constitution or our Country. It is, I sadly lament, nevertheless, consistent with the totally partisan tenor of the leadership of this Congress. The alternative resolution I will support provides that the Judiciary Committee will review the evidence referred to it and either recommend to the House to impeach, to impose such sanctions as it deems warranted or to take no further action. The Committee is directed to do so prior to December 31, 1998--a time frame deemed possible by the Chairman. Furthermore, if the Committee finds that it is unable to accomplish its work in the time frame provided it may ask the House for more time. Neither this President nor any other can carry out the duties required of him by the Constitution and laws of this Nation while under constant investigation and attack. The American people understand that, which is why they want this matter brought to a close. Our decisions should not be made based upon poll or plebiscite. But, I am convinced the people are absolutely correct in their judgment that we must conclude this tragic chapter in our Nation's history quickly before it demeans us further and debilitates us more.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in its present form I am.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the motion that we will make, because there will be no time for debate when the motion to recommit is made. As has been referenced earlier in this debate, there will be a motion to recommit. I regret that the gentlewoman from Connecticut is not on the floor, because the motion to recommit will be limited to one single issue, and it will be an issue that has enjoyed the majority support of the Members of this House, including approximately 51 Republicans, as well as 178 Democrats. It is a measure that has been supported in a bipartisan fashion, that is overwhelmingly supported in this Nation, and that is to commit to providing for women the family planning options of their choice that they can use most effectively. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that every Member who voted for the Lowey amendment and who voted in opposition to the Smith amendment to undercut the Lowey amendment would vote for the motion to recommit, which will recommit the bill to conference, with instructions to add back the provision that passed this House. Now, I want to make it clear that that position was the position shared by the chairman; shared by the ranking member, myself; shared by the chairman of the Senate conference committee; shared by the ranking member of the conference committee; supported by the Senate in a 5-to-2 vote by their conference. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. I do not mean by that that there are not people who feel strongly in opposition to the suggestion of the full array of contraceptives being available to women. I understand that opposition. But it is to say that there is a clear majority in both Houses for this provision. One cannot say that about any other of these provisions. It is the only provision that fills that bill. Furthermore, let me perhaps put a caveat to that. The FEC measure may enjoy the majority support in both Houses, but Republicans only, so there is not bipartisan support for that. We make a distinction on that basis. Yes, we felt strongly about it. I would hope that Members of this House, realizing that this is a good bill that should pass, and will pass in some form within the next 72 hours, I believe, I hope, and I will work towards that objective, but it is also a bill that could and should carry this provision, supported by the overwhelming majority of the Congress, the Senate, the House, and the conference committee. Why should it pass? Because it is an important provision, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and so many others have stated, to provide for full health services for women in America. I would suggest to my friends that if the men of America felt as strongly about a provision, the chances of us dropping it would be zero. Let me repeat that. If the men of America felt as strongly about a provision, the chances of us dropping it would be zero. I would hope that when we come to the floor, that we vote for the motion to recommit. I would then hope my chairman would take us into conference immediately, and because I know that the Senator from Colorado, the chairman of the Senate conference, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, support this provision, and I know the chairman supports this provision, and obviously I support this provision, that we report this bill back immediately, and I will agree to a unanimous consent request for a limited debate, 5 minutes a side, and that this bill would then pass. I want to tell the chairman that I would strongly support the Haitian provision as well. I am not sure that will go. I have talked to the administration, and believe that will be a very significant issue in the omnibus bill. But I would hope that the motion to recommit would be approved by this House, and the will of this House would be carried out in this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who was the sponsor of the provision in question on contraception.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Denver, Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time from the gentlewoman, I will tell the gentlewoman, no, I do not think it is incredible because Mr. Noble went after GOPAC, and he went after the Christian Coalition. I will tell the gentlewoman that it is our strong conviction on this side that is why this issue has been raised this year, I will tell my friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.