Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), whose predecessor I might say, Mr. Chairman, Louis Stokes, was one of the great leaders on our committee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding. This has been an extraordinary experience for all of you young people. Some of the best young people in America are chosen to come here to see firsthand American democracy in action. You have heard Members from time to time talk about this as the people's House, and that is what it is. A group of extraordinary human beings got together in 1787 in Philadelphia in what Catherine Drinker Bowan in a book the Miracle at Philadelphia called appropriately a miracle and created a government, a way that people could resolve their differences and set policies for their future. It perhaps does not seem quite extraordinary from the vantage point of the 21st century as it was in the 18th century, such a construct was unknown in the world. Now, in the world, there is a shining example for every Nation in the world, and it is the United States of America. It is that Constitution that was written in 1787. It is an extraordinary document, and this House was created specifically to represent the people, directly to represent their passions, their fears, their hopes and their vision, and it does so. And as all of you live in communities and you see sometimes the people have great aspirations and sometimes they have feelings that are not so great, that are small, and, perhaps, not worthy of themselves or their community, and you see that reflected here as well sometimes. But over the decades and, yes, the centuries that this House has been the repository of the hopes and visions of the American people, it has for the most part acted well and, as a result, is the example throughout the world of what a democratic institution ought to be. Now, the body across the way, in which you have not served, the United States Senate, was created, as you know, as a representative of the States, of those 13 independent Nations that got together and formed a Nation, and, in effect, it gave up some of their sovereignty but made a deal in the process to make sure that the States were represented in the United States Senate. In the last century, of course, we amended the Constitution, they are directly elected, not by the State legislatures, it is this House elected every 2 years that was designed to reflect the will of the American people. And you, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) said a little earlier, had been given an extraordinary privilege. Think of all the millions of young people your age in America today and think of how few of you got the opportunity to visit here, be here and work here every day that we were in session. And you got to learn firsthand how well this extraordinary experiment in democracy, in people working together to resolve problems and set policies can and does work. Because you had been given a significant privilege, you also have a very serious responsibility, and that responsibility is to go home and talk to your friends, your fellow students, people who you will work with, your parents, your sisters, your brothers, your aunts, your uncles and other relatives, and tell them about their democracy. And, hopefully, you will go from here excited about what you have learned and excited about this process and urge people to participate in their democracy, by voting certainly, but by participating as well on behalf of the party or candidate or policy of their choice, because that is what makes this an extraordinary body. It reflects the sentiments of citizens, but it can reflect the sentiment of citizens only to the extent that they participate and articulate those sentiments and let the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) know those sentiments and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). And because you have firsthand knowledge that millions and millions of Americans will never have, you have had a special privilege, but also, as I said, a particular responsibility. I would be remiss if I did not say to James Kelly from my district, who, in a few short years, will either vote to hire me again or fire me again, how pleased I have been to have him here. And I know every Member feels as keenly about each of you whom they had the privilege of representing as I do about Jim Kelly. This is a graduation of sorts. I see some tears, and there will be more, but those ought to be tears not just of sadness. You will have made friends that you will keep for all of your lives and information and knowledge that you will never lose. Use it well. Thank you for your service, not only to us, not only to this institution, but to your country as well. Congratulations. And Godspeed. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, to inquire about next week's schedule.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would, therefore, adopt the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. HOYER. So the Secretary's premise, Mr. Chairman, was to add this money, which the President included in his bill, $14 million, to reach out to those with disabilities. When George Bush, Republican President of the United States, signed the disabilities act on July 26, 1990, he said to all those with disabilities in America, 43 million people then, over 50 million now, he said to all those folks that we want to include them in; we want to give them the opportunity to work. But we have not succeeded. Why? Because we have not made the effort. We passed the bill. Very nice. As the American public knows, to say in a statute rhetoric that they are free or they can work or they are going to be educated is fine, but if we do not work to make that happen and it is not reality, our country loses, and those with disabilities lose.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that it is flat funded at $9 million. But this is a new initiative. So the entire thing is cut. This is a new initiative to switch from the commission into an office. And the premise of Secretary Herman was that we were not succeeding. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said, well, if we are succeeding, do away with the program. If we are not succeeding, do away with the program.

Mr. HOYER. The Office on Disabilities is cut $14 million in the chairman's bill from the President's request of $21 million or $23 million.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). He has put forth a number of propositions. Those propositions are that we have an outstanding economy; we have a surplus. Our colleagues differ on the reason for that. My view is that because of 1990's bill, which they largely voted against, and the 1993 economic program, which every one of them voted against, we have this economy and we have these surpluses. As a matter of fact, as they, I am sure, know, their own CBO just 2 years ago said that the reason we have the surplus is because of the 1993-94 Congress, which, of course, the Democrats controlled. And in the two Congresses subsequent to that, the Republicans added $12 billion to the debt, while we reduced it $142 billion. So that is what the Republicans' CBO says. But that aside, this is a substantive important debate. It is about priorities. And I want to say to my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for whom I have, as he knows, unbridled respect and affection, he got up initially in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois and said, look, we have the best economy that we have had in a very long period of time. We have 3.9 percent unemployment. And as a result of that, people are employed, people are working, and, therefore, they do not need the services and, therefore, we can cut, as he said, in real terms these programs. Now, I hope the chairman will listen to me, because while his general proposition may be true, it is not true for one of the specific cuts that I am going to speak on. This bill adds $14 million back into the bill through this amendment for those with disabilities. In 1990, in a very bipartisan way, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. George Bush signed that act on July 26, 1990. One of the titles in that bill was to get those with disabilities into the job force so that they could work, so that they could support themselves, so that they would have a substantial measure of self-respect. As the chairman well knows, there are only 29 percent of those with disabilities who are working in America today. Only 29 percent. Now, that means, without much math, that 71 percent of those with disabilities are not working. It is not 3.9 percent, 14 percent, 18 percent, or 25 percent. It is 71 percent of those with disabilities who are not working. So Secretary Herman suggested to the President that we add some money into this bill, approximately $21 million, for the purposes of establishing an office that would reach out to those with disabilities, reach out to employers and bring them together so that they could be employed and have, as Mr. Gingrich so often referred to, an opportunity society. Well, it meant, as George Bush said, an opportunity society for those with disabilities. What the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is trying to do is to say that Secretary Herman and President Clinton were correct; that we need to make this effort, we need to make sure those with disabilities are brought into the workforce. And I would say to my friend that over three-quarters of those who are not working want to work. They want to work. What this initiative of the President, which the gentleman has cut out of his bill, is trying to do is to help those people work. We passed a welfare bill. It was controversial, but its premise was that in America if an individual can work, they should work to support themselves and to have a sense of self-worth and good feeling about themselves. We know that that expands the ability of human beings to feel good about themselves and be healthy.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I too congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for his leadership of this committee, but this bill does not represent the gentleman's leadership; and it ought not to be hung around his neck, because if he were in charge, this would not be his bill. These would not be his figures. This would not represent the depth of his priorities. So let us not delude ourselves, I say to my friends. Newt Gingrich stood on this floor, and he talked to the perfectionist caucus on the Republican side of the aisle; and he pointed out that the American public sent a President, House Members, and Senate Members, and the real problem with why we have gridlock in Washington and why we have the absurd charade through which we are now going, and undercutting the American people's priorities, not just our priorities, is because there is one group that does not agree with most of the other groups; and it is, I say to my friends, the Republican Conference within the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of people stand up here and say oh, what you Democrats want to do. Do you not want the American public to know that what we want to do, our colleagues in the United States Senate have already done in their committee? Their figures are more than our figures, I say to my colleagues, not less. They too believe that our Republican colleagues are undercutting America's children and America's families and America's health; they too, our Republican colleagues in the Senate, not just those on this side of the aisle that you would like to say oh, look at how awful they are, and then show your charts about your spending. It is interesting, the red lines they put up showing more spending. What a different story you tell at home about how you are cutting spending. My colleagues cannot have it both ways. But they try; but they try. For instance, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) got up here and said this is a 14.6 percent increase. Hooey, hooey. It is a 3.8 percent increase. Why? Because last year, my Republican colleagues played games and they pretended the 302(b) numbers were at $84 million, their figures. But guess what? They then added on a lot of money after that so the real spending was $96 billion. But it did not count on the 302(b)s. Now, why are we here? The American public must wonder, why are we having this debate? Because we are discussing priorities. I am going to offer an amendment and talk about how many children and families are adversely affected by this bill as opposed to the priorities we are offering and the priorities they put forward across the Capitol in the United States Senate. But we are here because we are deciding between those large tax cuts that my colleagues do not like us to talk about. They lament and say, oh, these numbers are not good; but we had to do this because the budget makes us do it. However, nobody made us adopt the budget. Nobody made us adopt the large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are going to shortchange children and families. I tell my friend from North Carolina, nobody made us do that. We did it ourselves. Not with my vote, but it was done. And as a result, we are going to talk about the number of children and families that will not be served, but that the Senate wants to serve on both sides of the aisle and that we want to serve. I hope my Republican colleagues will support my amendment. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, a bill designating the Washington Opera in Washington, DC, as the National Opera. This opera company is known for the number and quality of new productions, discovery and nurturing of important young talent, and an international collaboration system with leading foreign companies. The Washington Opera has achieved the stature of a world class company and plays to standing-room only audiences at the Kennedy Center Opera House and Eisenhower Theater. Like so many other institutions in Washington, the opera attracts, entertains, and educates people from all over the world. The company has averaged 98% attendance over the last fourteen season. It now earns approximately 65% of its total budget through ticket sales, raising the remaining 35% through contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations. A sign of fiscal strength, this ratio of earned to contributed income is the highest of any opera company in the country. Beyond the value of music itself, increasing evidence clarifies the role of music in the intellectual and social development of our community. The opera allows people to cross language and cultural barriers, increase understanding, and build tolerance in a multi-cultural setting. The Washington Opera remains true to its mission of presenting the highest quality opera in the Nation's Capital, broadening public understanding and awareness of opera, and maintaining opera as a living art form. Mr. Speaker, for over 40 years this opera company has been a beacon of light not only for the Washington, DC community, but also for the entire Nation. People from all over the United States and the world realize this opera company is a reflection of our Nation's commitment to the arts. As a cosponsor of H.R. 4542, I stand in support of this bill to designate the Washington Opera as the National Opera and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and honor the life of Mr. George William Robertson, a community activist in Southern Maryland fondly known simply as ``Capt. Billy.'' Captain Billy was born in Baltimore on June 12, 1930, and grew up along the Potomac River. By the age of 19, he knew he wanted to live off the water and built Robertson's Crabhouse on the Potomac shores in Popes Creek. He purchased Capt. Drink's restaurant in 1986 and renamed it Capt. Billy's. Captain Billy had many pastimes. In addition to his passions for the water and his restaurant, he owned Dahlgren Hardware Store in Virginia, was an avid horseman as he loved to race with friend Gene Euster, a zealous golfer, and a competitive bowler who was inducted into the Duckpin's Bowler's Hall of Fame. Another passion of his was cars, which he turned into a business by opening Capt. Billy's Auto Sales on U.S. 301 in La Plata. Every week with friend Dave Phillips, he attended car auctions throughout Maryland and Pennsylvania. Captain Billy was diagnosed with gall bladder cancer in January 1999. Together with his friend Robert Mitchell, he sponsored a benefit golf tournament in August 1999 at Swan Point Golf Course in Issue. Four hundred golfers participated to raise $170,000 for the American Cancer Society. For his efforts to fight the disease, the American Cancer Society recently presented him with the Excalibur Award. In addition, he was a strong supporter of Civista Medical Center in La Plata. At the first Mardi Gras Ball sponsored by the Physicians Memorial Hospital Foundation, he was crowned ``King Rex.'' Robertson also raised money for Richard R. Clark Senior Center in La Plata, Hospice of Charles County, United Way of Charles County, Melwood, local churches and schools, and supported Newburg Volunteer Rescue Squad, Bel Alton Volunteer Fire Department, and local softball and baseball leagues. In closing Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to speak on behalf of the people of Southern Maryland, for whom Captain Billy gave so much, and thank him for all that he has done to benefit our community and our country. We remember his life and the memories he has given us. On behalf of the people of my district, thank you Captain Billy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one who has consistently voted against normal trading relations for the People's Republic of China. Today, however, I will vote for PNTR because I believe the facts have dramatically changed. Our deep disagreement today is not on the ends that American policy seeks to achieve, adherence to human rights and worker rights by all nations. Our difference is on the means to achieve those ends. Contrary to what critics say, PNTR provides no blank check for China. In fact, China has agreed to make historic trade concessions that it has never agreed to before, opening its markets, slashing its tariffs, and agreeing to abide by the global trading system based on the rule of law. If they renege, so can we. In contrast, our annual votes never required China to make any concessions whatsoever. Still, China has received NTR status year after year after year. At best, our annual votes on NTR had a minimal effect in mitigating repression and human rights in China. As the current ranking member and for a decade chairman of the Helsinki Commission which monitors and advocates human rights, I believe that the Levin-Bereuter proposal is an important contribution to this bill. The bipartisan proposal would establish a congressional executive commission on China. As our experience with the Helsinki Commission indicates, a China commission will be a more effective mechanism for maintaining pressure on China on human rights, worker rights, and rule of law issues than our brief annual reviews. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that this vote also is critical, in my opinion, for our core national security interests, which include the stability of China and Asia in general, and the peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. That is why our allies in the region support PNTR and China's accession to the WTO. Engaging China through trade and the WTO enhances, in my opinion, the possibility for dialogue on other security interests from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to global climate change. Mr. Speaker, as the most powerful Nation on Earth, we have a responsibility to engage China, the most populous nation on Earth and move it, if we can, toward democratic reform, market economics, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. As President Kennedy stated in 1962, ``Economic isolation and political leadership are wholly incompatible. The United States has encouraged sweeping changes in free world economic patterns in order to strengthen the forces of freedom.'' These words still ring true today. Let us seize this opportunity for a more stable and safer 21st century.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong and an unapologetic supporter of the mission of our Department of Defense, and even more, of the United States Navy. I have two of the Navy's most outstanding facilities in my district, the Naval Air Facility and the Naval Ordnance Facility at Indian Head. I support the United States Navy. But Mr. Chairman, I also support the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of America. I support giving him the ability to resolve crises with the confidence that the Congress of the United States will support that resolution. If we do not do so, Mr. Chairman, he will lose that ability, whoever that President might be, if the other side in a crisis situation, in a conflict situation, in a situation difficult to resolve, believes that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, cannot be counted on to make a resolution which will stick. Mr. Chairman, it showed a great deal of courage, I will say, for Governor Rossello to stand and say, this we will agree to, not because it is what we would choose, but because it is a way out of a difficult situation. It was a difficult and courageous task when the gentleman who represents Puerto Rico, the former Governor of Puerto Rico, stood and said, we need to resolve this issue. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who was born in Puerto Rico, who worked in Puerto Rico, who was handcuffed in Puerto Rico, for her to stand up for her principles, it was a courageous thing she did as well, and for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Mr. Chairman, let us adopt the Skelton amendment and support the Commander in Chief under our Constitution of the Armed Forces of the United States. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I attended a ceremony in Annapolis, Maryland, at which Governor Parris Glendening signed into law a bill creating the ``Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Program.'' Because of my attendance at that ceremony, I was unable to vote on two amendments to H.R. 4205, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. Had I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment numbered 2 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) (Roll No. 194). I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment numbered 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) (Roll No. 195). Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Luther

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the distinguished ranking member from Baltimore for his remarks. I also want to thank him for his outstanding service on this subcommittee. He brings a perspective that is critical to the subcommittee and his leadership I think will redound to the benefit of Federal employees for years to come. I thank him for all his work and leadership. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida. The gentleman from Florida brings, in my opinion, a new perspective to the chairmanship of this subcommittee, a perspective that is a positive one and I too think that that will also redound to the benefit of Federal employees. And so I thank him for his leadership and service on this committee. Mr. Speaker, this measure before us would allow activity and retired Federal employees, military personnel and their spouses to purchase long-term care insurance as a group. I do not see her here on the floor, but I wanted to make some comments as well about my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). She has played a critical role in the formulation of this particular piece of legislation that is important to Federal employees and she has an appreciation for the long-term care costs and the challenges that families face. I want to congratulate her for her efforts. The advantages of pooling, Mr. Speaker, incorporated in this bill for the Federal workforce is significant. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that using the leverage of a risk pool this size could drive down the costs of insurance as much as 15 percent to 20 percent. My colleagues often hear me say that it is incumbent on the Federal Government to be a model employer, whether it be in pay, benefits or diversity, I think that it is critical that the Federal Government be a standard for other employers to emulate. Mr. Speaker, hopefully, other employers will follow our lead in this legislation and start providing this benefit because it makes such a difference and is such an important area. In the Washington metropolitan area, Mr. Speaker, the costs of long- term care can exceed $50,000 per year, average at least $3,000 to $3,500 a year, well beyond the means of almost every family; I do not mean poor families, almost every family will find this cost too much for them. This bill gives families some measure of security, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and others who have worked so hard to bring this matter to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, each year on the 24th of April we commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. As we begin a new century, it is critical that we redouble our efforts to battle the forces of hatred and intolerance that perpetuate the persecution of people because of their ethnic, racial or religious identity. The massacre of Armenians in Turkey during and after the World War One is recorded as the first state-ordered genocide against a minority group in the 20th Century. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, it was not the last. In the 85 years since this unspeakable tragedy, the world has witnessed decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing, wholesale persecution of people simply because of who they are--European Jews, Bosnian Muslims, the Tutsis of Rwanda, Kosovar Albanians. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the magnitude of the Armenian genocide and those that followed in the past century, the words of Helen Keller ring true. ``No loss by flood and lightening, no destruction of cities and temples by the hostile forces of nature has deprived man of so many noble lives and impulses as those which his intolerance has destroyed,'' she said. Mr. Speaker, we honor the memory of the Armenian people who perished and express our condolences to their descendants. We stand with them and together reflect upon the meaning and lessons of their suffering and sacrifice. We must reflect, we must learn, but we must also be prepared to act. Let us vow in this century and for all future generations to make the words ``never again'' ring true. Mr. Speaker, while we remember their tragic history we also marvel at the strength and determination of the Armenian people. Independent Armenian statehood has been restored to guarantee the security and future of the nation and serves as an inspiration to Armenian people everywhere. Since gaining its independence Armenia has made great strides in fortifying democratic institutions and promoting a market economy, but the road has not been easily traveled and the way ahead will not be without challenge. Mr. Speaker, we also honor the memory of Armenia's leaders who were killed by a shameless band of assassins last year. We express our condolences to their families and to the people of Armenia. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Armenian people will continue to strengthen their democracy and prosper. It is my fervent hope that the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh will renew and redouble their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement and to help bring peace and prosperity to the entire region--now and for generations to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 310, supporting a National Charter Schools Week. I commend my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, for highlighting the charter school movement and urging the Congress and the Administration to demonstrate support for our nation's charter schools. Mr. Speaker, from 1989 to 1999, the number of students enrolled in public schools increased by 6.7 million, and the U.S. Census projects that our nation's school-age population will continue to grow throughout the century. In fact, many states have seen double-digit increases in school-age population. As this population continues to grow, our commitment to finding new and innovative ways to meet the changing needs of educating our youth needs to grow as well. Charter schools offer our communities the ability to enroll their children in schools that enjoy autonomy over its operation and freedom from regulations that other public schools must follow, but also are held accountable for improving student achievement. Nearly two-thirds of newly created charter schools seek to realize an alternative vision of schooling, and one-fourth were founded primarily to serve a special target population. Many charter schools also serve a large number of lower income students, minority populations and students with disabilities. Not only does this resolution acknowledge the charter school movement's progress and future promise, but it also encourages the President to issue a proclamation to demonstrate support for charter schools and establishes a National Charter Schools Week. Our nation's 1700 charter schools and the 350,000 students who attend them deserve our support and recognition. I want to thank Mr. Roemer for his continued leadership on this important education issue and your dedication to providing flexibility to our nation's schools.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the Twenty-first century dawns, fire remains a serious threat to life and property, especially for the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress, and their occupants and visitors. Today, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), co-chair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), I am introducing a bill intended to enhance fire protection of the United States Capitol complex and the safety of the thousands who work in or visit the complex every day. No one can deny that the Architect of the Capitol, the official responsible for operation and maintenance of the complex, has taken steps to improve fire safety on Capitol Hill. However, recent reports warn that much work remains in order to make these buildings safe. A December 1998 report by the House Inspector General found the condition of House's fire-protection systems, such as alarms and sprinklers, to be ``deficient.'' A follow-up report just issued by the Inspector General warns that the AOC continues to take a ``haphazard approach'' to fire protection throughout the House complex. A January 2000 complex-wide inspection by the Office of Compliance identified numerous violations of occupational safety and health standards made applicable to the Congress by the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act. The Compliance Office subsequently issued eight citations requiring corrective actions, including two requiring prompt implementation of a program of inspection, testing and maintenance for key fire-protection systems and equipment. This Congress must take every reasonable step to make fire protection of the Capitol complex and its occupants a top priority. To assist the Architect in fulfilling his responsibilities in this area, and to enhance the status of fire-safety and protection efforts, out bill will create within the Architect's office the position of Director of fire Safety and Protection. Reporting directly to the Architect, The Director will coordinate and take charge of fire-protection activities and work to bring the Capitol complex into compliance with the applicable codes and standards established by the prestigious National Fire Protection Association. The work of the NFPA acknowledges the difficulties associated with protecting historic buildings like the Capitol from fire, and our bill provides the Architect the flexibility he needs to preserve the Capitol's historic character. The measure requires the Architect to report regularly to key House and Senate committees on his fire-safety and protection efforts. Mr. Speaker, there are doubtless several reasons progress on fire protection of the Capitol complex has not been more rapid, but the simple reason is that the subject has not received sufficient attention. By creating a high-level official within the Architect's office to carry out all fire-safety duties, this bill will correct that problem, expedite progress, and make clear that Congress is serious about protecting the complex and its occupants from fire. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the words of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) on behalf of Mr. Spoon's nomination to the Smithsonian Board of Regents. Mr. Spoon is indeed, as has been represented by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), an outstanding American, an outstanding member of this community, a distinguished business executive; and he will bring a wealth of knowledge, experience, and wisdom to serve on the Smithsonian Board of Regents. I share the view of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) that he will be a very, very worthy addition to this Board and will serve the Smithsonian and the Nation well. I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I rise in support of this resolution. I have listened to the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) with reference to Dr. Ibanez, and I concur in those remarks. Mr. Speaker, the Smithsonian Institution is, as my colleagues know, both a museum of extraordinary note but also a very distinguished academic institution. It not only displays knowledge, but it diffuses knowledge, as well. Dr. Ibanez has served with distinction on the Smithsonian Board. So we have had Mr. Spoon, who is going to bring a new perspective, and Dr. Ibanez, who will continue to have an institutional memory of what has come before and what should go in the future. So I am very pleased to rise in support of this resolution and to, frankly, thank Dr. Ibanez for agreeing to continue to expend his very valuable time in this volunteer way on behalf of a great American institution, in fact a great world institution, the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, timing is important, and I had the opportunity to come into the room just as the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was talking about my efforts on this matter. But I would like to mention as well one additional person who sits to the chairman's right, or to the ranking member's right, chairman-in- exile, as I call him, Susan Brita, who has been an extraordinary asset to the House and, frankly, to the committee, the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for an awful lot of years. She probably knows as much about these matters, about construction matters and the General Services Administration and so many other matters related to our infrastructure as any staffer on this Hill. I want to thank her for all the efforts she has made. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member, too, for working very closely with her so he does not make mistakes. It is always a good judgment that all of us make to have good staff. Also, I want to thank the chairman, who is not in exile, but who is on the job, for his efforts and my colleague from Montgomery County, Mrs. Morella, for rising in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have obviously, as the House of Representatives, responsibility for this hallowed Hill, this center of democracy in the world. It is, I think, extraordinarily appropriate that, for the last few number of years, we have made available a part of this Hill over which we have authority for an enterprise that has literally taught thousands and thousands of young people, entrepreneurial spirit, competitive spirit, family working together, because, although those young people are responsible for building their carts, they do get some advice from and counsel from dad and mom and brothers and sisters from time to time, I know. But this is truly an American enterprise. The Soap Box Derby is something that I think all of us have known about for almost all of our lives. It is an enterprise that takes the contributions of American business, of American volunteers, and certainly of the young people and their families. This will be the 63rd running of the greater Washington Soap Box Derby, and it will take place as my colleagues have heard, Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of this year. This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, as is necessary, as I have said, as well as the Capitol Police Board and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out the running. That obviously will not be, I think, a difficult job, although the concerns of the Capitol Police and the Architect must be met and, in fact, are met. In the past, the full House has supported this resolution, of course, unanimously. But I do want to thank all of those in the Washington metropolitan area. This is not a partisan issue, obviously. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) who has spoken, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others spoke supporting this resolution. From 1992 to 1999, the greater Washington Soap Box Derby welcomed over 40 contestants per year which made the Washington, D.C. race one of the largest in the country. Participants, as my colleagues have been told, I am sure, range from approximately 9 years of age to 16 years of age and come from communities in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. The winners of this local event will represent the Washington metropolitan area in the national race which will be held, as it has been through history, in Akron, Ohio on July 22 of this year. The derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain valuable skills, not only in those that I mentioned, but in practical skills of engineering, aerodynamics, and other skills necessary to make that go-cart go faster than any other go-cart down that hill. Of course this is a beautiful Hill, Capitol Hill, to use as they go down on the west side of our Capitol. Furthermore, the derby promotes teamwork, a sense of accomplishment, sportsmanship, leadership, and responsibilities. These are attributes that we should encourage our young people to carry into adulthood. That is why this enterprise, like so many others, is critically important. I, Mr. Speaker, like so many in this Chamber, have the opportunity to be very much involved in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. They have a national charter from this Congress, and they report to us annually. Like the Boys and Girls Club, this enterprise gives young people a positive focus and positive way to participate in directing their energy in ways that will result in benefits to themselves and to our community. Mr. Speaker, I am more than honored to have been involved in this effort and thank all of the corporate sponsors, all of the volunteers, all of the parents, and, yes, certainly all of the young people who participate in this event. It is right that we give them the opportunity to do so on this historic Hill. I rise in strong support of the resolution.