Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement talking about generally what is in this bill, really basically praising the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for putting together a very good bill.

I would like to address briefly, though, the Davis amendment that will be coming up before this body a little bit later. I will submit for the Record a Washington Post editorial written by Tony Williams, the elected mayor of the city; Kevin Chavous, elected council member and chairman of the District's education committee; and Peggy Cooper Cafritz, the elected chairman of the school board, all supporting my amendment and the school voucher program. I will also submit for the Record a May 12, 2003, editorial from the Washington Post which sets the record straight on the history of school vouchers in Washington.

Let me just say, the idea that this is an anti-voucher city is something we need to contend with. The vote in 1981 was not on a school voucher program like we have here. It was on tuition tax credits that one could argue hurt the District budget. I think we have solved that here by bringing additional money in, and more money will be coming into the city that would not otherwise come in as a result of the appropriations process I think at the end of this.

So that was a completely different proposal. That vote was in 1981. The Washington Post, a newspaper of some renown in this town, ran a poll in May of 1998 that asked, do you favor or oppose using Federal money in the form of vouchers to help low-income students in the District go to private or parochial schools? In that poll, 56 percent of city residents said they favored the idea. If that is the idea of anti-voucher, I think that we are being misled. City opinion is split on this, but the elected mayor and the elected chairman of the school board have come to us, they are in charge of this, they are entrusted by the voters to focus on this particular issue, and they have said that they need this to help D.C. schoolchildren get the same level of opportunity that the rest of us have for kids in our districts.

Over the years I have worked hard to try to bring this city back. I have worked with my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia

(Ms. Norton), on a number of issues and we have had a number of successes. We have sponsored legislation to bring the city back to financial stability. We sponsored legislation to help the city overcome its unfunded pension liability, a major issue that people said could not be done. We have worked in assisting the economic recovery of this city with tax relief and regulatory relief for our Nation's capital. We have worked together on the D.C. College Access Act which makes college affordable to the District population that basically was discouraged from going because they had no State university system like the rest of us do in our States. I think all of these have helped. But the most difficult problem facing this city is its public school system.

I respect my colleagues who oppose this amendment. They argue that public dollars should be reserved for public schools only. I think philosophically I believe the same thing, but I think they are misguided in this instance when they put the preservation of the institution, a failed institution, ahead of the opportunities for children that could be advanced by this. Ultimately our responsibility is to the kids, not to an institution, not to a failed, dysfunctioning bureaucracy.

What has it produced over the years? They say that we are going to put more money into public schools. We have put more money into public schools. It still has one of the highest dropout rates in the Nation. It has some of the lowest test scores in the Nation. The average SAT throughout the city, combined verbal and math, is under 800. It is a failure. Its school lunch program was just rated by the Physicians Committee on Responsibility and was given an F. They cannot even feed the kids in the public school system. Yet they say, no, that is where we want to send them, that is where they have to go. We are talking about kids whose parents cannot move to the suburbs. They cannot move to Ward 3. They are trapped in an area, in a monopoly system that is not even giving them a decent school lunch. By the way, that same system rated my county a B on its school lunch, rated the city of Detroit an A-minus, but the city of Washington gets an F on its school lunch program.

It is a system that has produced a disproportionate number of rapes, of assaults and robberies to kids in the public school system. Yet they say we want them to go to that school, a public school system, that we will just add more money, which we have done. Over $2,000 a year more is paid on a kid's education in the city than is paid in my county of Fairfax. If money were the answer, we would put money at it and solve the problem. But it is a failed institution. You cannot put, to quote biblically, new wine into old bottles. This is an old bottle and it needs fixing. It is a system that last week was found to have paid $59,000 to a phantom company that does not even exist.

For opponents of this amendment who say more money, it is the same old, same old, same old. If you do the same thing time and time again, you are going to get the same results. President Bush has talked about the soft bigotry of low expectations. We are trying to change that. These kids deserve every bit the opportunity that my kids have. The proof in the pudding here is that no Member of the House to my knowledge has sent their kids to the D.C. public school system in the last decade. The President and the Vice President, living here and given that opportunity to pick any school in the city, chose private schools.

We just want to give the same opportunities to the poorest of the poor. This legislation restricts it to kids from nonperforming schools, low-income. This is going to be, I think, a shock treatment to the public education system. Five years from now I hope we will not need this, I hope the public education will improve, but it is not going to improve without this kind of shock treatment. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis amendment.

[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2003]

Straight Talk on Vouchers

In making her case against a federally funded school

voucher pilot program, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) has

repeatedly said that D.C. voters are firmly opposed to the

idea. Thus, she argues, to support vouchers is to oppose home

rule. As the basis for her declaration, Ms. Norton cites the

results of an exit poll conducted in November for the

National School Boards Association. The poll, which she

supplied to this page, showed that 76 percent of the 603

voters interviewed opposed school vouchers. But as is true of

so much that stirs up this city, Ms. Norton's poll is hardly

gospel.

Let's look at the wording of the question posed in the

poll. It asked: ``Do you favor or oppose giving taxpayer-

funded vouchers to parents to pay for their children to

attend private schools even if that means less money for

public school students?'' Note the phrase ``even if that

means less money for public school students.'' That's a

loaded question if there ever was one. What majority would

favor that? It would be just as unfair if voucher supporters

sponsored a poll that asked, ``Do you favor or oppose giving

taxpayer-funded vouchers to parents to pay for their children

to attend private schools if that enables them to transfer

out of an inferior public school with low test scores?''

Imagine the responses to that question.

There is a less prejudicial way to measure public sentiment

on the school voucher question. The Post conducted a poll

based on random interviews with 1,002 D.C. adults in May 1998

that asked the following: ``Do you favor or oppose using

federal money in the form of vouchers to help send low-income

students in the District to private or parochial school?'' In

that poll, 56 percent of city residents said they favored the

idea, compared with 36 percent who opposed vouchers and 8

percent who had no opinion. Ms. Norton may be aware of that

poll as well, since the results and story were published on

May 23, 1998.

The Post's findings are consistent with the results of a

National Opinion Poll on education conducted with 1,678

adults in May 1999 for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Joint

Center for Political and Economic Studies. The center

researches and analyzes issues of concern to African

Americans and other minorities. The center's poll found that

``support for school vouchers among African Americans, which

has fluctuated in past Joint Center polls, grew by 25 percent

since 1998 with 60 percent of African American respondents

favoring school vouchers.'' But beyond polls is the question

of actual demand for school choice. Not only are parents

expressing their strong desire for alternatives, as the

popularity of public charter schools attests, but private

associations that provide scholarship assistance to D.C.

students seeking enrollment in private or parochial schools

also report strong requests for help from D.C. parents.

Shouting that support for vouchers doesn't exist in the

District won't make it so. Neither will over-the-top rhetoric

and personal invective that add little substance to the

debate.

Mr. Chairman, let me just set the record straight here, Mr. Chairman, because they talk about audits of time, there will be no audits of the private schools. That is false. The private schools that participate in this have to go through extensive recordkeeping and comparisons and will go through more when the Department of Education has written their regulations. So that is false.

There are no terrorism schools that currently would be eligible for this money as I read the legislation. So, again, that is just a red herring put up there to try to defend the existing status quo which has produced a failing school system that is depriving tens of thousands of District youngsters the kinds of opportunities that children around the rest of the country get.

I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has an amendment that wants to compare with Fairfax County. Let me make a point. The District of Columbia pays more per student than they pay in Fairfax County or Arlington. If this were a money problem, they would get the money, but they have a school system that when given the money has not been able to produce textbooks on time, was under court order to repair its schools, wasted just last week $59,000 on a phantom contract to a company that does not even exist.

Mr. Chairman, let me again just say how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on a number of other issues. We have a difference on one issue that we will resolve today on the House floor and then we will go on, and we will be working together on other issues tomorrow.

But this is an important issue; it is important I think to all of us. And this is not dollars to private schools; these are dollars to parents. Because what has happened to the District of Columbia over the years, thousands of District residents have moved to the suburbs so their kids could get a decent education that they could not get in the city. Thousands of District residents send their kids to private schools because the public schools in the city have failed them.

Not one Member of Congress, not a member of the city council, currently has their kids in the public schools of the District of Columbia. They are not good enough for our kids, but they are good enough for the people who cannot afford otherwise. This is a chance to equalize opportunity. That is all it is.

It has been requested by those poor families that came before our committee and testified. They said, We have been waiting for years. They said they are going to fix the system, and 9 percent of our school children are reading proficiently in the 4th grade.

That is the problem, and that is what we are trying to fix, not defend a system that is failing our kids.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 119 regarding sole source contracts on the grounds that this section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and is, therefore, legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). This creates an historic opportunity for families and students of the District of Columbia. This amendment can make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of low-income children from nonperforming schools in the District. It represents a shot at a better education and, of course in turn, a better life.

The condition of the D.C. public schools, I think, is clearly documented. We have talked about this earlier today in the debate. It has concerned me since the first day I came to Congress as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee. And while we have made strides in so many areas of the city since that time and some in education, the quality of educational opportunities should continue to worry all of us.

One thing is clear, I think both sides agree to this: Too many children in our Nation's capital are not getting the education that they need and that they deserve. Lower-income families concerned about the quality of safety of their children in the D.C. public schools should not have to resign themselves to sending their kids to underperforming schools where students are not adequately motivated to perform.

Over the past decade, Congress has spent considerable time and resources working with the District to reform its education system, but the ability of D.C. schools to meet key performance goals has long been plagued by financial mismanagement and a host of other problems, which means just throwing money at this problem alone is not going to solve it. Despite concerned efforts by local officials to improve the public school system, and there has been some progress, we are not getting the kind of progress in improving academic performance that ought to be available to these kids.

I have traditionally opposed Federal dollars going to private schools because I think Federal dollars ought to be targeted to the public schools. Of course, in this case, we give the dollars directly to the parents who make those choices. But for the District, which does not have a State government to rely on, as we take a look at other voucher programs around the country, cities work in concert with States. The District does not have a State. So I think we have an obligation here to answer the calls from the mayor, the chairman of the school board and the Washington Post and other advocates for D.C. children, and we have to ask this question: Would not more choices funded by new Federal dollars provide a needed alternative for low-income children attending low-performing schools?

Our committee heard testimony on this before we gave authorization authority. The mayor was asked, specifically, if he had this money for vouchers, if he could use it for something else, would he not rather use it for the public school system? He said no. He said we need this alternative as well.

It stands on its own and this is additional money that would not be available to the District of Columbia public schools were it not for this amendment. I have received calls from parents who are frustrated, angry, and distraught by their children's school situation. These parents have attended our hearings. They have danced and wept when our committee approved school choice legislation. But I think it is time to do more than just sympathize. This is a moral imperative.

The school choice debate should not be about politics or interest groups. We should have an honest appraisal of the state of affairs in our public schools and about offering an alternative for students and parents, and what is being proposed is not a mandate. It is a choice. The goal of school choice for the city is addition, not subtraction. We all want the city's education system to improve, and I hope that this is a short-term effort to do something about it. The fact is the monopoly of the D.C. public school system is harming kids, not helping them. It is time to shake up that monopoly.

This amendment expands educational opportunity to city students in underperforming elementary and secondary schools, underperforming schools. Other schools, kids do not get the aid. The choice program would be established through a competitive process, administered by the Department of Education, to ensure that the public or private entity that administers the initiative would be dedicated and capable of carrying out a top-notch program.

And there are reporting requirements, many to be written later by the Department of Education, but the legislation here, I think, has criteria that it sets out that need to be met in terms of going on to college, performance levels, tests, and the like. It would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to eligible students to cover the cost of tuition fees and transportation expenses. It would be considered assistance to the students, not the schools. In order to assure accountability, an evaluation is conducted that would consider the impact in academic achievement attained by the program.

This legislation is a result of a lot of negotiation and consultation with city officials, elected city officials, with the administration and committees with key jurisdiction in Congress. For the first time ever, the mayor, the elected Democratic mayor of the District of Columbia, has come to the conclusion that `` . . . if done effectively, this program would provide even more choices for primarily low-income families who currently do not have the same freedom of choice enjoyed by their affluent counterparts.''

Enhancing educational quality in the city is a critical component of maintaining the positive momentum we have seen in recent years under the stewardship of Mayor Williams and the Council. It is our duty to provide resources so that the kids can have a brighter future. This is not a panacea, but it is a significant step in the right direction and, hopefully, one that will not be needed indefinitely.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I say to my friends on the other side that we are going to disagree about this, but I think we want the same thing for all these kids, eventually. We will be working together on a number of other issues, but it is my considered judgment, having given a lot of time and thought to this, that this is probably the best thing we can offer, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, they have to be accredited. They have to meet D.C. standards, number one.

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Department of Education would carry the list, it is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. And regardless of how this comes out, I hope we would work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman raised the point of what happened in Florida, and we do not want that to happen. I think that is very clear.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the Department of Education will carry the accredited list at this point, in terms of eligible schools. Not just any school willy-nilly is eligible.

Correct. That is my understanding.

That is my understanding.

The Secretary of Education is the one I think that would set that standard.

To my understanding, it is not a discrimination based on that, but they would have to meet certain academic performance standards. This was drafted, of course, looking at the court cases in line to make sure this met the requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer the gentleman's question, but let me stop at this time and make sure we can get our advocates up, and maybe we can further this discussion if time permits.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there is no exclusion of any religion, or inclusion. The Secretary of Education is the one that would be able to come forward with a list and make the determination. As the gentleman knows, there have been a number of court decisions along this line, and we feel this meets the mandate of the courts, and it has to meet a certain level.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we leave discretion with the Secretary of Education. Let me say there have been a number of title VII cases that do deal with education, and that would be the criteria that the Department would meet. But we did not try to micromanage the criteria. They also have to meet certain educational standards, and that would really be the controlling criteria, is meeting educational standards.

That is correct. We leave that to the Department of Education.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern. Every school has to meet the nondiscrimination provisions that are currently in the law as well, if that gives the gentleman some level of comfort.

Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the gentleman to let me get through my speakers and then we can continue the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the leaders on the original underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and one of the authors of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I hope the chairman recognizes the authorizers' role in overseeing GSA in this and the appropriators' role in this and will keep us in the loop, and will not try to authorize without consultation with the authorizers.

Am I correct on this, or am I being rolled on this?

Mr. Chairman, my question is although the Committee on Appropriations has appropriations oversight, I would hope we would work with the authorizing committee on GSA, which is the Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, as we work towards language on this.

We have spent a lot of time on these issues as well. The language of the gentleman from New York was worked out and shared with us. I hope this is not an attempt on the part of the appropriators to once again override authorizing committees and try to accomplish what they could not accomplish on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Maryland for taking leadership on this, and my colleague from the District. I have asked the chairman of the subcommittee, I know he is interested in this as well.

This is something that 9/11 shut these airports down. They are actually very, very important to the Nation's security here in terms of ingress and egress, and we have, I think, a national interest in preserving these. As was stated before, it is just a pittance, but it is important to keep them economically viable.

Let me ask the chairman of the committee can he work with us to make sure that in conference this money is included if he is not comfortable with where this money is coming from at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 212 on the grounds that the section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and is therefore legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 621. This section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and is therefore legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 350) congratulating Lance Armstrong for winning the 2003 Tour de France.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 350.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 350 congratulates Lance Armstrong for winning the 2003 Tour de France, a race many consider the most grueling sporting event in the world.

Mr. Speaker, on July 27 Lance Armstrong won the incredible 23-day bicycle race through French mountains, countryside and cities to become the fifth cyclist in the 100-year history of the race to earn five Tour de France victories. Even more impressively, Lance won the race for the fifth consecutive year, becoming only the second person ever to do so.

Since this House recessed for the summer the same weekend as Lance's victory, I am very proud that on its first day back this distinguished body is recognizing the inspirational Lance Armstrong and his unbelievable courage, grit, and determination.

Lance Armstrong, one of the giants of American athletes over the last decade, was born to a 5'3", 105-pound 17-year-old mother in the suburbs of Dallas in September 1971.

Growing up, while other classmates were playing football or partying, Lance spent much of his free time running, riding his bicycle, swimming and exercising. At the age of 13, Lance began to enter triathalons all over the U.S. where he biked, ran and swam with the Nation's best.

As a high school senior, Armstrong qualified to train with the U.S. Olympic team, but ultimately he focused solely on cycling. As a cyclist he won the U.S. National Amateur Championship in 1991. Over the next 5 years, Lance won 12 bike races, including the World Championships in 1993. By 1996 Lance Armstrong was a top-rated cyclist in the world, but it was during 1996 after a victory at the Tour DuPont in North Carolina that he began to feel more fatigue and discomfort than usual, even after an exhausting race. Later that year he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Some of Lance's doctors at the time gave him only a 40 percent chance of surviving. He would say later he thinks that they were only being nice when they said that.

Lance soon underwent three major operations and chemotherapy to fight off the disease that had spread to his abdomen, his lungs and his brain. The treatments were successful; and within a year of being diagnosed with cancer, he was pronounced cancer free. As a survivor, Lance has become one of the world's most influential cancer research advocates. Lance founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation to promote cancer research and awareness. He also wrote the best selling book, ``It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life,'' that tells the full story of how his early successes were interrupted by cancer, how he survived cancer, and how he eventually returned to racing and won his first Tour de France in 1999.

This year, having never won the race in his previous five victories by less than 6 minutes, Lance made his fans sweat a little bit. He ultimately won the 2,125 mile race by 61 seconds after he endured rain, fog, heat, illness, and even protesters, not to mention the indescribably punishing course.

President Bush called to congratulate him on the night of his fifth straight triumph.

In his book, Lance describes in gut-wrenching detail the miserable initial symptoms of testicular cancer. He explained the anguish of how it felt to learn he acquired the deadly disease in 1996 at a point when his racing career was literally just starting to take off. Perhaps the following excerpt that describes his life's spirit is the more enduring words of his book. He said, ``I want to die at 100 years old with an American flag on my back and the star of Texas on my helmet, after screaming down an Alpine descent on a bicycle at 75 miles per hour. I want to cross one last finish line as my wife and my 10 children applaud, and then I want to lie down in a field of those famous French sunflowers and gracefully expire: the perfect contradiction to my once anticipated poignant early demise.''

Mr. Speaker, Lance Armstrong is an incredible role model to all citizens for his relentless work ethic, unmatched physical fitness that has helped him become perhaps the greatest cyclist of all time. It is remarkable that he achieved his great accomplishments in the cycling world after he overcame cancer, proving to all that a person can not only defeat cancer, but can thrive after beating it.

Mr. Speaker, Lance turns 32 years old this month, more than 7 years after he miraculously overcame the cancer that experts said he had less than a 50 percent chance of surviving. Almost as remarkably, he has assured all his fans that he is determined to pursue a sixth straight Tour de France victory next summer. I, for one, cannot wait to cheer him on.

For all of these reasons, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 350 that commemorates Lance Armstrong's fifth Tour de France victory.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, on behalf of the House, I want to congratulate Lance Armstrong for his most recent Tour de France win. I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 350.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2309) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Signal Hill, California, as the ``J. Stephen Horn Post Office Building,'' as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2309.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2309, as amended, introduced by my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Long Beach, California, as the ``Stephen Horn Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would rename this southern California post office after one of our most distinguished former Members, Congressman Steve Horn. Congressman Horn retired this past January at the conclusion of the 107th Congress. He was one of the most intelligent, respected and admired Members of the House of Representatives, and we are all proud to have had an opportunity to serve with him and to recognize his service today.

Congressman Horn spent his entire professional life around or within the Federal Government. Along the way, he particularly studied and mastered the procedural details of succeeding as a legislator on Capitol Hill. He has viewed the legislative process from every possible perspective: as a congressional aid, an executive branch staff member, an academic, a writer and, ultimately, as an elected official.

Following his extensive education that includes a master's degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, Steve Horn began his career in public service in 1959 as an aide to then-Labor Secretary James Mitchell in the Eisenhower administration. Within 2 years, Steve came to Capitol Hill for the first time as a legislative assistant to former California Senator Tom Kuchel. I first met him when he was an aide to Senator Kuchel when I was a young page over in the Senate back in the 1963-64 time frame, and I will never forget his replacement, when he left the Senator's office, who was a young man named Leon Panetta who also went on to serve and was distinguished in this body.

After stints as a senior fellow with the Brookings Institute and a dean of American University, Mr. Horn returned to California as president of California State University at Long Beach. From his studies and experience, he has written important books on congressional ethics, parliamentary procedure, and the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Professor Steve Horn left academia to make a run for the Republican nomination to the House of Representatives in 1988. Although he came up short in that race, he ran another campaign 4 years later in a different district in 1992 and won the Republican nomination. During the general election season, he based his campaign headquarters out of his son's apartment and mailed out nearly 50,000 15-minute videotapes to voters about himself. As a result of his efforts, Steve Horn was elected to the House of Representatives from the 38th District of California in November of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, once he was elected to Congress, Congressman Horn quickly became known as one of the most diligent Members of the House. He tirelessly chaired the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations until his retirement, and I was very fortunate to have served on that subcommittee during his tenure. He held countless hearings that aimed to improve the accountability and effectiveness of the Federal Government. Specifically, he was a leader in encouraging Federal agencies to prepare their technology systems for the Y2K bug and worked on various government debt collection bills that aimed to allow the government to obtain outstanding debts.

Today, Congressman Horn lives in semi-retirement with his wife Nini in California. He continues his public service to this day, working in a consultative role with the National Academy of Public Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2309, as amended, that honors Congressman

Steve Horn for his 5 terms in the House and his service to the people of California and the entire Nation. He was a rarity, a very bipartisan Member of this body, looking not at interest groups, not at partisanship, but for what he felt would be the best result. I think this institution would be better served with more Members like Steve Horn. This is an appropriate acknowledgment of the service that he gave his country here in the Congress.

I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for introducing this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) for introducing this important legislation. Steve Horn was not an athlete, he was not a recordholder, but he was in every sense a champion, a champion of good government and government efficiency and a champion for the American people.

I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2309, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my good friend, Mr. Stuart Finely.

Present-day Northern Virginia is characterized by swaths of economic and residential growth, traffic, and the frenetic pace of those eager to get ahead. But amid this hustle and bustle lies the unique community of Lake Barcroft--a place that holds a special place in my heart and in the hearts of all of those lucky enough to have lived along its shores.

Lake Barcroft is a man-made lake located in the vicinity of Seven Corners area of Northern Virginia, offering an oasis of peace and tranquility in an otherwise busy suburban region. As with many such places, the work of a few dedicated souls has been instrumental in creating and maintaining the special flavor so many now enjoy.

Stuart Finley was such an individual. A man whose dedication and industry were instrumental in making Lake Barcroft the special place it is today, and without whom the lake might not even exist.

Over a span of almost fifty years, Stuart dedicated innumerable hours to projects involving the lake. He was an early president of the Lake Barcroft Community Association, then later served as chairman of the engineering committee. But through the numerous positions with different organizations, perhaps the most fitting title for Stuart was ``community problem solver.'' Be it organizing dredging projects or the purchase of the lake itself, Stuart was intimately involved.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, as a resident of Lake Barcroft, I wish to express my gratitude to Stuart Finley and pay tribute to his lifetime of community service. Northern Virginia is a better place due to his efforts, and I appreciate this opportunity to express my regret at his passing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say good-bye to Eve Butler-Gee, the Chief Journal Clerk in the House, who will retire at the end of August after 20 years of service to the House of Representatives.

Eve began her professional career in the House. After an interlude working for a charitable foundation, she returned to the House in 1987 as the Minority Enrolling Clerk of the House. She served in that capacity for 8 years before her appointment as Chief Journal Clerk in 1995. With this appointment, Eve became the first woman in the history of the House of Representatives to serve as Chief Journal Clerk.

Eve and three assistant journal clerks are responsible for keeping the journal of the House proceedings in that big journal minute book which we see her with here every day at the rostrum and which we vote on half the time. According to House rules, the first order of business each day is the vote on the Chair's approval of the Journal of the last day's proceedings. The Journal Clerk's office also publishes the journal of each session of Congress for use as a reference by the House Parliamentarians, Members of Congress, regional libraries and State governments. Under Eve's direction the publication of the House Journal has been brought up to date and publication procedures modernized and refined.

Much has transpired during her service on the House rostrum staff. The House has voted on the Gulf War resolution, grieved a gunman's killing of two U.S. Capitol policemen, evacuated the House during the attacks of September 11, enacted counterterrorism measures, dealt with anthrax attacks and voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Eve has often said that she has been privileged to witness history every day in this Chamber.

Those who know Eve Butler-Gee know her faith life and her service in the Episcopal Church is also an important part of who she is. She serves as head verger at the Church of the Holy Comforter in Vienna, Virginia, where her husband, Tom Gee, also serves as director of lay liturgists. After her retirement, she plans to serve as a volunteer verger at the Washington National Cathedral. She and Tom plan to spend their time traveling and enjoying the comfort of friends and family, including Eve's daughter and son-in-law, Lora and John Williams, her grandson Evan, and Tom's son Sean Gee. Tom and Eve also eagerly await the birth of a new grandchild in December. Following a trip to Ireland in September, Eve hopes finally to have the free time to resume her lifelong interest in writing and community theater.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank her for her faithful service to this body and wish her health and happiness in the years to come.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is midnight California time.

I thank my friend for being part of this 15-hour celebration.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 436, I was off the House floor and didn't hear the bells. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any attempts to cut funding for Andean Counterdrug Initiatives (ACI).

July 13 marked the third anniversary of Congressional approval of Plan Colombia. We need to reaffirm, not dismantle, our commitment to this program, to the people of Colombia, and to American citizens. I have led three congressional delegations to Colombia over the past five months. I can say firsthand that our significant investment is beginning to pay dividends. Together with the strong commitment of the Uribe Administration and historic levels of support from the Colombian people, U.S. involvement in Colombia is beginning to hit narco- terrorists where it hurts.

We are seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication, and Plan Colombia's efforts have produced record reductions in coca production and in the destruction of drug labs. Each week brings news of new seizures of cocaine and heroine--interdictions that are usually the result of U.S.-supplied intelligence. In fact, just three weeks ago during my most recent CODEL, Colombian officials seized over a ton of cocaine from a drug trafficking boat off the Carribean coast.

The Colombian government is reestablishing state presence in areas of the country that for decades lacked it. Criminals who have remained at bay for years are being captured and extradited to the United States for prosecution. During the first 11 months of President Uribe's tenure, 68 individuals have been extradited from Colombia to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, Plan Colombia is working. I have seen firsthand the devastation that drug production and trafficking has on Colombia. To those who question our investment, I would ask them to visit, as I have, Colombian soldiers who have lost their limbs or eyesight or sustained permanent disabilities in their battle to return peace to their nation--and keep drugs off American streets.

I would also ask them to visit Barrio Nelson Mandela, a USAID- sponsored facility for internally displaced people who have been forced from their homes by drug traffickers and guerillas. This facility showed me how our work on behalf of Colombia's millions of internally displaced people is offering men, women, and children a second chance at a violence-free, productive life.

My travels to Colombia have shown me just how critical U.S. assistance is to their government. With such promising results over the last 3 years, we need to sustain the momentum.

Of course obstacles remain, and progress is slower than we would like it to be. But now is not the time to turn our backs on this battle that is so intrinsically tied to our war on terrorism and the scourge of illegal drug use.

The Uribe Administration is committed to this war. But it needs United States assistance to improve mobility, intelligence, and training. Make no mistake: Colombia today is doing its share. Spending on security forces has increased under President Uribe from $2.7 billion to over $4 billion.

We simply cannot afford for President Uribe to fail to rid his country of the narco-terror threat. Nor would Colombians understand such a step if this amendment prevails.

The Administration requested $731,000,000 for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) for fiscal year 2004. Full funding of this request is critical to sustaining our success in Colombia and to protecting Colombia's neighbors from a spillover effect.

It's simple, Mr. Chairman: Now is not the time to turn our backs on the progress we are making against narco-terrorism in Colombia. We cannot win this war on drugs and drug-supported terrorism without the proper tools and resources. Vote ``no'' on the McGovern amendments.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, they concede the point of order. What they are doing is legislating on an appropriation bill without any consultation with the committee of jurisdiction. We offered to work out language on this, and we were rebuffed and therefore we are going to keep our point of order. We hope that in the future if you have concerns, you will speak with the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order, on page 47.

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve points of order.

Can I strike the last word?

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any points of order in this section.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, two sections of this, on page 47 and page 55, lines 19 through 23, there are two sections here that are basically legislating on an appropriations bill over which our committees has jurisdiction. We have discussed these sections with the gentleman from Virginia and have come to an agreement that we will not at this point exercise a point of order, but want to work with the committee in the future as they draft these bills to work with our committee so that we can craft appropriate language to meet our mutual goals.

Is the gentleman in agreement?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard. Let me just say this also falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. I was coming over to also offer our objection to this section because this was put in without consultation with our committee, and this is under our jurisdiction.

However, after listening to the gentleman from Virginia explain the rationale put forward by both the Federal Communications Commission in defending the policy and looking at the wide array of special interest trips that have been paid for by special interests to employees of the FCC, this is probably an appropriate vehicle to try to stop that process and try to raise the regulatory regime there to make it freer from interest group influence.

Obviously, if somebody goes on a paid-for trip, is put up in a hotel, gets their golf game paid for, and it is paid for by an interest group that is regulated by the FCC, we should stop it.

So we are not going to exercise a motion to strike on this. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate him bringing this forward. I hope he will work with us during the next year as we craft these together so that we can keep these jurisdictionally a little bit clearer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, section 603 puts a limitation on 5 United States Code section 3109 and restricts the use of temporary outside consultants and experts by the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State to contracts that are a matter of public record.

Because of exceptions to this section, it does not significantly restrict these outside consultants. But this again falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. We have consulted with the chairman on this. He feels very strongly about this issue. We will not raise a point of order on this, but hope that in the future we can work together on these sections, exercising our joint jurisdictions for the public benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 607 (a) and (b) on the grounds that this section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. And it is therefore legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 20th anniversary of the Lake Ridge Fellowship House of Woodbridge, Virginia this Saturday, July 19, 2003.

Located on the southernmost edge of Virginia's 11th congressional district, this affordable housing development opened its doors in June 1983. Serving over 100 seniors on fixed incomes, Lake Ridge Fellowship House has grown into a vibrant example of community activism. Four out of five of these seniors are women, many of whom are widows who have lost a breadwinner's pension and a lifelong companion. Lake Ridge fills a unique niche in the Woodbridge area by supplying elderly residents with a safe environment in which they can enjoy recreational, educational and community-oriented activities.

Lake Ridge is one of only four privately owned fellowship houses in Virginia that are operated by the Fellowship Square Foundation, a subsidiary of the Lutheran Church. Sponsored by the Lutheran Lay Fellowship organization, it is a shining example of how the power of faith is used to fulfill a wide range of needs in our communities.

Lake Ridge provides affordable housing to both independent and mobility-impaired individuals. It provides secure and stable residences for seniors, thereby safeguarding citizens who might otherwise be unable to fully fend for themselves. In addition, Lake Ridge hosts arts and crafts, social activities, and boasts quiet reading alcoves. To better assist its mobility-impaired residents, the fellowship house makes available transportation to and from local shopping areas. Among the most critical services Lake Ridge provides is an around-the-clock emergency call system. Mr. Speaker, Lake Ridge Fellowship House is more than mere housing; it is the foundation of a rich and meaningful way of life for hundreds of senior citizens.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Lake Ridge Fellowship House for providing twenty years of selfless commitment to Northern Virginia, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating their 20th anniversary.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment be adopted.

The Buy American Act applies to supplies costing more than $2,500 and establishes a preference for domestic supplies that are manufactured in the U.S. Generally, it applies to acquisitions below the $177,000 Trade Agreements Act of 1979, TAA threshold.

Commercial firms are required to certify compliance with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing them to civil false claims and other sanctions, even if they have made a good faith effort to comply with the Government-unique requirements. This creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more information technology and goods so critical for the Government's needs being sourced in our global economy from around the world.

Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by establishing costly, labor-intensive product tracking systems that are not needed in their commercial business, to ensure that products being sold to the Government meet the government-unique requirements. In a few cases, companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the federal marketplace, denying access to some of the latest, more cost-effective products.

The Buy American Act imposes financial and legal burdens on the taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the Government. This restriction on the Government's ability to obtain needed technology goods from the World market is a cold war anachronism. Given our growing reliance on information technology and other advanced products--and the current global nature of industry, the Government's ability to get the goods it needs at reasonable prices will be crippled by this restrictive provision.

Therefore, I ask support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me make a couple of comments.

First of all, the underlying language in the bill gives me concern because it stops all competitive sourcing in the Department of Interior. I think the current administration plans are probably an overreach. I think there are a lot of concerns that are expressed over the current A-76 circular, and I get concerned sometimes that they may be biting off more than they can chew, moving a little faster and competitively sourcing too many things at one time and not exercising the appropriate oversight.

But I think banning it in its entirety from this or any other agency is probably ill-conceived because, after all, this is one of the pillars of the administration's management policies, of their agenda. This provision constitutes really an unprecedented intrusion in the executive management discretion.

Having said that, I do want to express a couple of concerns about the President's agenda on this issue. One is that we need to be concerned about Federal employees who enter for career service and will have their jobs uped every 5 years. And I think for competitive sourcing in terms of their being able to look at the appropriate career path, particularly in some of these areas, we have talked to a number of Members on this, and if we could get some kind of reading where the President would have some kind of flexibility in this area, I think we could move ahead.

I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), offering this amendment. I think it is the right way to go when you get overreaching amendments like this on there, and I certainly support his efforts.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman's comments on the Park Service. The difficulty with this amendment is it was Department-wide throughout the Department of the Interior. Hopefully, we can come up with some satisfactory language that will satisfy the gentleman's concerns and ours as well.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, I would have the time yielded to the Committee on Government Reform in addition to the time yielded to me by the Committee on Energy and Commerce?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. Boehlert asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act. This bill provides the government with the necessary tools to develop and purchase vaccines and other drugs to protect Americans in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

The President first announced this proposal during his 2003 State of the Union address. It is the cornerstone of the administration's strategy to prepare our Nation against the possibility of a bioterrorist attack. The bill we are considering today was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and was referred to the committee, as well as the Committee on Government Reform which I chair, and the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It is a good bill which serves a compelling national interest.

As we tragically learned during the fall of 2001, our Nation is vulnerable to biological terrorism. Letters laced with anthrax caused the deaths of five individuals and thousands more had to be treated. The death toll could have been higher if there had not been an effective countermeasure to treat that form of anthrax. Unfortunately, there has been little progress in treatment for other deadly diseases, like smallpox, Ebola and plague, which effect few, if any, Americans.

The reality is that there is little manufacturer interest in developing necessary treatments for these diseases because there is no significant commercial market existing outside of government. The absence of financial incentives has provided drug companies with little reason to make the substantial investment that would be required to develop treatments for these deadly diseases.

Should the United States be attacked with any of these deadly pathogens, the needs for vaccines, tests and treatments would be great, and it would be immediate. H.R. 2122 is designed to ensure that our country is prepared. The bill provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with a number of flexible acquisition tools based on existing streamlined procedures to promote research and development and procurement of necessary drugs and vaccines. These tools are instrumental to the success of the BioShield program.

For example, the bill increases the simplified acquisition threshold for research and development projects from the current level of $100,000 to $25 million. This increase will help the Secretary promote sophisticated research and development projects by streamlining the acquisition process. The bill also authorizes the procurement of biomedical countermeasures, again using tailored, flexible acquisition tools for inclusion in the Nation's stockpile using a special reserve fund.

The Secretary would also have expedited authorities to award research grants and hire technical experts and consultants. During national emergencies, the bill would permit the government to make available new and promising treatments prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, held a hearing to examine the BioShield proposal on April 4, 2003. Witnesses from the government, academia, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies were supportive of the bill. They all recognize the need to create incentives for manufacturers to develop biomedical countermeasures.

Our committee favorably reported the bill on May 22. Working in a bipartisan fashion with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), we unanimously adopted some amendments to ensure greater accountability in the acquisition process and to clarify the circumstances when biocountermeasures can be processed.

Specifically, the amendments we approved permit the use of simplified acquisition procedures only when the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a pressing need

for the procurement of specific countermeasures. The bill commits decisions about research and development projects to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. However, we approved an amendment which preserves a limited right for companies to appeal to the General Accounting Office contracting decisions made by the Secretary, but appeals could not be used to stall the research and development procurement process.

We also made some technical changes that seek to clarify the circumstances when the Secretary could use other than fully competitive procedures for research and development and production contracts.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, and it makes them more likely to be involved in this process.

We think that all of these amendments, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for working with us as well, have been agreed to by the majority and the minority on the various committees; and they are part of the bill that we are considering today.

Since our markup, we have continued to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. This issue is really too important to play party politics with. We have worked out language to ensure that the rights of contractors with respect to payment are protected in the event they are terminated for convenience. This is a good bill and deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Thomas' willingness to clarify that FEHBP plans will be able to take advantage of the subsidies in H.R. 1. However, I have another concern that Federal employees are often treated differently from current Federal employees in ways that are not always equitable. For example, current employees are allowed to pay their health insurance premiums from pre- tax dollars; retirees are not. I know this concern is shared by a number of my colleagues, but specifically Jo Ann Davis, Chair of the Civil Service Subcommittee. I am pleased Mrs. Davis will soon be taking up that specific issue in her subcommittee.

FEHBP currently does not provide different benefits for retirees and current employees--one simply is a member of FEHBP. I believe it is important this dynamic remain, once a Medicare prescription drug benefit is put in place. As Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I look at this from an employer's perspective. We do not want private employers to drop the prescription drug coverage they provide for their retirees. H.R. 1 includes incentives so they will not do so. However, we as the Federal Government must lead by example.

Along with Chairwoman Davis, Frank Wolf, and Jim Moran, I have introduced legislation that simply states that Federal retirees will remain on par with current employees when it comes to prescription drug benefits. I regret we were unable to include this language in H.R. 1, but am grateful to have the commitment of Speaker Hastert and Leader Delay to bring this bill to the floor as soon as we return from recess.