Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comment; but in point of fact, we are all confident that there are not three votes to do anything for Mr. Noble on the Republican side; and, therefore, as of January 1, 1999, less than 90 days, he would be terminated by legislation. I think that is unprecedented.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman for whom I have a great deal of respect, the FEC provision is effective January 1, 1999. She firing Mr. Noble as of January 1, 1999, less than 90 days from today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak on behalf of this bill and say that I am probably going to vote to recommit it. But I will reiterate one more time, this bill is 99.9 percent pure and good. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has done an outstanding job. This bill does in fact provide for the needs of the agencies that are within it, it provides funds sufficient for them to carry out their duties in an appropriate way, and it has not included provisions which would undermine their effectiveness. For that I think we owe the chairman of this committee a great deal of thanks because of his conscientious handling of this bill. Unfortunately as the chairman indicates and as we indicated in the debate on the rule, this bill has gotten caught up in four, what could be called extraneous issues. I would suggest, however, that one of them is not really extraneous to the extent that its provision in the bill is an appropriation matter in that it says none of the funds in this bill shall be spent to purchase policies which do not have full coverage for contraception. To that extent, that is an appropriation provision. The other three provisions essentially are legislation on an appropriation bill. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) was able to offer it because it was in order under the rules. And when she offered it, it passed. I want to go back to that subject, but I want to thank the chairman for his work on this bill. I want to also join him in thanking the chief clerk of the committee Michelle Mrdeza, also Bob Schmidt, Jeff Ashford, Tammy Hughes, and Frank Larkin. I particularly want to join the chairman in his justifiable pride and appreciation at the work that Jason Isaac has done. I always want to make the observation that the public far too often sees us fighting and confronting one another as if we did not try to work constructively together. I want to say that the chairman, joined by Jason Isaac, has been a very positive interlocutor in trying to come to grips with the important issues confronting this bill. Jason, I want to on behalf of not only myself but all the Democrats on the committee, our Democratic staff, thank you for the extraordinarily able contribution you have made to the consideration of this bill over the past few years. It has been a joy to work with you. We respect your ability and your integrity. We wish you the best of luck. Mr. Speaker, this bill, and I am not going to make all my comments because I will adopt the chairman's comment and include my statement for the Record. But in particular this bill provides appropriate resources for the IRS. Why is that important? When we did IRS reform, I made the point that if you were not for IRS reform at budget time and at tax-writing time, all the reform legislation you passed was going to be meaningless. You need to give the IRS the resources to serve the public in a customer-friendly way. You also need good management. I want to congratulate again Secretary Rubin and Larry Summers, the Deputy Secretary, for bringing in a manager, Charles Rossotti. His predecessors have been outstanding people. For the most part they have been tax lawyers. Obviously that was an important skill to have, but really what IRS needed was management skill. Secretary Rubin brought in a manager with Mr. Rossotti from the private sector, an 8,000 person firm, an expert in the field of information management. He is doing an outstanding job. That is the good news. The second piece of good news is that the gentleman from Arizona and our committee has provided him the resources to make sure that reform in fact occurs. I want to thank the chairman again for that. The bill does fund as well law enforcement. Forty percent of Federal law enforcement is in this bill, whether on the borders, in our cities, in our schools, training kids how to stay out of gangs. This bill is a critical component of fighting crime in America in every community in America. The gentleman from Arizona is committed to that effort. He and I have the privilege of working together with our law enforcement officials in the Treasury Department to make sure they are as effective as we could possibly make them to keep our schools and communities and States and Nation as free of crime as we possibly can; as well to interdict drugs which are eating at the fabric of our society. This bill funds that effort. I congratulate him for it. Mr. Speaker, before my time concludes, I will include the rest of my remarks in the Record, talking about the programs that this bill does well by. Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing what this bill, however, deleted. When this bill went to conference, there were a number of provisions, four in number, that became contentious. One, the provision about the FEC which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has been a very strong supporter and proponent of, was obviously very controversial and a confrontation between the two parties where one party was all against it and for the most part the other party was for it. I suggested that that provision be dropped because we could not get agreement on that provision, and I am pleased that it has been dropped. The other three provisions, however, were different, Mr. Speaker, and they were different because they had and still to this time, I believe, enjoy bipartisan support. Not only do they enjoy bipartisan support in the House, but also in the Senate, and that bipartisan support also reflected itself in the conference. It is unfortunate that they were dropped. I will have more to say about them in a few minutes. But again, this is a good bill once we resolve these four items. I hope it moves forward. Almost half of the $13.4 billion in discretionary budget authority in this bill is targeted at law enforcement and anti-drug efforts. Roughly $450 million in provided to the drug czar for a variety of drug-fighting efforts, including $182 million for the very successful high-intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTAS], and $185 million for the ONDCP's national media campaign. We provided IRS commissioner Rossoitti with funding that will enable him to continue with the reform and restructuring efforts. IRS is funded at $7.9 billion, $469 million less than the President's request--most of which is attributable to the IRS' Y2K needs, which should be funded in the supplemental being planned by the leadership. Secretary Rubin and Deputy Secretary Summers should be given credit for rescuing the failing tax modernization program. They provided the needed oversight to allow IRS to make the dramatic improvement in their computer systems area. This bill also funds many smaller agencies, including the National Archives, OPM, GSA, the FEC, and the Executive Office of the President, including the White House Office, and executive residence. I am pleased that the chairman and I were able to reach an agreement to modify the fence on $630,000 for spending on overtime expenses at the executive residence. I wish the fence were not there, however, the language will allow the White House to provide the General Accounting Office with its comments and once the GAO notifies the committees of its receipt of the White House comments, the fence is eliminated. I was informed today that GAD has given its report to the White House, and this well be finished soon. For GSA, I am very pleased that we are able to include over $500 million for needed courthouse construction projects. Chairman Kolbe and I agreed that the courthouses needing funding were the only ones that would be funded in this bill. The courthouses included in this bill is identical to the list of construction projects recommended by the judicial conference as the top priority needs of the courts. In addition, I am disappointed that this bill does not include much needed funding for the Y2K problems facing the Federal Government. When this bill came out of the full committee, and funding for Y2K was stripped, I was assured that the leadership understood the urgency of the problem and understood that funding had to be provided. However, as of October, days after the beginning of the new fiscal year in the 3 months since the funding was stripped from this bill, we still have not dealt with this issue. I had very much hoped that the bill would contain the contraceptive equity language that passed the House and Senate. Since it does not, I am offering a motion to recommit this conference report with an instruction to include the House-passed contraceptive language. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman and I have had the discussion, but it is my understanding, and I do not know whether anybody has announced it, that we intend to roll votes until 8 o'clock. Perhaps we should tell Members, if that is the case.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise, unfortunately, in opposition to this rule. I have been quoted numerous times on this floor as saying that this is a good bill. Let me repeat that statement. This is a good bill. Let me also repeat, for all my colleagues, that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has done a good job in shepherding this bill to this point. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in my opinion is one of the fairest, brightest, hardest-working Members of this House. He is a gentleman for whom I have unrestrained respect and affection and with whom I enjoy working. It is unfortunate that a provision that he supports is dropped from his bill and is causing us so much consternation on this side. There is an irony, I suppose, in that, as well. Let me now speak to where this bill is. I have said it is a good bill. The good news is, for America and for this House, that 99.999 percent of this bill is agreed upon. We have four provisions, just four, that ultimately the conference could not agree on or could not be agreed upon in this House, because obviously the provisions that were included in the bill that came to the conference committee were agreed upon. There was one provision, as I pointed out in the last debate on the rule, that was unanimously opposed on our side of the aisle. We perceived it as a partisan issue. That is to say that it was not supported by Members of both parties. That was, of course, the provision that dealt with the FEC, which would have had the effect of immediately firing, as of January 1 or fairly immediately, January 1, 1999, the incumbent counsel. We perceived that to be a payback, an action which would have been taken for the purposes of disciplining somebody who took an adverse action against GOPAC and the Christian Coalition. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that was the motivation, and I accept their premise as being honest. But that was our perception of what that item was about, so it was very controversial. That item has now been dropped. We think that is appropriate. This issue will be discussed. I think the chairman of our committee has a legitimate concern about bringing in new blood to oversee this agency. I will be glad to work with him and talk to him about those issues. The right thing was done with respect to the FEC. We went into conference again to discuss this. I made it very clear to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), on behalf of the Democratic side that if the FEC was dropped, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), that at least 180 members of my side of the aisle would vote for the rule and this bill if the FEC were dropped. We could not pledge all 207 because there was some controversy on other substance, but I believe we could have gotten 180, which means that if the gentleman had 40 on his side or 100 or 140, this bill would have passed overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, however, that was not to be. The chairman, as we left the conference, said the deal is off, we are not going to do a conference, we are going to put this in the omnibus bill. I have talked to the administration about that. I will tell my friends that the administration is going to be very, very hard and adamant on the inclusion of the contraceptive position of either this bill or the omnibus bill and the provision dealing with the Haitians. The child care provision most of us I think are for on both sides of the aisle. We have a procedural problem that is causing a very substantial problem. I do not think the chairman is against it, and certainly I am for it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is for it, and other Members are for it. With respect to the contraception, this, we believe, is the most egregious action that has been taken as this is reported back. First of all, let me tell my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, forget about what the Democrats say about cost. The Congressional Budget Office, I say to my friend, headed up by the selection of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and Mr. Domenici, two Republicans who head the Committees on the Budget in the Senate and in the House, said that there is no cost; not Democrats, not the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), but CBO says that, no cost. We were not scored for any cost whatsoever on this provision. So that I think that is dispositive. CBO has talked to OPM, OPM says there is not going to be any cost, and CBO says there is to be no cost. So that was not the issue. In fact, it should not be the issue, this being a bipartisan-supported bill. In fact, 51 Republicans joined approximately 178 Democrats in voting to sustain this provision, 51 Republicans. What a significant number on the gentleman's side of the aisle, a very bipartisan support for this provision, which we perceive to be in the best interests of the health of America's women, in the best interests of the health of Federal employees, and in the best interests of pursuing a diminishing of abortions in this country. Will it be significant? We do not know. Will it affect that? We think it will. We hope that Members vote against this rule so that we can go back to conference, as we did before, include back those provisions that we think have bipartisan support, pass this rule, and pass this very good bill that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has worked so hard on.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, during the course of the consideration of the energy and water bill, I was not able to be on the floor because I was doing other business on another committee. Therefore, I did not get an opportunity to rise to pay tribute to my colleague and one of the closest friends I have, not just in this institution but in my life, and that is Vic Fazio our colleague. He is about to, I think, have a colloquy about the schedule, acting in his leadership capacity. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, Vic Fazio has been a leader of this House since I arrived here in 1981. He is an extraordinarily capable Member. He is a Member whose integrity and intellect will match anybody, not only in this institution but in our country. He has chosen to leave this body and this body will be a lesser place for that decision. I wanted to take, Mr. Speaker, this short, brief minute to stand and say to him, thank you. During the 5\1/2\ years that I served as chairman of the caucus, Vic was my vice chair, and I was proud to have him serving with me. During his time as chairman of the DCCC, I was one of his strongest supporters. During the decade that he headed the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations and served this institution and its Members and the citizens of this Nation so well in ensuring the effective operation of the people's House, I was proud to be his strong supporter. During the last four years he has chaired the Democratic caucus. One of the hallmarks of his leadership was a partisan commitment to the issues and principles for which our party stands. But I know that my colleagues on the majority side also found in Vic Fazio a gentleman who was interested in the interests of America and was willing and able and desirous of working with the other side in a collegial way to effect progress in this House on behalf of this country and its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to say to one of the closest friends I have that we are going to miss you. I am going to miss you. This institution is going to miss you. The good news for all of us is that Vic Fazio will be around. He hopefully will stay in Washington. I know he will go back to his beloved California frequently, but hopefully he and his beloved wife, Judy, an extraordinary individual in her own right, will be here, and we will see him frequently and have the opportunity to benefit from his advice and counsel and his leadership. Vic, you have been one of the extraordinary Members of this House. The House is a better place for your service, and our country is better for your service.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed rule. I did so last night as well. I indicated last night that the Treasury- Postal bill was a good bill in terms of the numbers, the dollars that were appropriated. I rise today in saying that I do not believe this bill is such a bill. One of the aspects of serving on the Committee on Appropriations is the pride that I think all of us have in the ability and integrity of the chairman of this committee. I say that as a minority member. I cannot think of a chairman who I do not have great respect for. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of our committee, is one of those for whom I have unrestrained respect, admiration, and, yes, affection. He is a good Member of this Congress and he acts in the best interests of America as he sees it. His priorities that he articulated just recently I think we share. However, when we talk about increasing, what we have done is we have zero-funded LIHEAP. I was at the home of Susan Smith in Prince George's County, 20 minutes from this floor. Susan Smith is 85 years of age. She and her husband built a home in 1937. Her husband died 24 years ago, and she still lives in that home. Governor Glendening and I were there to say that we were not going to allow this LIHEAP to take the money away from her Social Security revenue, obviously as we all know, relatively small, and put her in the position of having to choose between her energy and heating her home or oil heat and her food and prescription drugs. That is a choice that we should not make her make. So, yes, it is good to say we have increased NIH by 9 percent, but Susan Smith ought not to pay for that. And those youth, frankly, who are looking to have a summer job experience so they can partake of the opportunities America has to offer, are not funded, so there are no summer jobs for youth in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. This rule should be defeated, that brings a $291 billion bill to the floor of the House after having been reported weeks ago, weeks ago, not only out of the subcommittee but full committee, with only eight days left to go, presumably, in this session, and say take it or leave it. This bill took 40 hours of debate last time. I say to my Republican friends, you would have savaged Democratic leadership for doing this. You would have savaged us, and in fact did. Not the gentlemen that are on the floor. As a matter of fact, a member not even in the Congress any more, used to stand at that podium and give us the devil for not operating efficiently. We are not operating efficiently. We ought to reject this rule and we ought to forge a bill that speaks to America's needs. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4274, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, and its rule. This bill cuts $2 billion out of the President's education agenda to improve public schools. The former chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, William Natcher, used to say, ``If we continue to educate our children and take care of the health of our people, we will continue to live in the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.'' Mr. Speaker, we fail to do so in this bill. By eliminating the LIHEAP Program, we fail to help 4.4 million of the poorest households in the country pay their heating bills. Two-thirds of LIHEAP recipients earn less than $8,000 a year and many are elderly, disabled or are struggling to raise young children in poverty. Yesterday, I visited one of these courageous people, 85-year-old Susan Smith, whose husband built her house in Lanham, Maryland in 1937. If she did not receive LIHEAP funds, she would have to choose between heating her house, buying food, or purchasing her medication. We should not be eliminating funding that assists those most in need, those like Susan Smith. We live in a great Nation because we give people the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their children through public education. By not including the President's school construction initiative in this bill, we fail to respond to the urgent need for school renovation and additional classrooms in communities across the Nation. In fact, we fail to respond to research that shows that reducing class size to 15 to 18 students in the early grades improves student achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students in inner cities. And by eliminating funding for the America reads challenge, we will not only break last year's bipartisan budget agreement that protected this program, but we will fail to reach 450,000 at-risk first, second, and third graders who desperately need this assistance. The American people believe that we should invest more, not less, money to improve public education. This bill goes against the very core of what this Nation believes. Mr. Speaker, when expectations are raised, students rise to meet them. This bill, however, has very low expectations and fails to provide the framework in which our Nation's youth can develop and flourish. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and vote against the rule.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield for another mild compliment, I want to say to my friend, frankly, I am absolutely confident if the chairman had the votes on your side in large numbers that we would forge a bill that was a bill that we would all be proud of. I understand the chairman's problems, and I understand what the chairman is saying about the constraints. But I will tell my friend, both in subcommittee and committee we raised the same issues, and we really have not had an opportunity to address them. I am pleased that at this late moment, and I am pleased, I am not surprised, the chairman is trying to solve the LIHEAP problem which we raised in subcommittee, committee, and we have been raising ever since. We should not have done what we did, and I am pleased that the chairman perhaps is going to correct that in his manager's amendment. But I say to my friend, there are still problems, of course, with things that are in the bill that should not be in the bill.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado has said on two occasions that this is just like every employee. It is not. This bill terminates the employment of Mr. Noble. That is what this bill does. It has a provision in it that he can be rehired by a vote of four to three. The commission is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats. Do not kid anybody. This bill fires a Federal official for doing something that you did not like, and that is going after GOPAC and the Christian Coalition. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is right, we need to be accurate on what this bill does. That provision should not be in this bill. There are three Republicans and three Democrats, and you are correct, if four of them believe that Mr. Noble is not performing, they ought to remove him from office. But it ought not to be done on a partisan vote. That is the reason for this provision in current law, to protect the counsel and the executive director from partisan attack.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult being a ranking member on a committee where the bill that confronts us is a good bill. I said that in the Committee on Rules, I said that to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I said it to others, and I will say it when we consider the bill. It is a good bill because as the Committee on Appropriations is required to do, if it is responsible, it gives the necessary resources to agencies to accomplish the objectives that the American people expect of them; and indeed, that this Congress expects of them. In particular, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of our subcommittee, for his tenaciousness in ensuring that agencies can effectively carry out their responsibilities. That is particularly the case as it relates to law enforcement and the fighting of the drug scourge on our borders and within our communities. Mr. Speaker, this bill almost, I believe, is the best bill that this committee has reported out in the last 3 years. In part that was because we had sufficient resources to fund agencies. Not all they wanted, but sufficient. Mr. Speaker, therefore, it is with a great deal of regret that I rise, because we have included in this bill a number of extraneous provisions. All of them, without fail, were argued in a bipartisan fashion. That is to say that there were some Republicans for them and some Democrats for them, some Republicans against them and some Democrats against them. One provision, however, is, I believe, without exception opposed on our side of the aisle because it is, I believe correctly, perceived as a totally partisan, inappropriate attack on the FEC. I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) say that this was just like any other employee. He and I disagree on that proposition. In point of fact we have an individual, Lawrence Noble, a staff member, not a commissioner, who can take no action without having four votes, which means that he needs at least one Republican to authorize action of the Commission, because there are only three Democrats, and four votes are required. Mr. Noble has taken some actions which have annoyed just about everybody on both sides of the aisle. In fact, more complaints have been made against Democrats, 38 percent, than Republicans, 32 percent. In fact, 80 percent of the Democrats have paid their fines, 51 percent of the Republicans have paid their fines. So in point of fact, it ought to be Democrats from that perspective who ought to be more annoyed at Mr. Noble, because he apparently has been tougher on us. But in the performance of his duties, he concluded that actions were appropriate to be initiated against GOPAC and against the Christian Coalition for campaign actions which they had undertaken, just as he would take it against the Clinton campaign or the Bush campaign or other Republican and Democratic campaigns. It is our belief, notwithstanding the fact we have been told we are in error on this, but it is our belief that this bill and the provision regarding Mr. Noble, which terminates Mr. Noble's tenure, because by this bill his tenure is terminated as of January 1, 1999, 90 days from today, I do not recall a bill firing a Federal employee before. Perhaps there has been, but I do not recall it. I do not recall it. We would have hoped that during the consideration of this bill, that some compromise could have been reached. I brought to the attention of the conference that one of the Senators in the other body has indicated that he is going to filibuster this bill if this provision is in there, so the conference report probably cannot pass the other body. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule. I regret that, but I see no other way to indicate my opposition to this provision. I do not know what I am going to do on final passage, because the chairman has worked very hard, and I repeat again, this is a good bill. I would hope that my colleagues would join me, and that this provision would be taken out of this bill before, again, it is offered to us for passage.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 300th Anniversary of Christ Church of Accokeek, Maryland, built by the Church of England, and one of six pre-Revolutionary War churches. It is believed this church congregation held their first prayer meetings sometime in 1698 in private homes with their first formal church structure being built a few years later. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you can imagine, Christ Church has weathered countless trials and tribulations through its 300 years of existence. Early settlers triumphed over the harshness of the 1700's, the separation from the Church of England, and the invasion of troops during the War of 1812. Christ Church's survival over the decades shows the uniqueness of the community of Accokeek. In 300 years of existence there have been vast changes in liturgical theologies. In the early days the dictates of theology permitted no music, no stained glass or colored windows and only box type pews. Today, Christ Church radiates this same simplicity and symmetry with the addition of beautiful stained glass, music, conventional pews, and a bell tower. The ornate Holy Services offered now at Christ Church are a reflection of strong roots and faith of its members. A quality that has been strong enough to trickle down and bless the numerous generations of this Maryland community. Christ Church makes a rich contribution to the history of Maryland and our great Nation. It sits as a symbol of the great sacrifices made by the early settlers to exercise their religious beliefs and through the years the clergy has worked tirelessly to minister to the people of the region during good times and bad. Christ Church has seen years and years of families and neighbors coming together for convocations and picnics, weddings and funerals, for comfort and direction. In the words of an early Accokeek resident, Mr. Henry Williams (1862-1936) on speaking of the importance of this church to the community, ``I think it has quite a bright future before it--good roads, good schools, and a dear old church.'' Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join with me in wishing this ``dear old church'', the Christ Church of Accokeek, congratulations on their 300th Year Anniversary.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I rise today to oppose the Republican tax cut package and to support the alternative to be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). The discussion today is not a debate about tax cuts. It is a debate about the future of Social Security. The tax cuts in both packages are identical. However, the Republican tax cuts would be paid for by a Social Security surplus. That is irrefutable, notwithstanding what the chairman just said. A surplus that I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle we have not yet even realized. Without playing politics with America's fiscal future, the tax cuts in the Democratic alternative would not become effective until the Social Security trustees certify that the trust funds are solvent for the next 75 years. It would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of me to support a bill without considering how the tax cuts are financed. The Republican bill does in fact raid the Social Security trust fund which provides funds often referred to as the ``budget surplus.'' I believe our first duty must be to solve the long-term solvency problems of Social Security while remaining committed to fiscal responsibility. While I find it quite interesting that the tax bill that Republicans put forward embraces mostly Democratic ideas for tax cuts for middle America, the poison bill in this bill is the way in which it is financed. I would remind my colleagues, in fact, just a year ago, Democrats supported a $100 billion tax cut similar to the one the Republican leadership has brought to the floor today. But there was a significant difference. Our bill was fully offset with real spending cuts that did not dismantle or put at risk the future of Social Security, a future in which as the 1998 report of the Social Security trustees found that none of the Social Security trust funds will have sufficient income to be able to pay benefits over the next 75 years. Today it is the main source of income for two-thirds of the seniors in this country. Seventy-six million baby boomers will begin retiring in 2010. By 2025, most baby boomers will be 65 or older. We cannot put our desire for politically-driven, irresponsibly-financed tax cuts before our overwhelming need and responsibility to ensure that Social Security is viable into the next century. To do that, the Democratic alternative creates a lock box. It takes 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and ensures that it will be used only for Social Security purposes. This creates a real protection for the Social Security surplus and the overall integrity of the system. I would remind my colleagues that just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) suggested a 700 to $800 billion tax cut. I remind my friends, that would be 50 percent of the Social Security surplus. Where do we go next year? Save Social Security. Oppose this bill. Support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time, a gentleman who has been one of the great leaders on this issue on our side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I rise as someone who supported NAFTA, who supported GATT, who has voted for fast track, and who was one of the 42 Democrats ready to vote for fast track, which was not brought to the floor just about a year ago. I rise as someone who is going to vote ``no.'' I rise lamenting the fact that this issue has been so politicized, an issue that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means rightfully said is critical to this country. There has been no bipartisan discussion on fast track this year as there was last. I rise in opposition to this being brought to the floor because I think it hurts this effort; it does not help it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, came to the floor and intimated that Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, had withdrawn his support. President Clinton has shown more courage on trade than any president under whom I have served or with whom I have served. This issue should not go forward now. Why? Because it is critical that we pass fast track. And I am going to support it next year. I will tell my friends, I am voting ``no'' now, and next year I will be asking a lot of ``noes'' to vote ``yes.'' I think that may get us to a majority. I am not sure, because my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have put this in the context of putting at risk this issue 5 weeks before an election for political purposes solely. That is the only reason this bill is on this floor right now. The chairman said we ought to resist the seductiveness of protectionism. I agree with that. Let me repeat. The chairman said it is a shame that we do not resist the seductiveness of protectionism. I agree with that. Let me also say it is a shame that we have not resisted the seductiveness of political advantage in bringing this bill to this floor this day. There is no one on this floor who believes this bill is going to pass today. Not one. Not on the Republican side and not on our side. And even if it did, there is no one on this floor that believes that it could get through the United States Senate. So the only thing that the Republicans are doing is perhaps making it more difficult for us in February or March of next year, in a bipartisan way, coming together on behalf of America, not on behalf of Republicans or Democrats but on behalf of a more competitive, economically vibrant America, to pass this legislation to empower our President to negotiate. Mr. Speaker, I hope others will join me in voting ``no'' today and ``yes'' next year when we have an opportunity to pass this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge the House to pass it by a unanimous vote. This resolution condemns the violence in Kosovo and calls for compensation for its victims from the assets of the perpetrators. This is the just and right thing to do. And while, Mr. Speaker, we must condemn the violence and ethnic cleansing, we must do more. As we debate this resolution, Milosevic and his thugs are conducting yet another assault against civilians in the Drenica region of Kosovo. Reports indicate that 20,000 more refugees are fleeing their homes as Serb police and military units continue their scorched Earth policy. Hundreds of people, including women and children, have been killed since the violence began. More than a quarter of a million people--one-sixth of Kosovo's overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian population--have been driven from their homes. An estimated 50,000 are living in the open, threatened by starvation, hypothermia and disease. Last week Senator Bob Dole and Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck testified about their recent visit to Kosovo before the Helsinki Commission. Senator Dole said that what he saw in Kosovo shares many of the worst characteristics of the war in Bosnia, including the genocide in Srebrenica. Secretary Shattuck described horrendous human rights violations, violations of humanitarian law, and acts of punitive destruction on a massive scale. Make no mistake about it. This is Bosnia--again. And as we saw in Bosnia, the only thing Milosevic responds to is force. In December 1992, President Bush warned that if civilians in Kosovo were attacked, we would respond with force. President Clinton reiterated that warning in March 1993. The international community has threatened, NATO has planned contingencies, we have rattled our sabers, yet Milosevic and his thugs carry on with impunity. I call on the Congress, the administration, and our NATO allies to act now to save the people of Kosovo, to halt Milosevic's reign of terror and to finally bring a chance for peace to the Balkans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced in the House a concurrent resolution. That resolution renames the headquarters of the Capitol Police in the memory of Officers Christopher Eney, Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. I am introducing this resolution along with Senator Paul Sarbanes, and I know that many Members on both sides of the aisle will want to cosponsor it as well. Mr. Speaker, these men are fallen heroes of the Capitol Police. Officer Eney lost his life during a training exercise in August of 1984. He was the first Capitol officer to lose his life. As we tragically know, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were struck down in the line of duty just a few weeks ago on July 24. They were defending this Capitol, innocent citizens, staff and Members from a maniacal and senseless shooting spree at this Capitol. Mr. Speaker, August 24, 1984, and July 24, 1998 will forever remind us that the risk is always present for those we ask to defend this free society. The Capitol police force, as a family who wish to honor the colleagues of the family who died while performing their duties by renaming their headquarters after them. This resolution would rename the United States Capitol Police Headquarters as ``The Eney Chestnut Gibson Memorial Building.'' This was popularly selected by the Capitol police and reflects the order in which each man lost his life. I am proud and honored on behalf of all of my colleagues to work with Senator Sarbanes and his colleagues in the Senate to honor these heroes and their families. Mr. Speaker, these men and women of law enforcement, like those we ask to join the armed forces and defend freedom abroad, are responsible for us being able to meet in this body in a society that honors peace and order and law. The least we can do as a people is to honor our fallen officers by naming the headquarters where they served with dignity and pride. I know that my colleagues will want to join me in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. It is my understanding that the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has indicated that this matter of IMF funding will probably be addressed in the conference. What I am saying is I hope that that is the case. It is important that that be done. But if that is going to be done, presumably, therefore, there is the contemplation that this issue will in fact be voted on by this House. It may modify or affect, as the gentleman knows, the rules under which we do it and the points of order that may or may not be able to be raised. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I am pleased at that. All I am saying is this would be a more timely fashion to do it and send a better message, in my opinion, to all the world.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I want to share the view of the gentleman from New York. It is regrettable that we do not have more people here. This is a very important bill. As the gentleman observed, it is a small amount of money. But it is critically important as the world's leader tries to implement policy. And it is lamentable that we do not have more Members engaged. I rise today in opposition to this rule. I understand the Chairman's view. But the rule does not provide, in my opinion, for certain essential things. First and foremost from my perspective, the rule does not permit debate and action on funding of the IMF. That is because the rule does not protect an amendment restoring the IMF's funding as it would necessarily have to, in order to be sustained against a point of order. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that we fully fund the International Monetary Fund this year. Congress failed to fund the IMF at sufficient levels in Fiscal Year 1998. Those of us who support funding the IMF agreed to wait until a supplemental appropriations bill came before the House. We were guaranteed that the remaining funding for the IMF would be included in a supplemental. It has not been, contrary to that guarantee. Now IMF opponents are trying, once again, to prevent us from providing the full $18 billion that is needed for the IMF. I also want to support an amendment that will be offered on section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Last week, the full Appropriations Committee passed an amendment which struck section 907. I opposed this amendment. We find ourselves in a situation where Azerbaijan has for 9 years blockaded Nagorno-Karabagh and Armenia from fuel, food, medicine, and other vital goods. I believe it is critically important that we reinstate section 907, and therefore will support an amendment which will be offered to do so. I will be joined, I know, by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and others who have been there and know firsthand the situation. I appreciate what the Chairman of the Committee on Rules is saying in terms of some aspects of this rule being open, but I do not believe that the rule goes far enough to allow us to address critically important issues as we end this session. I would hope that the rule would be modified to give greater latitude for debate and amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from Virginia, the last speaker who has spoken on behalf of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment. We should not have done, in my opinion, in subcommittee and full committee what was done. We ought to restore this amendment. We ought to restore America's position on behalf not of Armenia, not of Nagorno Karabagh, but on behalf of justice, on behalf of humanitarian concerns, on behalf of the principles for which this Nation stands around the world. I am deeply saddened by the fact, Mr. Chairman, that since the termination of hostilities in 1994, no demonstrable progress has been made in the negotiations regarding the status of Nagorno Karabagh. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) mentioned earlier today in debate that there had been some progress. I did not see that story, I am pleased to hear it, but I do not believe it yet. I hope that the parties will continue to negotiate to achieve a lasting solution which will benefit all the peoples of the region. In fact, talks are ongoing at this time. However I do not believe, and I hope this House does not believe that weakening or eliminating section 907 will further this process. In fact, my colleagues, I am of the opinion it will move us in exactly the opposite direction because it will send the message to the Azeris that they are winning. And why are they winning? On principle? No. Because of economic concerns and profits. That is why they are winning. That is where we are. Now, I want to see the oil in that region benefit all the peoples of that region, and I am not against the economic development of Azerbaijan or Armenia or Nagorno Karabagh, but I am for proceeding in a principled way. Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits direct U.S. aid to Azerbaijan in an effort to pressure Baku to lift its blockade of Armenia and Karabagh. However, section 907 does allow, very importantly and correctly, the delivery of humanitarian and democracy building assistance through nongovernmental organizations, as well as activities by the Overseas Private Investment Council, OPIC, the Trade and Development Administration, and Eximbank. In fact, the United States has provided, even with 907 in being, $130 million-plus in humanitarian exchange assistance to the people of Azerbaijan. The United States is not closing its eyes to the pain that may exist in Azerbaijan. We are sensitive. This is not against the people, this is against a government policy in Baku that undermines the welfare of citizens in Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. The Government of Azerbaijan has enforced a blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. The blockade has cut off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital goods and commodities. Because of the blockade, Mr. Chairman, Armenia has experienced a humanitarian crisis during which the United States sent emergency lifesaving assistance, as we should have. The blockade has virtually isolated Armenia from the rest of the world. As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, and I am sure others have before I spoke, Armenia is landlocked, isolated, in need of the attention of the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons as well as democracy-building reasons. Mr. Chairman, in contrast to what the Azeris have done, Armenia has repeatedly offered to allow transshipment, repeatedly offered to allow transshipment of humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has the power, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), said, Azerbaijan has the power this minute, this very hour, to end the consequences of section 907. All it has to do is end the blockade. That is all it has to do, a simple act. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Francis J. Salveron. Mr. Salveron, 88, a retired Air Force master sargeant and personal aide to General Douglas MacArthur during the general's triumphant return to the Phillipines, died August 23, 1998 at this Bladensburg home. Mr. Salveron was about 32 years old when he enlisted in the U.S. Army in Australia. He served for 10 years as a purser on a luxury liner sailing between the Phillipines and Australia. In 1942, Mr. Salveron's ship, the S.S. Mactan, was one of the few ships to survive the Japanese invasion. In February 1942, Mr. Salveron was aboard a U.S. transport ship sailing from Melbourne to the Phillipines where the ship was met by Japanese zero fighter planes and sunk. Mr. Salveron and about one-third of the ship's crew survived. They floated in the sea for almost 12 hours before being picked up. The survivors were then transported to Melbourne for a recovery period. It was shortly after that Mr. Salveron was ordered to join General MacArthur in New Guinea to be his personal aide. For three years he personally served the general. Mr. Salveron was with General MacArthur as they took the first step off the landing barge to wade ashore on October 20, 1944 on Red Beach, Leyte. General MacArthur had fulfilled a promise to the Phillipine people and spoke those famous words, ``I have returned.'' After the war, Mr. Salveron left General MacArthur and reenlisted in the Air Force, where he became part of the official flight crew of, then, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Mr. Salveron went on to serve as part of the crew for the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and State until his retirement in 1963. Upon retirement, Mr. Salveron went on to devote his life to volunteer work in the city of Bladensburg, in my home State of Maryland, and to preserving the MacArthur legend. He went on to found the General Douglas MacArthur Post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and was commander for 21 years. Mr. Salveron was also active in the Bladensburg promotion committee. He distinguished himself by restoring the Bladensburg Peace Cross Memorial, and establishing the town's Korean and Vietnam memorials. In 1983, he was named outstanding senior citizen by the Prince George's County Maryland Jaycees. His military honors include a bronze star, a purple heart and three Presidential distinguished citations. Mr. Salveron is survived by his wife of 66 years, four children, nine grandchildren and two great grandchildren. Mr. Salveron dedicated his life to service in both the public and private sector. He was an individual who stood out among his fellow soldiers and showed strength of character during some very difficult times. I join the citizens of Bladensburg in recognizing his commitment to our country, our State, and their great city.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), with all due respect, obviously I had two papers in front of me, thought I had picked up this motion, and very frankly I want to tell my friend he thought that I was offering the motion there now.