Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation and suggest to my colleagues that this issue is not solely about 38 projects, as meritorious as those projects may be. It is about the proper balance between the Congress of the United States and the Executive. I did not support the line-item veto. I supported the enhanced rescission alternative of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], which allowed the President to take out projects that the President thought were either fraud or wasteful or untimely or against the policy of the administration. In this instance the administration acted far too broadly and far beyond those constraints. This legislation, therefore, in my opinion, seeks to address balancing the responsibilities of this Congress, which under article I of the Constitution of the United States is to set the policies for this Nation and the executive's authority to carry out, but also to ensure that those policies are perceived by the administration as not to be wasteful or against policy. In my opinion, this veto went so broadly as to substitute the judgment of the administration for that of the Legislature, and that is not appropriate under the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I urge my colleagues not just because these 38 projects themselves have merit, but more importantly so that the proper balance between the executive and legislative branches of Government is focused upon by both the administration and by the Congress, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] for his leadership and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for his leadership in bringing this matter before the Congress in a context which does not need to be critical of the administration, but simply to say as we try out this new procedure, and it is brand new, we need to make sure that we do so in a context that is judicious and proper.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and to congratulate and thank both the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], with whom I have served on this committee for, I suppose, all of my career on the committee, which is from 1983 to date, and also to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is a bill that is not difficult from the standpoint that almost every member of Congress and the overwhelming majority of Americans probably believe it is the most important bill that we consider in this House on an annual basis as it affects themselves, their families, their children, the education of this Nation, as well as their children, the health care of themselves and this Nation. Our former chairman, Mr. Natcher, used to say that if you take care of the health of your people and provide for the education of your children, you will continue to live in the strongest and best nation on Earth. He was correct. He said this was the People's House and that this was the people's bill. He was also correct in that. But it is also a very difficult bill, because the priorities within the bill are agreed by all to be principal priorities, and, therefore, the allocation of resources between them is difficult. Both the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], are always under a great deal of pressure, and the supplicants or the lobbyists or the interests that are represented in this bill are all good, and, therefore, it is very difficult to say no. This bill, I think, represents a good piece of legislation, of which the American public can be proud. It was forged in a bipartisan basis, sometimes contentious, because there are strong differences on many issues. But this bill as it relates to education, unlike, frankly, some previous bills in previous Congresses, reflects a commitment to invest in the future of our country by investing in our children. Head Start is increased, critically important, to make sure that our disadvantaged children have an opportunity to be competitive, both in education and in the marketplace. It is important that they be partners as America completes in the global marketplace. Chapter I, that tries to ensure that those same children and others who may have been disadvantaged in life will not be disadvantaged in terms of the focus of this Congress and of the education establishment, in making sure that we make a special effort to give them the capacity to learn, to work and to compete. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this conference report, which reflects a compromise, testing having been one of the more difficult items, block grants as opposed to categorical expenditures being another. But they were debated, sometimes hotly, strongly held views, but ultimately, through the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and I might also say the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has done such an outstanding job leading the Committee on Appropriations through this difficult process, we have a bill of which we can all be proud and which we can enthusiastically support.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I see that Sue Quantius is back. As I said, the chairman and I have been on this subcommittee I think just about the same time. I think he has been on maybe a session before me. Sue Quantius, I am not sure how long Sue has been with us, but I know she worked on the Senate side. I mentioned the health care of our people, and I know it is a particular interest of the chairman, and our expert on the committee is Sue Quantius. She has done an outstanding job; she is one of the most knowledgeable people in Washington on health care issues and particularly on NIH funding and NIH resources, objectives, and responsibilities. I want to rise, as I know the chairman has, and as I know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has, in thanking her for the service that she has given. The American public and this House ought to be very proud of the staff of the Committee on Appropriations. It is arguably the most bipartisan, nonpartisan staff on Capitol Hill. To the great credit of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our chairman, when he became chairman, most of the staff stayed because we all on both sides of the aisle perceive them as very true professionals who know their subject, who work hard, have great talent and great commitment to the product of this committee and to this country. Sue, on behalf of myself and all of us on this side of the aisle, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has already done that, and I know our present chairman in office has done that, but I want to join them and say thank you and to wish you Godspeed. Your next endeavor, your next employer is a very fortunate entity indeed. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the chairman yield? I am not sure I understand.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her time. I ask those on both sides of the aisle to listen to what I have to say and recall that I said that I did not believe that this matter was being handled fairly. Let me read to Members a letter dated October 22, sent to the Clerk of the House, which to this very hour the minority has not yet received, but Members will find it interesting. That letter is on the stationery of Hart, King and Coldren, a professional law corporation. They represent Mr. Dornan. Mr. Dornan, under the Federal Contested Election Act, is the contestant in this case. We have lost sight of the fact that the act requires the contestant to carry the case, not the committee. In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is a three-page letter in which it sets forth 14 items that have been forwarded to the committee. The minority has not yet received it. They are depositions that should have been forwarded to the committee months ago by the Dornan counsel. Custodian of records, Fidelity Federal, dated 3/24/97, 3/25/97, 3/27/ 97, 3/31, 4/14, 5/28. These are not newly acquired records by the Dornan case. My colleagues, listen to this paragraph, listen to it well. This is from the contestant under the Federal Contested Election Act. By copy of this letter to the contestee's counsel, we are advising the contestee that we consider contestant's record to be complete so that she may file her brief within the time permitted by the act. Even Mr. Dornan believes this case, from an evidentiary standpoint, is now at an end. Even Mr. Dornan's counsel says this case is at an end from his perspective. The chairman of the committee said in debate last week, or 2 weeks ago, last week I believe it was, and has reiterated today on the floor of the House, that if we would only sign a confidentiality agreement, we could get the material. He reiterated that just now. My colleagues, no one on the majority side of the aisle, save only an affidavit of confidentiality with respect to a particular deposition, no one on the majority side signed a confidentiality agreement until October 27, 1997. Notwithstanding that, we were refused access to information because we had not signed a similar confidentiality agreement. That is the unfairness in this case. And I ask my friend from California in particular, if he will listen, because I respect his judgment and his fairness, as I do others on this side of the aisle. So Mr. Dornan has said, I am through, finished, it is time for Ms. Sanchez to file a reply brief. Mr. Dornan has not filed, interestingly enough, his own brief required under the Federal Contested Election Act. My supposition is that he believes a brief is not required by him. My further supposition is because he believes that committee is now carrying the case. I want to bring to the attention as well, because the chairman is very concerned about accurate information, that the chairman indicated that there have been many cases that have gone on longer than this. My colleagues, no case, and there have been 28 of them, in the history of the Federal Contested Election Act, has gone longer than this one if we do not resolve it before we adjourn in committee. There have, in fact, been cases which have been carried over and disposed of on the floor. In fact, the Rose case was held for almost a year between the time under the 104th Congress when the committee disposed of the case and when the committee brought it to the floor for final disposition, which was, of course, at that point in time noncontroversial. No case in the history of the Federal Contested Election Act has gone longer than this one if we do not dispose of it by the date we adjourn this first session of this Congress. My colleagues, this case, according to Mr. Dornan, is ready to close, and I suggest to my colleagues that Mr. Dornan has not filed a brief because he knows that he has not done what is required under the statute, showed that but for certain factors occurring, he would have been elected to Congress. That simply has not occurred, and having not occurred, the committee has not brought to this floor any request to take action to dispose of this case based upon Mr. Dornan's making that case. Now, my colleagues, there is a question which the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] raises. There is nobody on this floor who either sanctions or wants to hide the fact that voters may have voted without being citizens and may have voted illegally. That, in and of itself, is worthy of an investigation, but it is clearly a much broader investigation than the case that Mr. Dornan brought against the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], the sitting Member of Congress from the 46th Congressional District. So that, in fairness, I say it is time to end this case. Mr. Dornan, in his letter of October 22 through counsel, says he is through. But it is now Ms. Sanchez' chance to reply, but she has very little to reply to because Mr. Dornan has not made his case. I would ask the Members of this House, as they reflect upon this case, think of themselves. Each and every one of us could be in the same situation. Each and every one of us could have the opposite party being in control of the House and a contestant coming forward and saying, I have certain suspicions, certain allegations that I will file, but in 12 months, essentially from November of 1996 until November of 1997, I have not been able to make my case. Think, if my colleagues were in that situation, if they would not expect their 434 colleagues to say under those circumstances it is time to end this case, it is time to dismiss the contestant's action because he has not, as required by the statute, made his case. If our oath means something, to defend the Constitution, it clearly means that we should defend the right of each district to elect a Member and to have that election sustained unless it is shown, pursuant to law, that but for certain things happening, the election would have turned out differently. I would hope that all of us would come to a conclusion and urge the committee to end this matter, to move on, to say to the voters in the 46th District there will be an election shortly, Mr. Dornan says he is going to run, that election will be contested. I believe the committee should and will continue its investigation into any wrongdoing. Clearly, the district attorney is doing that; clearly, the secretary of state is doing that; they are the appropriate authorities. Let us bring this case to close and bring it to a close now.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman from Washington State, nobody wants this investigation to go away or to end. In fact, the gentlewoman from Washington may not know, there is a district attorney of Orange County investigating this case. That investigation is before the grand jury and ought to continue. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure voter integrity on the rolls. He is continuing his investigation. The judge from Ohio said this always happens. It never happens. Mr. Dornan has said his case is over. He has rested in effect. The jury is never allowed to get additional evidence, never. What kind of law do you practice on that side where the jury can say, well, I know the two parties have rested but we are going to get additional evidence? It never happens, my friends, never. They can ask to review existing evidence; that is true. But they cannot go out and seek new evidence. Mr. Dornan says this case is through. It is time for the parties to decide. The fact of the matter is, these figures put forth by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], nobody knows. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] put up some figures, 979, that is the most important figure. That is the majority by which Loretta Sanchez was elected to this House. He then gets down to other figures, 6000. That has less, I tell you, than 500 who possibly could be considered in the 46th district. I do not even know why that 6000 was on that board, because they are not involved in the 46th district, all of them, some are. The fact of the matter is, however, as the gentleman from Connecticut pointed out, nobody knows or will know for whom those folks voted. We do know this: that over a third of those people are Republicans, about 15 percent are other independents, not affiliated. Only half are Democrats. It is time to end this case.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that under the rules of the committee, at the request of the committee, we have signed confidentiality agreements. I have not disclosed any information which I have received that was confidential information. The Chairman now says that confidential information is going to be disclosed because the agreements have been signed. I am not sure I understand that, and whether from a parliamentary standpoint confidential information is appropriate to be disclosed on the floor of this House. We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California [Mr. Matsui] for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2195 and applaud its author, my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], for his work and his commitment to promoting human rights not only in China but around the world. He is sitting next to at this point in time the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Mr. Wolf and I serve on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, and Mr. Wolf for over a decade has been a strong proponent of urging the Treasury Department to fully enforce existing law as it relates to slave labor. So I want to congratulate both the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission, for their leadership over long periods of time. More generally, I would like to applaud the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] as well and the other Members who worked to provide vehicles other than the MFN debate for this body to address the range of policy issues which form our complex relationship with China. I have opposed, Mr. Speaker, MFN for China because I believe we have been too tolerant for too long. Clearly, a strong, prosperous, and democratic China will not come about without U.S. engagement. But a policy of constructive engagement, Mr. Speaker, must not amount to a practice of reaping the economic benefits of trade and exchange with China while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. Eight years after China's brutal demonstration of military repression of basic freedoms of speech and association at Tiananmen Square, reports persist of widespread and egregious human rights abuses, including the Chinese Government's maintenance of slave labor camps with which this particular amendment specifically deals. H.R. 2195 speaks to this area of human rights abuse by saying properly that if we are going to have free trade with China, then let us be sure that we are not directly or indirectly promoting the practice of slave labor by allowing its fruits to enter our markets. Mr. Speaker, the promotion of democratic reforms which will afford the Chinese people the basic freedoms they now lack must not, let me repeat, must not, be a peripheral element of American foreign policy towards China. It was not with respect to our relations with the Soviet Union when it existed, and it must not be with respect to our relations with China. The mantle, ``leader of the free world,'' is not earned through mere lip service. If the United States is going to engage China in trade, it must also engage China directly on the matter of human rights. Political and religious persecution, enforcement of population control through coerced abortion and sterilization, and organ harvesting from death row prisoners are not modes of conduct which ought to be consistent with friendship with the United States of America. We must adopt policies, Mr. Speaker, which put action behind our outrage. It is not enough to talk about the abuses, it is not enough to rhetorically oppose those abuses, we must act on our conviction and on our principles. H.R. 2195 is an appropriate and constructive step in this direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. As a preface, I have served on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government since January 1983. It is the responsibility of that subcommittee to oversee the Internal Revenue Service's budget and its management practices. In the last three terms of Congress under Democratic and Republican leadership, our subcommittee has raised very substantial questions, and we have worked with the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut on those issues and the distinguished staff of her subcommittee who has done such an outstanding job. I want to say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and to Senator Kerrey, as they know, that I think their efforts have produced a good work product. I think the commission raised many appropriate questions and recommended some very solid solutions. Having said that, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I ask no colleague to follow me in either adopting my premises or my vote, not one, because I understand the power of the rhetoric that precedes this bill to reform the IRS. There have been a lot of columns written on this issue. Jim Glassman, not an apologist for Democratic policies, says do not reform the IRS, and he says Republicans talk grandly about simplification but this year passed legislation adding 285 new sections and 824 amendments to the tax law. Mortimer Caplin, a distinguished former IRS commissioner, said this: The proposed overall design by the Restructuring Commission and its statutory offspring is deeply flawed. It would obscure the core focus of the IRS, blur the lines of authority, and hamstring efficiency. The good news, my colleagues, is that under Secretary Rubin and Deputy Secretary Summers, for the first time since I have been on the Appropriations Committee, there has been a focus on management issues in addition to tax policy issues. As a result, very substantial things are happening at the IRS. We are starting to get a handle on tax systems modernization, which was a disaster under the Reagan administration, under the Bush administration, and under the early Clinton administration, because the IRS clearly did not get a handle on its information systems technology. The good news is, we are now doing just that. We have an outstanding person that was recruited specifically to take on this task. The Senate just a few days ago confirmed Mr. Charles Rossotti as the new Commissioner of the IRS. He is the former president of the American Management Systems, Inc., a firm of 7,000 people in northern Virginia. He has been doing exactly what IRS needs to do, in the private sector: Handling information and providing quick, user-friendly responses in an efficient manner. This administration has moved to make sure that the IRS makes many of the changes proposed by the restructuring commission. Now, having said that, the administration, myself, and others raised very substantial questions about the bill that was originally introduced. I might say tangentially, there has been no speaker raising any questions prior to me about the problems with this legislation. However, numerous responsible, thoughtful, conservative observers have said that this is not the way to go. On its surface the legislation which we consider today is about IRS reform. The proponents claim that it will be the answer to all of our concerns about an agency which has admittedly failed to manage its operations well. However, too many of my colleagues believe that the simple creation of a private sector oversight board will lead to a more user-friendly and responsive IRS. I would argue that the net effect of H.R. 2676 will be nothing more than phony tax populism as described by Gloria Borger of U.S. News. And while there are many provisions in this bill which I support, I think the empowerment of a private sector board, with far-ranging powers, will do little more than add just another layer of bureaucracy. The taxpayer bill of rights title is necessary to provide much needed relief to innocent spouses and those who, because they are ill, are not able to file for a tax refund in a timely manner. There are also provisions in the bill which I support that are designed to increase electronic filing. However, the bill creates an unnecessary and more complicated organizational structure at the IRS, which I believe will have the overall effect of less accountability. While there is no doubt a role for private sector advice and expertise, what the IRS needs is more accountability, not less. H.R. 2676 would place management in the hands of people who, however well-meaning, are loyal and accountable to the firms and businesses that employ them. And while IRS bashing may be both fun and easy, I would suggest that if we are truly attempting to make the IRS more user friendly, we ought to take a closer look at the tax writers, not the tax collectors. As the national commission on restructuring the IRS concluded, Congress' attempt to micro-manage the IRS and its frequent changes of the Tax Code, have undermined the ability of the IRS to manage efficiently in the long or short term. No matter how many managerial changes we make, it will not make the IRS more user friendly. We ought to focus on improving education and services for taxpayers, better training for IRS employees, modernizing computers, and simplifying the overall Tax Code. Let's not hamstring the Commissioner's ability to enact real IRS reform by fooling ourselves into believing that adding another layer of bureaucracy in the chain of command is going to solve IRS' problems. Let's build upon the progress started by Secretary Rubin and ensure that we enter the 21st century with an IRS that is customer-friendly, technologically-advanced, and governed ``by the people, for the people.'' Let us not delegate authority of the IRS to private interests who could easily undermine public confidence in the Agency and dramatically decrease voluntary tax compliance. Are we all against the outrageous actions of the IRS? Absolutely. Should we take every action possible to eliminate the abuse of citizens that has occurred by IRS personnel or any other person in government? Absolutely. But let me point out to my colleagues, that as Charles Krauthammer wrote so compellingly just a few days ago, ``The IRS does not write the rules it must enforce. Congress and the President do, and the rules are now an insane 9,451 pages long. The Tax Code is so extraordinarily complicated that no taxpayer can ever be sure he has fully complied with the law.'' That is the difficulty the IRS has in implementing the Code, and your commission said so. Your commission said one of the problems IRS has is that the Congress has not given them stable and steady funding levels. Your commission also said that there was not a systemic problem, and I appreciated those honest remarks. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we vote on this legislation, and clearly it will pass with over 400 votes so that we can all go home and say we are for IRS reform. My colleagues recognize that if one is not for IRS reform on appropriation bills and on tax bills, it will not happen. We will not be able to hide behind this vote. I will look forward to the conference committee. In my opinion, the chairman of the Committee on Finance wants to go in exactly the wrong direction, as reported today in the papers, exactly the wrong direction, and that is what I fear. I would hope that we would look carefully at the product of the conference committee and ensure ourselves that we are in fact doing the right thing for the taxpayers of America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to praise the men and women who have served our Nation's Armed Forces, nor enumerate the deeds and sacrifices they have made for this country. I stand today to offer my most sincere gratitude and thanks to these ordinary citizens who have been called to do extraordinary things. As Veterans Day nears, we must ask ourselves what meaning this day has for us all. This day, formerly known as Armistice Day, was conceived to honor those brave Americans who fought and died in the First World War. In 1938, the Congress passed a law officially making November 11th a national holiday. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 years later in 1954, would sign legislation stating, ``to honor Veterans on the 11th day of November each year . . . a day dedicated to world peace,'' formally recognizing this day as a time to honor those who have served this country. The 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, was the precise time which ended the First World War in 1918. That time marked the sacrifice of over 116,000 Americans who lost their lives on the battlefields of Northern France. This global war amassed more than 37 million military casualties, in addition to 10 million deaths among the civilian population. Although the horrors of war had been demonstrated to the world, an ill conceived peace from the Versailles conference, provided the impetus for a repeat of this madness with even deadlier consequences. This day however, directly challenges those forces in the world that would break the fragile peace we now hold. And as each Veterans Day is celebrated, the fragility of that peace is strengthened and nurtured and allowed to grow; to grow with the hope that the flower it bears is not a poppy of sorrow, but rather a brilliant white rose celebrating peace. Mr. Speaker, this day causes us all to think and reflect on the reasons why so many of our young men and women have served in our Armed Forces. For me, that answer is simple, to ensure the peace and domestic tranquility of this country. Though these words ring within the Constitution, it is that cause and that sentiment which these dedicated men and women have sworn to uphold. It is for that reason why this Nation in its vigil to maintain the peace, has helped to ensure the peace for the world and for generations of Americans to come. War may glorify those human qualities which we hold high and dear but how much braver is the soldier standing on guard in 10 degree weather along the DMZ in Korea? How much more courageous is that maintenance personnel servicing vehicles in a lonely, isolated desert depot, or how dedicated is that medical assistant, routinely tending patients at the base health center, than their predecessors who served during wartime conditions. The sacrifices of our service members today cannot be divorced from those men and women who served in the past. It is this common thread which holds the very fabric of the peace which shrouds our democracy and our way of life. To forget these links is to weaken the purpose and meaning of this auspicious day. The bright torch of freedom has been handed from our combat veterans to our present day service members. That torch burns brightly as a beacon to the rest of the world that we as a Nation stand ready to defend our hard earned peace. No Nation can survive alone on the assurances of its technology or economic prowess. The willingness of our common citizenry to commit themselves to the causes of freedom and democracy are the assurances that have ensured the survival and existence of this country. And so I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and my fellow colleagues, to join with me in not just recognizing but thanking those who have served this Nation. Our gratitude for those servicemen and women of yesterday and today is immeasurable. My simple thanks, is the sincerest form I have, to offer a group of Americans whose service has yielded us the full fruits of freedom. God bless our veterans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I came to speak about the loss of a leader in the Washington Metropolitan Area and in our community, but as well in our Nation. I came to the floor and I heard the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] speak about Joel Pritchard. I had not heard that he died. Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve with Joel Pritchard. He was a Representative, as has been said, of great integrity and great substance, a very decent human being who believed that partisanship came long after principle. He was a delight to serve with, and I am sorry to hear that he has passed away. But as I will say about John Sturdivant, Joel Pritchard was someone who made this House a better place because of his service. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about a very good friend of mine, John Sturdivant, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. John Sturdivant died just a few days ago of cancer. I had the opportunity to talk to him about 3 our 4 days prior to his death. Even at that time, he was talking about his beloved members of the American Federation of Government Employees, was talking about how he could fight for and work for ensuring that they had an opportunity to earn sufficient funds to create for themselves a decent life and to provide well for their families, their husbands, their wives, their children. Madam Speaker, his death leaves not only the American Federation of Government Employees, not only government employees generally, but our Nation bereft of an individual who fought tirelessly on behalf of our Nation's civil servants and on behalf of efficiency and effectiveness in our government. As president of AFGE, John Sturdivant represented over 700,000 workers throughout the United States during one of the most difficult periods facing civil servants in this country's history. He was deeply committed, Madam Speaker, to the belief that today's civil servants constitute the answer, not the problem, to making our Government operate more smoothly and efficiently. The thousands of workers he spoke for could not have had a more committed, more knowledgeable, more passionate advocate of their interests. Madam Speaker, I knew John Sturdivant well. He was my friend. He worked very hard to shift public opinion of civil servants from the incorrect perception of inactivity and nonperformance to the truth of a dynamic and hard-working national resource. Madam Speaker, I will be speaking at John Sturdivant's funeral next week, and I will remember him as a good human being, as an American who cared about his country, as a person who utilized his talent to the fullest, not simply for himself or for profit or for gain, personal gain, but for the welfare of the country he loved and the welfare of his members. He was at times a person of great passion and even anger, but that anger and passion was directed at correcting and righting wrongs that he perceived. I know that he dealt with the President, with the Vice President, and with so many of us in the Congress of the United States as an advocate of policies that would reward our personnel based upon their effort and their talent and their accomplishments. He will be difficult for AFGE to replace. He will, like all of us, be replaced. None of us are indispensable. But all of us hopefully can be remembered as making a special contribution, a contribution of significant worth, a contribution emanating from a sense of our country's needs and the needs of our fellow men and women. Madam Speaker, I thank you for this time to remember a good and decent American, John Sturdivant, President of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to share the intense grief of my colleagues over the passing of Water Capps. This is a truly sad day in the Congress and a truly sad day for our country. In a body often riddled with cynicism, Walter Capps stood above the crowd as a straight-forward man of integrity and honor. Grounded in his own deeply moral and ethical beliefs, he served as a shining beacon to us all on the virtues of conciliation, kindness, and compassion. Before entering the Congress, Walter gained national prominence on the stage of academia. He spent 30 years as a professor of religious studies at the UC-Santa Barbara, where he authored 14 books, became widely known as an expert on religion, conflict resolution, and American democracy, and developed an extraordinarily popular course on the Vietnam war that brought together soldiers, protestors, and Vietnamese refugees. He brought this unique perspective on politics and on life to the Halls of Congress, enriching the atmosphere and heightening our collective sense of dignity and comradery. The Santa Barbara News Press describes Walter as a Congressman who sought to personalize American politics and bring civility back to the discourse on Capitol Hill. This sense of purpose was a common threat running throughout Walter's personal and professional life. Walter's tireless work on behalf of his congressional district, traveling back to California every week, listening to and connecting with his constituents, represented his uniquely personal brand of politics. Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to lose a colleague or a friend. But, our grief is overshadowed by those that knew Walter on a more personal level. It is my sincere wish that his wonderful wife Lois, and his children Todd, Lisa, and Laura, take solace in the knowledge that Walter was so highly respected and revered by his peers. Today's outpouring of emotion on the House floor accurately reflects the high esteem with which Walter was held. Walter will be missed by this body, and he will be missed by a county seeking the values and commitment to civility he so fully represented. While only here in Congress a short while, I know that Walter Capps has made a lasting impression upon us all.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. President of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman in exile of the Committee on Rules for recognizing my former status in which I had some authority. I have since lost that. Mr. Speaker, this bill, in my opinion, recognizes the enormous contributions of our military personnel. It acknowledges the sacrifice and commitment required of those who choose to follow a career in our military services. This bill seeks to encourage their continued dedication and retention in several very important ways. Military pay and quality of life is protected by a 2.8-percent pay increase and emphasizes the importance of military housing, construction, and improvements. It provides for child development centers for our troops and their families. It provides $35 million to continue impact aid, important in my area and around the country. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it provides our war fighters with the best possible equipment, $293.9 million in particular for R&D for the Navy's Super Hornet. This is an investment, Mr. Speaker, which keeps this critical program on track, reaching the fleet by 2001. The Super Hornet is proving to be one of DOD's most successful accusation programs. Also, Mr. Speaker, the committee increased funding for the joint strike fighter. This will accelerate the program to meet Navy requirements and ensure our continued air superiority and pilot survivability. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our national security interests. It emphasizes our concerns for the most appropriate use of our military forces in Bosnia. Unlike the House bill as it left here, this bill does not completely tie the hands of our President and the Joint Chiefs, in my opinion, inappropriately. As we learned so painfully during the 4-year-long conflict in Bosnia, the aggressors are bullies and worse. Mr. Speaker, if we and our NATO allies are not willing to confront the bullies in Bosnia, the aggressors, and who I call bullies. In fact, in many respects many of them are war criminals. If we and our NATO allies are not willing to confront these criminals in Bosnia and lay the groundwork for long-term peace in that region, we will encourage the transgressions that have appeared in the past to reoccur and ensure that we will act again sometime, somewhere. That, Mr. Speaker, is the lesson of history. We must not forget. I congratulate the conferees for including in this bill compromise language which will not hamstring the President or compromise our commitment.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Whoever's date it was, I did not agree with it. I tell my friend, I think it is a very significant tactical error to tell your enemy, and in this case not our enemy but the aggressing parties and the parties in question, when you are going to take specific action. I think that is tactically a mistake. I did not agree with it, whether the President said it or we said it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. The answer to the gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, is there is absolutely nothing wrong, and we want to make sure that we get to the bottom of it. However, as the resolution points out, I tell my friend from Texas, we have been at this 11 months, with all the information necessary. We know everybody who voted and we can check every one of them. That has not been done. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the ranking member of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is correct. We stand in those seats and we raise our right hand and we swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no more sacred right that the people have than to select their representatives, and to select them in an election that is fair and does not dilute in any way their votes. Therefore, I tell you that it is appropriate that if those who voted illegally affected this election, this election should be scrutinized carefully and appropriate action taken. But in the same vein, the voters of the 46th Congressional District have the right to expect us to conduct that process in a manner befitting of that oath. I tell my friends in this House, sadly, as the minority member of this task force, that that has not been done. I asked early on that we proceed in a bipartisan fashion to establish process, to establish the way that we would reach a decision, in an orderly, fully dispositive, timely way. I tell my friend, that has not been done. In point of fact, as the resolution points out, the task force has not met since April of this year. I asked in February in a letter to the chairman of the task force, let us meet together to come to agreement on the process. No such meeting has ever occurred. I tell my friends that I asked to be fully apprised of the information we were seeking and the information we were receiving. I tell you sadly, that has not occurred. In fact, my friends, this very day I found out at 4:15 that there will be the third meeting of the task force since the beginning of this year, tomorrow at 10 o'clock. No prior notice. And I tell my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the chairman of the task force, he and I talked for approximately 45 minutes this morning at 10 o'clock, and I was never informed that there would be a task force meeting. No, my friends, this process has not been fair, it has not been open, it has not been directed at fully getting out the information that is necessary to fairly determine this election. Now, my friends, I tell you, the Republican Secretary of State in latter March or early April said there were 303 votes that were in question in this election. You heard the testimony from the gentleman from Connecticut saying many of those votes have already been found to be registered, valid voters. The Secretary of State of California, two weeks ago, had a press conference and he said, after 6 months, he now believed there were not 303, there were 305. That is a third of a voter a month. I tell my friend from California, at that rate it would take us 160 years to get to 984, and then you would have to assume that every one of those voters voted for [Ms. Sanchez], and our precedents do not allow that, and logic does not compel it. My friends, this resolution says, as the two bipartisan individuals who were counsel for the Republicans and counsel for the Democrats in March of this year said, let Mary Landrieu go, because they have not made a prima facia case. And, very frankly, the Republican leadership rejected that. It took them 5\1/2\ months. I tell my friend from California, the distinguished legal professor, to come to exactly the same conclusion. Why, Mary Landrieu twisted in the wind and had to spend money and had to have her focus diverted to defend a case that Republican counsel and Democratic counsel 5 months ago said had no merit. I ask that this resolution pass; that we decide the case on the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Sanchez] or we dismiss this case, which is without merit.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Michael Tucker, one of my constituents, who was recently honored for his leadership and community work in crime prevention. The National Crime Prevention Council and Ameritech selected Special Agent Turner to receive the Ameritech Awards of Excellence in Crime Prevention. Special Agent Turner is one of 8 winners selected from 140 nominations. Special Agent Turner, the demand reduction coordinator for the DEA's Washington Field Division, is a pioneer in the coordination of law enforcement officials with local citizens to combat crime in their communities. He has had numerous successes in South Boston, Virginia, and Halifax County where he helped these communities fight drugs and crime. Most recently, Special Agent Turner has worked with the DEA in Washington, DC, to provide leadership in reducing homicides and violent crimes in the East Capitol Dwellings and Greenway communities. Additionally, he has worked with the 6th District Police Department Community Services section to create youth programs and neighborhood watch groups. He, along with the D.C. Police Department, helped to organize the orange hat patrol groups. Special Agent Turner's work to help foster community involvement in law enforcement has led to a sharp decline in the homicide rate in DC's 6th Police District and the creation of many new prevention programs in community organizations. Organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs and Drug Abuse Resistance Education Plus have become involved with these new prevention programs. I would like to thank the National Crime Prevention Council and Ameritech for honoring Michael Turner with the Ameritech Awards in Excellence in Crime Prevention. I applaud NCPC's dedication to helping fight crime and building community support and, I appreciate Ameritech's commitment to supporting crime prevention initiatives. It is evident from Special Agent Turner's work that he is not afraid to identify a troubled community which is plagued with crime, to roll up his sleeves and to take personal action to solve a problem. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Special Agent Turner for this well deserved honor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I would say I reject the simplistic choices set forth by the gentleman from Georgia. They are not, in fact, the choices that are being made. I regret the gentleman is not listening to me, but to set up such a simplistic choice between A and B, and with the hypothesis if you are not for this bill, you are not for the drug fight, is absolutely incorrect. The gentleman is still not listening to me. C'est la guerre. Madam Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2610. This bill does not simply reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an office I strongly support, headed by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who I think is doing an outstanding job. And we need to do more. There is no doubt about it, and he would be the first to say so. It does, however, contain several controversial provisions affecting national drug policy. My colleague from Michigan is correct, we should have had an opportunity to offer amendments to this critically important legislation. Therefore, it should not be on the suspension calendar. I want to address one provision, Madam Speaker, which would undermine the effectiveness of the high intensity drug trafficking areas. H.R. 2610 would prohibit the use of HIDTA funds to expand drug treatment programs. There is not a law enforcement official I have talked to in the United States of America, and I would imagine the U.S. attorney from Georgia at one point in time did not have a law enforcement official that did not say if we could not get people off drugs, we are not going to win this war, period. That is the bottom line, and every law enforcement official I have talked to agrees with that. The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, created in 1994, is one of the most successful in the Nation. Check the statistics, one of the most successful in the Nation. One important reason is the program's tough sanctions-based drug treatment component. Last year, that component caused the rearrest rate for drug-addicted not-violent offenders to plummet 38 percent below the national HIDTA average. Hear me, it is the only one that has the drug prevention, and it is 38 percent better in preventing recidivism than any other HIDTA program in America. The program forces addicts into treatment, holds them responsible for staying clean, and continually checks their state of sobriety. Madam Speaker, I would hope we would not defeat this bill. I would hope that temporarily we send it back to commit, give us the opportunity to address the shortcomings in this bill. Obviously, there is a lot of good in this bill. But in its current state, I will be unable to support it and would urge my colleagues not to support it in its current state.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it does relate to the vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can you, by any chance, give me the page number on which the Congressional Record reflects the views of the minority when Jim Wright held the vote open so that we can review those comments?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would thank him for his help in seeing that we could complete this project. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member, who I know has been trying to help with this as well. I look forward to working with both of them so we can see the completion of this project, which is essentially 90 percent funded and just needs this balance to be completed.