Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. One has so little time, one needs to deal with all the subjects at one time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the gentleman changed it yesterday on the rule. The gentleman protected everything except two items that were in that bill.

Mr. HOYER. That is correct. But I have not mentioned that as the rationale for this opposition to the rule. The gentleman mentioned that if the Lowey amendment was left protected, that the gentleman could not get the votes of right-to- lifers on his side of the aisle. My proposition to the gentleman is that what the gentleman is saying is they would not want to bring to the floor for a democratic vote up or down a resolution of that issue.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned that issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, there has been a suggestion that the administration did not exercise its responsibilities with respect to the Y2K problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out that that included the total of about almost $5 billion for emergency and contingency spending in their budget, that $1.2 billion was specifically requested for Y2K, and that another $3.25 billion was requested for Bosnia contingency spending and also Y2K. That is not described, so neither I nor anybody else can specifically say what figure one can apply. But the fact is the administration, as all governments and all private sectors, has been working this issue very hard. But the issue is not who is to blame: Did the Reagan administration or the Bush administration or the Clinton administration purchase incorrect hardware or software. In fact, we had a hearing before the Committee on House Oversight that the new leadership, Republican leadership, came in and bought some new computerware in 1995, which is outdated. We are going to have to replace them. That is because technology is moving very quickly. This is not to blame anybody. It is to say that that decision is in error, recognized in error yesterday before the committee in testimony by the administrator. With no criticism of that, we need to move on to make sure that, technologically, we can handle our information systems properly. The fact of the matter is, the point we are making on this rule is that we have some 40 days, 40 legislative days left. We have not done much in this Congress to date. Everybody observes that. We have 40 days left. This country is confronted with an emergency. Everybody recognizes that on both sides of the aisle. There is no dispute about that. There is an emergency. The dispute is whether we delay confronting that emergency. The Committee on Appropriations said no. The Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government said no. Let us address it now. Let us deal with this issue now. Let us responsibly say we are going to fund the solution and not delay. That is what this dispute is about. You can go all you want and say, oh, well, it was the other guys, point fingers, and it was somebody yesterday or the day before or the day before that that caused this problem. What you cannot, however, say is that there is not an absolutely essential need for us to respond. My distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said, well, we can delay and we can decide later in a supplemental as to how we pay for it or we do not pay for it, whether it is emergency or not. That sounds good, but all of us know that the longer this is delayed, the longer agencies cannot plan for dollars available, the more problematic becomes the solution. As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) likes to quote Ed Harris as saying in Apollo 13, ``In this instance, failure is not an option.'' This rule puts at risk solving this problem. It does not preclude it. I understand that. But it puts it at risk unnecessarily. This is an emergency. Far too often, frankly, in the last 3 years we have found emergencies by tornado, by flood, by other devices; and we have delayed the solution to the detriment of those who were injured. We ought not to do that in this instance.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I want to first of all respond to my chairman and my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), as well as to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis). The fact of the matter is that this administration did make a request that over $1 billion specifically be included in a $3.5 billion emergency request for Bosnia and for Y2K, so the representation that this administration did not address it is simply wrong. I hope it is wrong because of a lack of information, as opposed to an intent to mislead. I am sure the latter is not true. But it is nevertheless wrong. This administration has addressed this problem. Now, as the private sector has experienced, the Federal Government has also experienced an emergency situation, an emergency that both in the public and private sector has grown exponentially, where the private sector, like the public sector, has experienced a growing scope of the problem and a growing expense to solving the problem. There is no option to solving the problem, period. As has been said, no one wants to be on an airplane when FAA's computers decide that they cannot function because they have not contemplated the change of centuries. I will tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, previous administrations and this administration have purchased a lot of information technology, as the private sector has purchased information technology, that does not contemplate the change of century. This is a great surprise to all of us, of course, that the century is changing. But having said that, there is a reasonable explanation, of course. There was, in my opinion, a pennywise and pound-foolish, perhaps, judgment that was made in previous administrations, and as recently, perhaps, as this administration, which purchased technology which did not contemplate this change, knowing full well that there was absolutely no alternative but to solve this problem. There is a lot of protestation on that side of the aisle, but in point of fact, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations went to the Speaker and it was agreed, it was agreed between the Speaker and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, to do exactly what this committee recommended, to do exactly what the Committee on National Security yesterday had recommended, and that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) talked about. That was to fund a solution to this emergency, unavoidable expenditure that confronts us. And so the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in conversation with the Speaker, agreed to recommend this. And the Republicans and Democrats in the Committee on Appropriations voted these bills out. But lo and behold, there are some who would say, no, this is not an emergency, we will wait; just like with the BESTEA bill, that we are going to fund this at a later date. Ways and means to be announced. Vote with us now on faith. Madam Speaker, we ought not to do that. We ought to reject this rule and we ought to go back to the drawing board. And, frankly, the Speaker and the chairman of the committee ought to again come to their conference and say the responsible thing to do is to make sure that we solve this problem, that we confront it honestly and we do it now. Now, if at some point in time later we want to fund that, we can do it. Nothing precludes that. The only thing that we are doing now is delaying the decision. We should not do that. Madam Speaker, I regret that. And I want to say that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of my subcommittee, and I agree on this. He believed this ought to be. I did not put it in. We do not have the votes on my subcommittee to put this in. It is 7-to-4 when we vote from a partisan standpoint and there was no dispute in the subcommittee, either from the seven Republicans or the four Democrats. So I lament the fact that there has been some change because some Members of the Republican Conference felt this was not the way they wanted to proceed. That was not reflective of the Republican leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, nor for a period of time, at least, reflective of the Republican leadership of this House, including the Speaker. Madam Speaker, I may speak at some greater length as well on this rule, because it is not just the Y2K problem that I think is unfortunate. And I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I do not think the Committee on Rules made this determination, and I understand that as well. Not that he would have disagreed with the solution that was effected; I do not mean to imply that. But I understand this decision was made by the leadership and not per se by the Committee on Rules, although the Committee on Rules obviously implemented in its rule that decision. So I do not quarrel with the Committee on Rules. I want to make that clear. What I quarrel with is the decision having been made to retreat from responsibly and immediately confronting this emergency situation. Madam Speaker, I may also at some future time talk about the rule itself. I think, unfortunately, the rule did not do some of the things I think it should have. Other Members will discuss that, and perhaps in concluding a couple of minute remarks I will discuss those items as well.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I certainly am not going to use the balance of the time that remains. The gentlewoman from Maryland is correct. Everybody has observed that this problem is coming. She also made, I think, a very valid point. The cost of the solution has escalated over the last 12 months, and I would say even over the last few months. My point that I made before is this has happened in the private sector and the public sector. The reason for that is that the scope of the problem was not contemplated. There are computers in almost everything we use, including our automobile as we drive down the street, which apparently also has this glitch built into a number of the chips that control many of the systems in the automobiles. That is how complicated this system is. The Committee on Appropriations, I say to my friend from Maryland, did contemplate that. We have taken, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, $400 million out of the IRS. I say to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, who got up and said we are going to pass an IRS reform bill today, it is an IRS reform bill with some tax provisions in it which are going to change the Tax Code. We are going to have to have computers amended. It is the same thing we do, on the one hand, we say reform; but on the other hand, we complicate the code. But that aside, I will tell my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, if we do not do this emergency fix of the Y2K problem, IRS reform bill or not, IRS is going to crash in 2000, period. Then there will be no funds to do anything in the Federal Government, whether it is emergency or nonemergency, defense or domestic, Social Security, or Medicare. All of those are going to come crashing down around America's head. They will not want to hear, very frankly, oh, well, we delayed. We washed our hands and said we are going to do it later. If it was going to be done later, it should have been done. We have heard a lot about later. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the Speaker, all agreed some weeks ago that this was going to be an emergency and that we needed to fund it through emergency funding. They recommended that. The committee adopted that. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, there were only 16 members of a 54 member committee that did not vote for that. Think of that. That is a pretty overwhelming bipartisan determination by the Committee on Appropriations that has the responsibility to make sure that we address this emergency to fund it. We are now retreating from this; not retreating from it in the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Rules took it upon itself to strike it from the defense bill. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was up here on behalf of defense, one of the strongest advocates of defense in this Nation, saying this was a problem. He urged that we defeat the last bill specifically for that reason. I am urging that we defeat this rule for the same reason that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) urged that we defeat the defense bill rule. I do not think we are going to do that. I understand that. I think the other side of the aisle has determined in a unanimous way that they are going to vote for this rule. There is nothing I can do about that other than bring to my colleagues' attention that this does, in fact, place at risk solving what is one of the most critical problems confronting our government today, was recognized as an emergency, is an emergency. The gentlewoman from Maryland and I agree it is an emergency. We have got to address it. Lamenting the fact, however, that we have today said that we are going to pass IRS reform, but we are going to delay to some other day solving the emergency situation of the computer glitches that will occur in the Year 2000, thus placing at risk the very IRS reform procedures that we are going to adopt later today. I urge the House to reject this rule so that the Committee on Rules can go back, there can be a reconsideration, calmer and cooler heads can prevail, and then we can move ahead with solving this Y2K problem.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, next week, on Thursday, June 25, human rights activists and defenders of the environment plan to gather in front of the Russian Consulate in San Francisco to protest the continuing mistreatment of former Russian Navy Captain Alexandr Nikitin. Working with the Norwegian environmental group ``Bellona,'' Mr. Nikitin provided resource material for a report entitled ``The Russian Northern Fleet: sources of Radioactive Contamination,'' that exposed the Russian Navy's nuclear waste dumping in the White Sea and Kola Peninsula region. the report revealed, for instance, that fifty-two decommissioned nuclear submarines still containing nuclear fuel are rusting at the Murmansk dockside and that nuclear reactors from other decommissioned submarines were simply dumped into the Arctic Ocean. It would probably be too much to ask that the Russian government thank him for his efforts. Frankly, the Russian government is not the only government that has not looked kindly on environmental whistle blowers. However, most governments would not go to the lengths to which the Russian government has gone to punish Mr. Nikitin for his expose. On February 2, 1996, he was arrested and charged with ``revealing state secrets,'' a charge that could carry the death penalty if he were convicted. In October 1996, the Federal Security Service (FSB) declared the Bellona/Nikitin report ``forbidden literature.'' Nikitin was held in pretrial detention from February to December 1996. I would note that during this time his brother-in-law, who had served in the Russian Northern Fleet, died of radiation poisoning. Protests from human rights activists and defenders of the environment resulted in Nikitin's release from detention, but the charges were not dropped. The FSB attempted to have him indicted on the basis of unpublished ``secret decrees,'' a blatant violation of the Russian constitution. Even the Federal Prosecutor's office admitted that ``mistakes were made'' and that the case ``contains no hint of espionage.'' The FSB had to back down, and after six earlier investigations, now claims to have a legitimate case to go to trial. One wonders how many chances the FSB gets. Meanwhile, Nikitin has been required to remain in St. Petersburg. His wife and daughter came to the United States last year to accept on his behalf the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for his environmental work. Their apartment is kept under surveillance, the phone has been tapped, and Nikitin's lawyer was recently approached by thugs on the street and told to ``stay away from this.'' But the FSB has misjudged their man. Alexandr Nikitin and his family are standing up to the reactionary forces of the past. They do this not only for themselves, but for millions of Russians and millions of others on this planet who are endangered by ecological irresponsibility and indifference. if we care about human rights and the future of our planet, we should add our voices in support of Alexandr Nikitin's cause. The Russian government woud be better served by honoring the efforts and integrity of citizens such as Alexandr Nikitin rather than trying to silence and punish him.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly unique individual who has served our country, my great State of Maryland, and the Congress of the United States for over four decades. Mr. Jerry Grant is one of the finest examples of people dedicated to standing up for what is right and fighting, both in the forefront and behind the scenes, to make our country a better place for all our citizens. Jerry turned 60 years old on July 1, and I would like to be one of the many to wish him a very happy birthday. Mr. Speaker, I first met Jerry when both of us were attending a national Young Democrats convention, he as the president of the Young Democrats of Colorado, and I as the president of the Young Democrats of Maryland. Even at that young age, Jerry made an indelible impression, with his uncanny ability to persuade people to listen to his point of view and come onto his side of an issue. The good thing about Jerry Grant is that he uses this talent in a positive manner, to influence opinion to the good of politics and the people involved. By 1972, Jerry was serving as a county commissioner of Adams County, Colorado. I am not sure whether this stint as a public official made him more sympathetic or critical of elected officials, but since then Jerry has served in a variety of non-elected positions, quietly and effectively making a difference in people's lives. Jerry served for 10 years as Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Jim Sasser of Tennessee, earning the respect of fellow staff and Members of the Senate alike. Jerry was the guy who knew all of the ins and outs of an issue, and the person who people turned to when they were not exactly sure just where to be in a controversy. After promising himself and his family a quieter life outside the beltway, Jerry was coaxed back into the political fray by a young Maryland basketball star and Rhodes scholar, our former colleague, Tom McMillan. It was Jerry's strategy and guidance which helped Congressman McMillan win his first election to Congress in 1986. Jerry later served as Tom McMillan's Chief of Staff. Jerry Grant played an important role in the 1992 presidential election, helping Maryland garner the highest percentage of votes in that election for the Clinton-Gore ticket. Mr. Speaker, many elected officials owe a large measure of their success to Jerry Grant. He has worked with such leaders as Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Roy Roemer, Hubert Humphrey, and Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson. On the local level, literally scores of elected officials in Maryland can credit their electoral wins to Jerry's counsel, advice, and maybe even sometimes a few of his jokes. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jerry on his 60th birthday, and send my best wishes to my good friend, his lovely wife, Sue, and their entire family. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Grant has been fighting cancer for a number of years with the same kind of courage and integrity that he has lived his life. Throughout his life Jerry Grant has enriched his country and his community. I know that all of my colleagues join me in wishing him well, and a very happy birthday, indeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. That is what the rules say. But the chairman said it is pro forma, which is why we do not have the chairman come before the committee and explain these expenditures, unlike every other expenditure they want to make. They do not come before the committee.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee rose and said this is a bipartisan bill, and he is correct in that assertion, it is a bipartisan bill. Within the constraints of the funds available, the chairman and ranking member have tried to work a bill that responsibly allows the legislative branch of government to proceed and allows this body to maintain its responsibilities to its employees. I am sure the chairman and each of us that serves on this subcommittee, as well as our ranking member, could have made additions to this bill, had resources been available which we think would have enhanced this bill and given to the legislative branch a better ability to do its job; however, those constraints exist. Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, expressing disappointment in this rule. Basically the rule is one that tries to facilitate the consideration of this bill. I had, however, offered an amendment which I did not offer in subcommittee, but which I wanted to offer on the floor. That amendment would have provided for the increased expenditures allocated to various committees, for reasons presumably not anticipated at the time, that this House passes a funding resolution out of the Committee on House Oversight, on which I also serve. Mr. Speaker, this so-called emergency funding, very frankly, was included for the purposes of getting the House oversight's funding resolution below certain targets so that certain people on the floor of the House would vote for it on the contention that it was not more funding than occurred pursuant to their plan; which is simply to say it was a device to shift some $8 million out of the bill and to a fund that has been referred to as a slush fund, but suffice it to say a fund out of which nonanticipated expenditures for committees can be funded. Let me first of all say that is a not an unreasonable effort; that is to say, to provide funding for unanticipated needs. In fact, we have a very legitimate example of this Congress acting in the fashion that I think is appropriate and that would be provided for by my amendment, had it been allowed, and that was before the Committee on Rules. A hearing was held on the funding of the special committee to oversee China, the so-called Cox-Dicks committee. The Committee on Rules had an extended hearing, adopted a rule, and made a proposal, and we adopted a resolution on the floor by vote of the Congress, by the House of Representatives. There is, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion no reason why that should not be done for every committee. Now the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) got up and was speaking about the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's hearings. Frankly, they have come to us for a number of unanticipated expenditures. In fact, one of the subcommittees, I think the expenditure was not unanticipated at all; this is the Teamsters' investigation and labor investigation generally. It was, however, a way of getting some extra funding without having it adopted on the floor of the House. I think that was unfortunate. My amendment, if allowed by this rule, would have simply provided not that there could not be funding but that the House of Representatives would have to vote on that. Now, frankly, colleagues who are now in the majority took over and said that they wanted to have business done in an open fashion, and we were going to live by the rules everybody else had to live by, and that we would take responsibility for those expenditures that we made, and frankly we were going to cut spending in the House of Representatives. Lo and behold, they created a fund that now even the Committee on House Oversight does not have hearings on. Because our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says in fact this is a Speaker's decision. We just perform a ministerial function, which is to say we are a pass-through. So I tell my friends on both sides of the aisle, currently that $8 million is decided by one person. Now, if that is the way you think this House ought to be run, if that is the way you think the taxpayers' money ought to be spent, so be it. But if you believe that the taxpayers' money, that we all talk so much about, ought to be appropriated and expended pursuant to a vote of the representatives of those people who pay those taxes, then I would suggest to you that you would defeat this rule and allow the amendment to go forward, which does not preclude the expenditure at all, but simply says that it must be voted on by all the Members of the House. Is that such an unreasonable proposal? Is that such a divergence from regular order that the Committee on Rules would decide not to allow that, I think reasonable and common sense rule, to be considered by the House? I regret that I must oppose this rule.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will engage in a colloquy to answer a question, the gentlewoman heard my representation. The chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, which you say is public, has indicated ours is simply a ministerial function; that the vote essentially is taken, that is true, and, because this committee is a 2 to 1 committee, the majority party always prevails. Is the gentlewoman aware of the fact that apparently the chairman believes this is a decision of the Speaker, and has articulated that on the record, and that the vote is simply a pro forma?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise, I would tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), with the intention to support this bill when the roll is called. I was one of those who did not support this bill as it went to the Senate. I was very concerned about what the final product would be. I want to congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for improving this bill as it came back. I think that is a good thing. I want to rise, however, to say that this bill is a continuation of IRS reform, and to congratulate Secretary Rubin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers, and Carl Rossotti who, like all of us, have seen the need to bring both management reform and procedural reform and taxpayer sensitivity to the IRS. Secretary Rubin is the first Secretary of Treasury with whom I have served since 1981 who has paid attention to the management issues at IRS. He formed, in 1997, a management board. He also made the determination to bring on a professional manager, Charles Rossotti, the founder and chairman of American Management Systems, and brought on as commissioner for a term. That change was a critically important change. It is well and good that we amend the law so that we put forth a system that will reform the IRS management and the IRS dealing with taxpayers. But what is critically important is that we have on board personnel committed to that objective. Secretary Rubin and this administration have done that. I think this legislation, in concert with the reforms that are ongoing and have been affected by the Clinton administration and Secretary Rubin, will make a very substantial, positive impact on the taxpayers of America. For that reason, I intend to support this legislation.

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. Packard, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Hefner. Further, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the work and friendship of Mr. Hefner. He is truly one of our finest members and it has been my distinct honor to have served with him in this body. The Committee has done an outstanding job in crafting a bill which addresses both the military needs and quality of life concerns for the men and women in our armed services. Make no mistake, our military personnel deserve the best that we in Congress can offer, and this bill takes many of the necessary steps required to improve the quality of life for our military families. The focus this bill places on family housing, child development centers, medical facilities and treatment centers is critical if we are going to continually recruit and retain our best people. While this bill does not meet every deficiency in our military facilities, it continues the approach of budgeting for the highest priority needs of our armed services. Additionally, I believe it represents a firm commitment by this Congress to our men and women in uniform to continue our efforts to improve their living and working conditions. Further, I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee for their quick response to fund the Continuous Processing Facility at Indian Head. As many of you know, an accidental explosion damaged a portion of this building in February. Although my funding request was unexpected, the Committee responded to this priority by providing funds for a facility which in the long run will be more efficient and flexible in meeting the Defense Department's energetics requirements. Lastly, I would like to thank the Committee for supporting the Administration's request for the replacement of the Annealing Ovens Facility at Indian Head. This new facility will function in a more efficient fashion and address important environmental concerns in my district. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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. Packard, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Hefner. Further, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the work and friendship of Mr. Hefner. He is truly one of our finest members and it has been my distinct honor to have served with him in this body. The Committee has done an outstanding job in crafting a bill which addresses both the military needs and quality of life concerns for the men and women in our armed services. Make no mistake, our military personnel deserve the best that we in Congress can offer, and this bill takes many of the necessary steps required to improve the quality of life for our military families. The focus this bill places on family housing, child development centers, medical facilities and treatment centers is critical if we are going to continually recruit and retain our best people. While this bill does not meet every deficiency in our military facilities, it continues the approach of budgeting for the highest priority needs of our armed services. Additionally, I believe it represents a firm commitment by this Congress to our men and women in uniform to continue our efforts to improve their living and working conditions. Further, I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee for their quick response to fund the Continuous Processing Facility at Indian Head. As many of you know, an accidental explosion damaged a portion of this building in February. Although my funding request was unexpected, the Committee responded to this priority by providing funds for a facility which in the long run will be more efficient and flexible in meeting the Defense Department's energetics requirements. Lastly, I would like to thank the Committee for supporting the Administration's request for the replacement of the Annealing Ovens Facility at Indian Head. This new facility will function in a more efficient fashion and address important environmental concerns in my district. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). Obviously the vagaries of employment are that on any given time a corporate entity may or may not be a foreign-held corporation, but the American citizen who wants to participate and contribute through such devices as are legally available to American citizens to do so should be maintained, and I think that is appropriate, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, too many Americans believe our campaign finance system is corrupt. We must treat this illness in the body politic which, in my opinion, if ignored, will undermine our democracy. Like beauty, of course, genuine reform may be in the eye of the beholder. In my view, genuine reform must purge from Federal elections unregulated soft money which has become so pervasive. Meehan-Shays does that. Reform should be subject to disclosure. The issue ads which are so clearly intended to influence elections must be covered. Meehan-Shays does that. Reform, in my opinion, should level the playing field for challenges by further restricting franked mail in election years. Meehan-Shays does that. Reform, as well, should encourage wealthy candidates to limit personal spending and toughen disclaimers on ads, giving voters better information with which to judge content. Meehan-Shays does that. Reform also should enhance candidate disclosure by giving the public quick access via the Internet. Meehan-Shays does that. Meehan-Shays does all of these good things, Mr. Chairman, but, by any standard, is breathtakingly modest. Yet, in this Republican Congress, its enactment is in doubt. Though there are good provisions in other bills, I will support Meehan-Shays as our best hope of fixing some problems now. I might say that I know the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has an amendment that she will be now offering, which I also strongly support, which, in effect, says that, although there are reforms in Meehan-Shays that we want to adopt, there is more yet to do. She will establish a commission to look further at how we can make our election laws better. Having said what reform is, let me say what it is not. Reform is not the Paycheck Protection Act, a Republican proposal to gag working Americans. Californians wisely rejected, Mr. Chairman, the paycheck protections last month as we did in March. Hopefully, this part of the Republican vendetta against working families will finally disappear. Reform is not repealing all contribution limits. This would just tilt the playing field even more toward the affluent and away from ordinary Americans, for whom giving $1,000 to candidates is beyond reach, let alone $25,000. Reform is not repeal of public financing of presidential elections, which ended the thrilling campaigns of yesteryear financed out of the suitcases stuffed with untraceable cash. Finally, reform is not underfunding the Federal Election Commission. Republicans argue we do not need new laws, just enforcement of current ones. Yet, House committees have recommended funding for next year for campaign law enforcement that is simply inadequate. The majority are generous with rhetoric, but not with the resources the FEC needs to police campaigns. Mr. Chairman, this debate that we are now engaged in is not designed, unfortunately, to facilitate the passage of reform. Indeed, many of us believe, perhaps cynically, that it is designed to undercut, undermine, and defeat campaign finance reform. In fact, many leaders on the Republican side make no secret of their antipathy towards reform legislation and particularly the Meehan-Shays legislation. I hope that, notwithstanding this disastrous procedure, notwithstanding the opposition of many in the Republican leadership and many Republicans, notwithstanding those who would undercut reform efforts, I am hopeful that, through it all, that we will, nevertheless, have the courage and the wisdom and the common sense to pass Meehan- Shays. Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York to Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and in deep dismay of the action. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The heinous crime that we unanimously condemn today is a reminder that racism continues to be far too prevalent in our society. The brutal death of James Byrd, Jr. at the hands of ignorant, racist men should serve as a wake up call to every American and signify that there is still work to be done to promote and protect racial tolerance in our Nation. It is unfortunate that we, as a Nation, have yet to appreciate the diversity of our country. How shameful that we have not reached a united point of tolerance and respect for our neighbors, judging them not by their race, color or nationality, rather, by the quality of their character, morals, and contributions to society. The children of this Nation should not be the unwitting witnesses to those who continue to foment racial hatred and violence, and they should be given the opportunity to extinguish the blemished record of racial intolerance that mar this century and the ones before it and start anew in the next millennium. There is no explanation for the loss of life that was a result of racism and hatred and I condemn this act of cowardice. I join my colleagues and extend my heartfelt condolences to the family of Mr. Byrd and the people of Jasper, Texas.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I rise today in support of H.R. 3494, The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1988, and the important work that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is doing to locate and recover missing children. In 1990, the Justice Department released a study reporting that there are as many as 4,600 abductions by non-family members reported to police, 114,600 attempted abductions of children by non-family members, and 354,000 children abducted by family members annually. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children works in cooperation with the United States Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators and the public and private sectors to prevent these heinous crimes against children. The Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury, Postal Service and General government Appropriations Conference Report contained $571,000 for the Exploited Child Unit of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In my role as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations, I will, once again, this year be supporting funding for this most important organization. Mr. Chairman, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is doing critical work throughout the country to ensure the safety of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill and to support the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 4, 1998, during the consideration of House Joint Resolution 78, I apparently voted contrary to my intent on one part of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. I correctly voted ``no'' on the second part of the amendment, but thinking and intending to vote ``no'' on the first part, I apparently made a mistake and pushed the wrong button, and inadvertently voted ``yes'' on rollcall 198. I was shocked and disbelieving, Mr. Speaker, to discover my unintended vote of ``aye'' on the first part of the amendment, which would have stricken the reference to, and I quote, ``acknowledge God in our Constitution'' and replaced it with ``freedom of religion.'' I did not and do not support that proposal. As I said in my statement, Mr. Speaker, on House Joint Resolution 78, ``. . . we do need to stress that faith in God and raising our voices in prayer continues to be one of the most important things that Americans can do.'' Mr. Speaker, the right to acknowledge one's God was fundamental to the founding of this great country. Indeed, the Founding Fathers acknowledged God as the source of our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget. On fiscal matters generally, I think in my own view, he is probably the most credible spokesperson in this House in either party on these issues. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former page from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was never a page, but I had the opportunity, as I have told page classes in the past, as President of the Maryland Senate, to run the page program in the Maryland Senate for four years. It was, like the page program we have here, an extraordinary, unique education for a very select group of young people, a group of young people who had an experience, as you have had, like a very, very, very small percentage of their age group have. We talk about the future being up to you. The gentleman from Michigan (Dale Kildee), who has done so much for the page program over the years, talked about Franklin Roosevelt's observation about some generations being given much, and some generations having much expected of them. In my opinion, all generations through the ages of pages ought to have a lot expected of them, and we expect a lot of you. We expect a lot of you because you are outstanding members of your generation. Unlike some other outstanding members of your generation, you have had an experience that they will not have. You have had the opportunity to be present firsthand in the body that is looked to throughout the world by the billions of people who live on our planet as the center of democracy, as the center of a successful effort for people to come together and peacefully resolve differences. During the course of your being a page here and your very outstanding service to not just us as individual Members of Congress but to this institution and to the people of America, you have had the opportunity to see some pretty animated debate. You have seen some of us get, I would say, angry at some times at one another. Duke Cunningham has gotten angry from time to time, and I have gotten angry from time to time. But then you saw a Duke Cunningham and a Steny Hoyer come together as friends, honored by their neighbors in being elected to this House, knowing full well that we are all Americans, and though we are animated in debate, it is really that on which we agree that is most important. You have had that opportunity. There is a lot of cynicism in America among some people about their Democratic institutions, and that is not helpful in a democracy. We need to have citizens have confidence in their democracy, in their institutions of government, and particularly in this House and the Senate just down the hall, because that is the way we resolve our differences and make progress as a democracy, a model for the world. You, with your special knowledge, can educate your generation to the substance of what their democracy is all about as represented here in the people's House. I am always pleased. I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, for allowing me to participate in this farewell. But it is not farewell. Obviously the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is here, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is here, and you may be here for years to come in various capacities. But thank you. Thank you for taking the time to expend the effort to learn, to participate, to contribute to making this House and this country a better place. You are richer for it. We are richer for your service. I hope that you will go back to your respective communities and your families and your schools and talk to your friends, educate them further, and make our democracy better. Congratulations to all of you. Godspeed.