Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Founding Fathers recognized that faith in God was critical to this Nation and any Nation. Indeed, they said our inalienable rights were God-given, not by the State, not by the king, but God-given. Mr. Speaker, I believe that no government on earth is powerful enough to exclude my God from any place that a person of faith raises their voice to pray to my God. I believe that faith is critical. But I also believe like the Act of Religious Toleration, passed in Maryland in 1643 by a Catholic colony concerned that the majority of Protestants in that colony would force them to practice the Protestant religion rather than the Catholic religion. Mr. Speaker, the concern here is to protect faith, to protect church, to protect those who choose to pray and who choose to worship in their own way. I believe that the first amendment was designed specifically for that purpose. Roger Williams, indeed a Baptist like me, was an antecedent to the creation of the first amendment. I believe that we do not need to amend this provision. But we do need to stress that faith in God and raising our voices in prayer continues to be one of the most important things that Americans can do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman consumed about 10 seconds on her presentation, and I will try to be equally brief. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to rise to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, and am rightfully proud of the heritage of Meg Goetz. The viewers on C-Span see the debate, sometimes acrimonious and confrontational, sometimes lacking in civility. Most times they do not see the staff who make it possible to have debates and to keep this institution going. Too few of us perhaps take the time to realize the contributions that are made by, for the public, probably nameless, and certainly for Meg not faceless, but for some faceless employees, who, day-to-day, week- to-week, month-to-month, year-to-year, through their dedication and commitment make it possible for us to function effectively as the people's House. Some have been here for many years more than most Members. Meg Goetz is one of those people. She has been here now for over two decades, and as the gentlewoman from New Jersey has said, she has brought to her job a great ability, but as well, a great demeanor. Her character and commitment to this democratic institution have added to its stature, and never, ever detracted from it. Few of us that serve in this body can say that we always did the same. I want to rise, not on behalf of the Democrats or on behalf of the Democratic leadership, but on behalf, Meg, of all who have served in this body during your tenure. As I am sure my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), will observe, and I do not want to steal her thunder, but I think it is so appropriate to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Meg Goetz is the first woman who has served as a Reading Clerk of this House, appointed by Tip O'Neill. In doing so, she had, I am sure, a special cognizance of her responsibility to her gender in that capacity. Every woman in America can be proud of their representative, their first representative as our Reading Clerk. Meg, I know that I speak for all who have served in this body during your tenure, who have enjoyed not only the competency with which you performed your task of informing the House from time to time what the business before the House was, of informing us of the amendments, of the messages from the Senate or from the President; yes, you have performed your duties in a very professional way, but in a very personal way for each of us you have been our friend, our adviser and counselor from time to time when you knew much more about what was going on than we did. And we would ask, Meg, what are we doing? And you always knew. It is, Meg, sad that you are leaving, but as the gentlewoman from New Jersey has observed, you leave very young with much ahead of you, and I know that you will carry with you the experiences in this House to whatever endeavors you now pursue, and that you will be enriched by those experiences, as you have enriched this institution, this people's House, this center of democracy, not just for America but for the world. It is, Meg, because of people like yourself that this body has functioned so well. Notwithstanding its weaknesses, its foibles, its personal failures from time to time, it is people like yourself who have given it strength, given it judgment, given it balance. So I am pleased, Meg, to rise with all those with whom you have served to thank you, to thank you for your dedication, and for your service, and for your friendship, and to wish you the very best in everything that you do in the years to come. Godspeed. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a special tribute to someone who has been part of this institution longer than myself and many of my colleagues. Although she is not a Member of Congress, her face and name is known to everyone in this chamber, (and to those thousands of adoring fans on C-SPAN). Mary E. ``Meg'' Goetz, the House Reading Clerk, is leaving us after 20 years of service to the House of Representatives. Meg is a 1978 political science/economics graduate from Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia, PA. She began her career with the United States House of Representatives in 1978 as a legislative information specialist. In 1981 she became the Assistant Journal Clerk, helping to compile and publish this important publication. In 1983 she became the House Reading Clerk. Often seen and often heard, Meg is an active part of the backbone which helps make the institution of Congress function. From her perch on the dias, she has had a ringside seat on the history of America. I know that my colleagues join me in wishing Meg the best of luck in her future endeavors.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise to some degree to lament and to another degree to urge us to come to grips with this issue. I rise to lament this procedure which I think does not do what ultimately we must do. And what ultimately we must do is to restore the confidence of the American public in their system of electing public officials, whether at the Federal level, at the State level or at the local level. Like some of my colleagues, I have been involved in politics for a long time, having first been elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. During that period of time that I served the State Senate 12 years, I voted on a number of campaign finance reforms. I was not here in Congress in 1974 when we adopted the far-reaching campaign finance reform regime and which, as the gentleman from California said, essentially exists today. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for the untiring and long-term work that they have undertaken on behalf of campaign finance reform. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) for his leadership on this issue. It was his focus, his discharge petition, and the disciplined approach that he took that, frankly, got us to this place. I will make a much more detailed, expansive discussion of campaign finance reform and my views of the specifics of those reforms when we return. It is, however, my hope that we will not add to the cynicism of our citizens by the course of this debate. Because if we do so, we will have served them poorly. If what we do is a political game, if what we do is beat our chests and say, on the one hand, the first amendment demands that we do not intrude in trying to make our elections more honest, more fair, more open, we will have not served the public well, nor will we have served our democracy well. If, on the other hand, what we do is play a political game where amendments fly across the field of battle and ultimately we pass no reform, we will have undermined the confidence of the public. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us be real, let us do our duty, and let us restore the confidence of the American public in their democracy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). It seems to me both amendments seek the same objective, and that is to ensure that we successfully confront the scourge of drugs in America. I am for that. But, unlike the formulation of the gentleman from Georgia, I do not accept the premise that I, therefore, have to be against Reyes and for Traficant. I am for Reyes because I think it is a more thoughtful way of accomplishing the objective. The President of the United States has put General McCaffrey in charge of our drug control effort. I do not think he is a wimp. I think he understands military security needs. I think he understands how to utilize the military. He is the former Commander in Chief of SOUTHCOM, as so many of you on this floor know. His advice is that we do not move in this direction at this time. I think we ought to respect that. I would also say, on a different front, that I am concerned, as all of you are, about conserving the resources we have available to keep this Nation secure. This bill does not have enough money in it for the military. I know some of my colleagues think that is not the case. I would be for spending more money in this bill. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I congratulate him for his leadership, and I agree with the chairman of this committee who have joined together in a bipartisan way to say, America, this is not a time to pretend that our security interests have been secured. This is not a time to retreat from our commitment and our responsibilities. We may not like being the sole superpower in the world, but that which we are, we are; and we have responsibilities. I am supportive of deployment in Bosnia. We have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and we have saved millions of people from being dispossessed from their homes. That is not only a moral good, it is a strategic good. I say to my friends that, although I am going to support the Reyes amendment, I, too, agree that we ought to make every effort possible to secure our borders from the scourge of drugs.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would like to commend the work of both the Chairman, Mr. Spence and the Ranking Member, Mr. Skelton. I believe the priorities which they have established in this bill are good for both our Nation and for our Nation's defense. We are preparing to enter the 14th consecutive year of real decline in defense spending. I am one of those who believe that we cannot continue to put the military at risk. The funding constraints imposed by the balanced budget agreement make our choices more difficult. However, we still must ensure that other priorities do not drive us away from one of the primary responsibilities the Congress has, and that is ensuring for the Nation's defense. We all realize that the United States holds a unique position in the world. People all over the globe look to us for security and stability. It may not be fair, but it is the reality. While our Military Forces are shrinking, operations around the world are increasing. The increased pace of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and other contingency operations is forcing our Armed Forces to do more with less. However, doing more with less is not always conducive with ensuring the long term readiness of our Armed Services. Our troops serving today in Bosnia are just one of the recent examples of our global leadership and responsibility. I continue to support our deployment of troops in Bosnia and believe the work they are accomplishing there makes America a better place and the world a safer one. I say to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member that their priorities are right for our Nation, we need to stand up for those priorities and pursue them. I support this bill to authorize $270 billion for critical defense needs in fiscal year 1999 and want to commend the committee for what is in the bill before us: a 3.6% military pay raise; the $2.7 billion for procurement of 27 FA-18 E/F's; $36.2 billion for continued research and development, which includes $456 million for the joint strike fighter; the continued support for the important mission of the special operations command; the $2 billion to purchase the second new attack submarine. The $285 million for 30 Blackhawk helicopters, 18 of which are for the Army National Guard; and the procurement of 8 V-22 Ospreys for the Marine Corps. I also want to commend Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Ortiz for their work on authorizing $8.2 billion for military construction. I commend the Committee for funding these DOD and Navy priorities and for addressing the needs of our men and women in the Armed Services.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is going to be a special order on behalf of my very good friend, Terry Sanford, led by the gentleman from North Carolina. Unfortunately, I cannot stay, but I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania giving me this opportunity to ask unanimous consent that my remarks be included in the record immediately following the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Sanford, Governor Sanford, was a very close friend of mine. I was one of those young people that came into politics when he was one of our most significant leaders. He was the governor of North Carolina. He was a courageous governor of North Carolina at a difficult time and brought great credit to his State and great credit to our Nation. And I am pleased to join my friends from North Carolina in honoring this courageous, committed American who, as I said, brought great credit to North Carolina, brought great credit to his country, and was a human being who represented the very best that America had to offer. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for giving me that opportunity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Portman and I have introduced The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998. This legislation eliminates duplicative paperwork for those individuals and groups attempting to get federal assistance. The bill also removes federal road blocks to coordinating service delivery for families receiving federal assistance. The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998 establishes the framework by which federal, state and local agencies can more efficiently deliver services to those in need. We have asked families to get back on their feet so they can take care of themselves and their children but our maze of federal regulations makes it more difficult for community programs to assist families in doing this. We must help these families to help themselves. The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998 coordinates federal service programs to better serve our Nation's children and families and I am pleased to introduce it today with my colleagues Rob Portman, Jim Moran, Chris Shays, Tom Davis, Steve Horn, Gary Condit, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Weygand, Rosa DeLauro, Jim McGovern, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Jim Talent, Mark Sanford, and John Sununu.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1998 Senator Terry Sanford died at the age of eighty after a long battle with cancer. He was a Governor, a Senator, a two-time Presidential candidate, a lawyer, an author and a president of Duke University. Growing up in the segregated south, the town of Laurinburg, North Carolina, young Terry learned the value of hard work and money from the abject poverty his family lived in after his father's hardware store went bankrupt. After a stint as a paratrooper in Europe during World War II, Terry Sanford returned to his native North Carolina to attend the University of North Carolina law school and to become the progressive voice of the Democratic Party in North Carolina. In 1960, Terry Sanford ran for Governor of North Carolina and faced a spirited campaign against an avowed segregationist. He was forced into a run-off but won with 56% of the vote and went on to become Governor of the State of North Carolina. Terry Sanford assumed the governorship at a very turbulent time in the history of North Carolina and the South. The historic sit-in at the lunch counter at Woolworth's began just weeks after he assumed his office. While some southern Governors were calling for resistance to this nascent civil rights movement and defended segregation, Terry Sanford called for moderation. In his 1961 inaugural address, Terry Sanford called for a ``new day'' in which ``no group of our citizens can be denied the right to participate in the opportunities of first-class citizenship.'' Along with civil rights and integration, Terry Sanford also stood for education since his earliest days. He created the community college system in North Carolina and the North Carolina School for the Arts in Winston-Salem and the Governor's School, a summer program for the most talented students in the State. He was recognized in a 1981 Harvard University study which ranked him as one of the Nation's top 10 Governors of the 20th Century. Constitutionally prohibited from seeking a second term, Terry Sanford looked for a new challenge. He started a law firm and turned down quite a few excellent opportunities such as becoming United States Ambassador to France, before he assumed the presidency of Duke University in 1970. At Duke University Terry Sanford doubled the Duke Medical Center's capacity making it a nationally recognized medical center and school and created the J.B. Fuqua School of Business. Continuing his dedication to Democratic politics, in 1972 Terry Sanford campaigned in the Democratic Presidential primary. Although he withdrew from the primary, Terry Sanford's ideas and ideals made an impact both in 1972 and during his second campaign for the nomination in 1976. In 1973, Terry Sanford was elected chairman of the 100 member Democratic Party Charter Commission which rewrote the party's Presidential nominating rules. He remained active in politics both in North Carolina and nationally. In 1985, Terry Sanford retired from the presidency of Duke University. In 1986, Terry Sanford ran for the United States Senate and defeated Republican Jim Broyhill. During his term in the Senate, Terry Sanford was remembered as a thoughtful legislator who took an interest in international affairs and education. He was a strong supporter of personal freedom and peace. In 1992, Terry Sanford lost his re-election for a second term to a former Democratic ally of his, now a Republican. One can only imagine what Terry Sanford would have accomplished in the United States Senate if he had been elected to a second term. After his loss, Terry returned to North Carolina, advising political candidates and spending time with his family. Mr. Speaker, Terry Sanford was a remarkable American. One who understood the challenges of his time and rose to the occasion. While all too often public servants run from the pressing issues of the day, trying to avoid difficult decisions and choices, Terry Sanford did not. His heroic stand against the status quo throughout his entire life, and his belief that he could make North Carolina and the United States a better place is what we stand here today to remember.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and certainly want to associate my comments with his. Section 203 also is of some concern in that it impacts on the premium pay that is earned by Customs employees. I would say to my friend from Florida, who is managing the bill, and my friend from California, I intend to vote for this bill when it comes up for a vote, voice vote or however it will be. But I will be watching very closely, as the gentleman from California indicates, what happens in conference. Very frankly, what was done as it relates to the employees and to the integrity of the contracts that they have negotiated and entered into gives me great concern. That is not the thrust of this bill, but it is one of the tangential impacts that I think should give everybody in this House concern. I hope that in conference these concerns will be addressed, this facet of it will be fixed, so that the very positive aspects of this bill can go forward. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning Akin Birdal, the President of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD), was gunned down in his Ankara office. A right-wing squad has claimed responsibility for the attack which left Turkey's most vocal human rights critic comatose. Since 1986, under Akin Birdal's leadership, the IHD has established itself as the largest independent human rights monitoring NGO in Turkey. Akim Birdal has appeared before the Helsinki Commission and met with its staff in Washington and Ankara. He is in high regard by legislators and diplomats around the world. In recent years he has received awards from the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Law Group and NGOs in Europe. Last year, he was elected Vice-President of the prestigious International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIHD). This vile assault takes place against a backdrop of repression and intimidation against rights workers throughout Turkey. The Government of Turkey has criminalized non-violent human rights advocacy. Security forces and right-wing death squads have collaborated in the murders of human rights activities, Journalists, Kurdish dissidents and others. More than a dozen IHD offices have been closed by authorities and IHD leaders, including Mr. Birdal face continuous legal and other harassment. Mr. Speaker, despite great personal danger, Akin Birdal and his colleagues dared to continue speaking against human rights violations by the State. The IHD has been especially critical of the ``dirty war'' waged against Turkey's Kurdish rebels. In recent weeks, the climate of intimidation escalated. Mr. Birdal reported numerous death threats against himself and his family. Unsubstantiated allegations by security officials leaked to the media stated that Birdal took orders from the PKK, an outlawed Kurdish guerrilla group. Mr. Birdal vigorously denied such allegations and denounced the ``primitive conspiracy'' orchestrated by Turkey's military rulers against their ``enemies list.'' Mr. Speaker, the shooting of Akin Birdal is a great tragedy for all who cherish human rights. His steadfast support for peace and non- violence is an inspiration to many in Turkey and abroad. IHD was working with NGOs around the world to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On this auspicious occasion, it is sad to note deteriorating human rights conditions in Turkey and a steady slide towards outright military rule. Instead of supporting the work of independent human rights NGOs, which make significant contributions to development of civil society and the rule of law, the Government of Turkey instead represses them, labels their members ``terrorists,'' and makes them open targets. Mr. Speaker, the United States Government supports Turkey militarily, economically and politically. Turkey is a NATO ally and member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I therefore welcome the settlement by the State Department spokesperson condemning the attack and urging that the perpetrators be brought to justice. However, our government must do more to demonstrate our commitment to democracy in Turkey. If we truly value a stable and long-term relationship, we must not continue to ignore the fact that the military's predominance in politics precludes true democracy. The inability of military or civilian administrations to peacefully address the Kurdish problem or the rise of Islamic political activism remains a recipe for disaster. The resulting political instability fuels the climate in which human rights activists are attacked, free speech is curtailed and other fundamental freedoms eroded. Mr. Speaker, as I speak today, my thoughts and prayers are with Akin Birdal, his family, his colleagues at IHD and all those in Turkey committed to the ideals of human rights and democracy. It is a sad day for all, and we can only hope that this incident will make people think and act seriously about the state of human rights in Turkey.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Speaker McHugh, for some of us, that sounds pretty good; I want you to know that. We are glad to have you back. Speaker Wright, Speaker Michel, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that, with all due respect, I said to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ray LaHood), I said, Mr. LaHood, I will get you 207 votes if you will get 11, and we will make Bob Michel the Speaker. But he still has not come up with those 11 votes, Bob. I don't know what the problem is, but we are working on it. I am very pleased to have the opportunity once again to be the designated hitter to welcome you back to the halls of Congress. One of my constituents from New Carrollton got an award this morning from the Small Business Administration, so I was down there. As I was driving back from the Grand Hyatt Hotel, I was thinking about welcoming this group back. The thought occurred to me that it is so nice to have you back, the generation that had those raging deficits. We have balanced the budget, you know. It was your generation that gave us the unrestrained Cold War, and we are welcoming you back now that we have solved that problem. But also I thought to myself, yours was the generation of unapologetic civility in the Congress of the United States. Those were the good old days, although I might observe, I am sure, that the civility is much greater in its recollection than it was in its experience, because I served with so many of you, and I know that there were acrimonious times even then. We are very pleased to have you back, because you are part of the brotherhood and sisterhood of those who had the opportunity of serving the peoples' House. I think all of us, and those who are in the Senate, I see three of my Senators are here, Senator Mathias, Senator Beall, and my patron, as all of you know, Senator Daniel Brewster, who employed me, and effectively made it possible for me to get through Georgetown Law School as a member of his staff. I will forever be thankful for his contribution to my success. We have two Republicans and a Democrat, great friends and great patriots all. We are pleased to have you back. One of my predecessors is here, Congressman Larry Hogan, who had the experience of having his son run against me some 6 years ago; but we have remained friends, and I am pleased to see all of you back. It is clear that this body and the body across the Capitol are perceived correctly by the world's population as being the repositories of how people get together in peaceful ways and resolve differences. So many of you have been heroes in that effort. Senator Baker is mentioned most recently for his role in the crisis confronting a democracy that saw the Constitution of the United States work its will, and the people's will reflected in a peaceful transition of power. So I am pleased, because I know that so much of what we do from a good standpoint, we do and are enabled to do because of the contributions that so many of you made. I had the privilege of coming to the House under Speaker Tip O'Neill, one of the beloved Speakers of this House. Then I had the great privilege of serving in what I perceived to be, and I know that that may not be a universal judgment, as the most productive Congress in which I served, the 100th Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Jim Wright. Speaker Wright, it is a privilege and pleasure to have served with you and to have you back, and recognize your great contribution to the history of this country and the history of this House. I am so honored to be with all of you, and so honored to recognize your contributions to America's well-being, to its role not only in this country, for its own citizens, but around the world. God bless you, good health, and I look forward to seeing you again, over and over. Thank you very much, and welcome.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. We have heard a lot of talk this year about the falling crime rate. Violent crime is down more than 16 percent in the past 5 years. We are very pleased with that, of course, across this country. This is a remarkable accomplishment. I might observe that many of us believe that the President's crime program and community policing have contributed to that result. But in the midst of celebrating, we must not forget the terrible price paid by the people most responsible for this achievement, police officers. We at the Federal level talk a lot about law enforcement, about crime, and about bringing down the crime rates in this country, but we know full well that it is not at the Federal level that we fight crime, not even, frankly, primarily at the State level, but the local level, at the municipal level. There were 159 police officers, Mr. Speaker, killed in the line of duty just last year; 159. The even worse news is this number was a huge increase from 1996, during which there were 116 line-of-duty fatalities. It is clear that it is getting more dangerous to protect the rights of citizens in this country. I believe this resolution is absolutely correct. It honors those law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, who have, in Lincoln's word, given their last full measure of devotion to the cause of protecting the rest of us from harm. For that devotion, the police officers of this country have earned the undying gratitude of their fellow Americans. Just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, we considered a bill to provide more bulletproof vests for officers. That is a crucial initiative, and I hope it will be signed into law within the month. But even with those vests, even with those vests, police officers will still have to walk out of the door each morning prepared, if necessary, to put their lives at risk in the name of justice, to put their lives at risk in the name of peace and good order, to put their lives at risk so that others of us might have safer schools, safer neighborhoods, safer communities, safer streets, put their lives at risk so that democracy and freedom and justice can prevail. These brave men and women are true American heroes, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve to be recognized, not just rhetorically, but in any way that we can, to recognize their heroism, to recognize their absolute critical role in the preservation of democracy and justice and order. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to briefly comment on the last speaker's observations, I think he is absolutely correct. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I have participated in a brief ceremony earlier today in which we honored the police officers here on Capitol Hill who responded to the fire in Longworth and who also responded to the fire in the O'Neill Building. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made the observation that we lost 28 people in the Persian Gulf War when that Scud attack occurred and they were in their barracks; and we lamented that loss, properly so. It was a grievous loss for our country. As I mentioned just a little while ago, over 150 lost their lives last year as police officers on the streets of America. It is right and proper that we honor them, as we honor those who we ask to defend us abroad, that we equally honor those who we ask to defend us here at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), a member of the House, but who was a former law enforcement officer, a sheriff himself, and knows firsthand that which we commemorate.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend, for those very kind remarks. I want to thank the Committee for reporting this resolution out in a timely fashion. For the last 7 years, Mr. Speaker, I have sponsored a resolution for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby to hold its race along Constitution Avenue, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) has said. I proudly introduced H. Con. Res. 255 to permit the 57th running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which is to take place on the Capitol grounds on July 11 of this year. This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police, and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out the running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby in complete compliance with rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol grounds. In the past, the full House has supported this resolution, once reported favorably by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I ask my colleagues to join again with me along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in supporting this resolution. From 1992 to 1997, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby welcomed over 40 contestants which made the Washington DC race one of the largest in the country. This event has been one of the largest steps in turning the local area into a grand event for kids. Participants, as it has been said, range from 9 to 16, and hail 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 in Akron, OH on August 8, 1998. The Derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain valuable skills, such as engineering and aerodynamics. Furthermore, the Derby promotes teamwork, a strong sense of accomplishment, sportsmanship, leadership and responsibility. These are positive attributes that we should encourage children to carry into adulthood. The young people involved spend months, Mr. Speaker, preparing themselves for this race, and the day that they complete the race makes it all the more worthwhile. In addition, this event provides parents, local residents, and tourists with a safe and enjoyable day of activities. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution on behalf of the children and families of the Washington metropolitan area. Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat like motherhood and apple pie, the Soap Box Derby. Young people using their talent, with an objective and goal in mind, teaching them lessons that will be good for them throughout their lives. It is young people like these contestants in the Soap Box Derby who, I might say, Mr. Speaker, are all winners, all winners for having participated, set for themselves a goal, exercised their talent and enterprise to achieve that goal, and then participate in the competition that is so much a part of life. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the committee for reporting out this resolution in a timely fashion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on September 27, 1998, Cheltenham United Methodist Church will celebrate its 125th anniversary. This white- framed country church in Cheltenham, Maryland has been serving the religious and secular needs of its community since 1873 when its founders met under the chestnut trees that grew where the church now stands. Although small in size, Cheltenham Church is very active and has a number of ministries that reach out to the local community and beyond. A few of their many activities include serving meals at the Hughesville Shelter for Battered Women, making 1000-plus sandwiches for the homeless for Martha's Table in Washington, D.C., contributing to the Upper Marlboro Food Bank, assisting patients at St. Elizabeth's Hospital at their Sunday church services, and sponsoring several needy families in the area. Cheltenham Church is an excellent example of late 19th century rural church architecture. Among its other features, the original doorknob and chandeliers remain. The pulpit, still in use today, was made from a cherry tree that fell on church property before the church was built. The bricks for the foundation were hauled from nearby Nottingham by horse and wagon and had been used during the 18th century as ballast in English ships. Although the church stands a short distance from a major highway, it retains much of its historic setting, buffered by its historic graveyard. It is a noticeable landmark in a still rural area of Prince George's County. To the members of Cheltenham United Methodist Church, and to their members who have gone on before, we congratulate you on your 125 years of service to your church and to your community!

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding the time to me and I rise to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) as the principal sponsor of this legislation; also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and others on the committee who have worked on this legislation. This is truly bipartisan legislation which is aimed at trying to make our law enforcement officers safer. We ask some Americans to do an extraordinary thing; that is, to put on a badge, put on a uniform or in plain clothes to protect us every day, to face the most dangerous people in our society who would undermine our safety, would take our property, and place at risk our families and our neighbors. This bill is a bill that will, I think, enjoy overwhelming support. It is appropriate that we tell local subdivisions, both State and local, municipal, that we will participate with them in trying to ensure further the safety of those we ask to defend what is vital in any democracy, and that is peace and good order. Obviously, democracy cannot flourish in a society if law and order is not also present in that society. So the very essence of a police officer's duty is to preserve and protect the Constitution and the democratic way of life. So this is a very, very important piece of legislation. It is appropriate that we pass it this week when we make note of the contributions and the sacrifices and the courage shown by so many in law enforcement throughout this country. I am pleased to be a supporter of this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and being so generous in the yielding of time. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), whom I just saw leave the floor. I know the gentleman made a statement on this bill before, but I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) introduced legislation to deal with the deadbeat parent problem of those leaving States to avoid the payment of child support. There was a problem that existed because States were faced with requests to enforce misdemeanor offenses in another State, and the State of residence of the deadbeat parent was reluctant to act. I went to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and said I wanted to introduce legislation to up the penalties for these serious, egregious failures to pay child support. He agreed. I introduced that legislation. I am very pleased that the gentleman has now introduced similar legislation in the last few days, and we have this on the floor. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have worked very closely on this. I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, rise in strong support of this legislation, which sends a clear and unmistakable message to deadbeat parents who attempt to use State borders as a shield against the enforcement of child support orders. That message is, you can run, but you cannot hide from the child support you owe. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act along with my friend, whom I mentioned earlier, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Deadbeats Act is a companion to legislation introduced by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, which unanimously passed the Senate this year. This legislation will stiffen penalties for deadbeat parents in egregious interstate cases of child support delinquency. It will also enable Federal authorities to go after those who attempt to escape State-issued child support orders by fleeing across State lines. Under the Child Support Recovery Act sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in 1992, to which I earlier referred, parents who willfully withhold child support payments totaling more than $5,000 or owe for more than 1 year, are presently subject to a misdemeanor offense punishable by not more than 6 months. Current law also provides that a subsequent offense is a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison. H.R. 3811 addresses the difficulty States frequently encounter in attempting to enforce child support orders beyond their borders. This legislation will augment current law by creating a felony offense for parents with an arrearage totaling more than $10,000 or owing for more than 2 years. This provision, like current law, would apply where the noncustodial parent and child legally reside in different States. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will make it a felony for a parent to cross a State border with the intent of evading a child support order where the arrearage totals more than $5,000 or is more than 1 year past due, regardless of residency. H.R. 3811 is not simply about ensuring just punishment in intentional severe cases of child support evasion; it serves to complement other Federal child support enforcement measures to help States establish and enforce child support orders. The ultimate goal, of course, Mr. Speaker, is to put deadbeat parents on notice and to induce compliance. Our cumulative efforts, Mr. Chairman, will increase parental accountability, decrease child poverty and dependence on public assistance, and erase the notion that nonpayment of State-ordered child support is a viable option. Congress, of course, cannot force anyone to be a loving, nurturing and involved parent. However, by acting together, we can strengthen the government's ability to make parents fulfill their minimum moral and legal responsibility, which is to provide financial support for the children they bring into this world. The deliberate neglect of this obligation should warrant serious consequences for the parent, as serious as the consequences are for that child who is in need of those provisions. The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997 will ensure that this is the case, even for those who attempt to use State borders as a barrier to enforcement of child support orders. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation today, and I want to thank the 50 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation, especially, as I said, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say, as someone who has practiced law for over a quarter of a century, who, in fact, tried his last case in 1990 prior to our changing the rules which prohibit me from practicing law further, I was always concerned about how child support was perceived to be perhaps less important to deal with than some other matters that came before our courts; that it was sort of put at the end of the docket, and that the practical judgment was that clearly we cannot incarcerate a father, because then he will not be able to pay it all. I say ``father,'' because over 80 percent of those parents who are referred to as deadbeat parents are the fathers who believe that they can participate in bringing a child into the world, but then somehow not participate in supporting that child. Indeed, the consequence of that is many times to expect a result in the rest of us supporting that child. We have talked a lot about responsibility. We talked about responsibility in the crime bill. We talked about responsibility in the welfare bill, where we expect work. Here we are talking about an expectation of responsibility as a parent. As I said earlier, we cannot make a parent love a child. They ought to, and we would hope they would. But we can certainly expect that they will support that child and try to bring that child up in a way that will give that child some opportunity. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his help with this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Tauzin amendment. I was also supportive of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). I rise in support of this amendment because I believe that a contract should have the highest regard by this body. In fact, the Constitution prohibits us from abrogating contracts. The fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and others have pointed out, the judge found that there were alternatives. In other words, there were parties with whom the parties dealing with COMSAT could have dealt with alternatively. The judge found that for economic reasons, obviously of their choosing, they did not do so. In fact, they made an independent judgment to enter into a contract. They may not like that contract now. This is not an unusual circumstance. On the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, for instance, on the telephone contract that the Federal Government had, we were constantly looked to to abrogate the contract and allow new competition prior to the term of the contract expiring. So this is not unusual. Parties to contracts often come to the Congress or to the legislatures and seek for a new deal or, as this amendment says, a ``fresh look.'' Well, ``fresh looks'' are nice. ``I liked the contract a year ago, but I do not like it now. So how about a fresh look, troops? Let us look at it one more time, freshly.'' Well, the person that does not like the contract may think that is very nice, but the other person with whom the contract was made may think to themselves that is a jaundiced look, not a fresh look; it is a look that they have taken advantage of the contract for as long as they determined was advantageous to them, but now, ``Guess what? I want to change the deal.'' Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues would support the Tauzin amendment. This ``fresh look'' provision that is contained in the bill is not fair. It is not fair because it says that the contracts that were entered into freely, as the judge said, do not need to be honored. It is my understanding from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and I do not purport to be an expert on the technical nuances of this particular piece of legislation, but I am informed that in fact these contracts have a term. They are not unlimited. These parties are not bound by these contracts in perpetuity. In point of fact, the contracts have a term that will end; and at that time, under the contract, as is fair and every American understands, at that time the parties will have the opportunity to have a fresh look, not legislatively mandated but mandated by the agreement of these two parties in their contract. The sanctity of contracts is critical to the free market system in which we flourish. The sanctity of contracts is one of the things, as a lawyer, we learn to honor from the very beginning, which is why it is so important to make sure that a contract was in fact entered into, because once entered into, it cannot be abrogated by either party without damages occurring. Again, that is another reason, Mr. Chairman, we ought to adopt the Tauzin amendment and reject the provision of the bill. Why? Because these are private stockholders, who have invested their money, who are going to sustain a loss if these contracts are abrogated; and, if so, we may well subject the Government to over a billion dollars in damages I am informed. Think of that, over a billion dollars in damages. Why? Because this contract sought to give relief to parties who voluntarily entered into a contract and who now want a fresh look. Mr. Chairman, we can change the policy, but we ought to change it prospectively. We ought to say we are going to change the rules and when the contract is over, you are going to play under these new set of rules. But the parties that entered into a contract under a set of rules will play under those rules for the term of the contract. That is elementary, my Dear Watson, if I can coin a phrase. I would hope that this amendment would pass, that it would pass handily, and we would send a message to those who enter into contracts. As long as those contracts are entered into freely, they will be honored by this legislative body.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on April 24 we commemorate the massacre of Armenians in Turkey during and after the first World War. In what historians refer to as the first of this century's state-ordered genocides against a minority group, more than 1.5 million people were murdered. We mourn the dead and express our condolences to the descendants of those who perished. We must also reflect upon the meaning and lessons of their suffering and sacrifice. In the more than eighty years since this unspeakable tragedy, the world has witnessed decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Civilian populations, defined by ethnic, racial or religious distinctiveness, have become the objects of persecution and genocide simply because of who they are--Armenian Christians, European Jews, Bosnian Muslims, the Tutsis of Rwanda. The range of victims--geographical, ethnic, religious and political--testifies to the universality of human cruelty and fanaticism. The response of the survivors, however, testifies to the indestructibilty and the resilience of the human spirit, even in the face of the most virulent evil. Like the phoenix of mythology, the Armenian people survived its bleakest days and arose with renewed vigor. Independent Armenian statehood has been restored to guarantee the security and future of the nation, and serves as a beacon of hope to Armenian people everywhere. It is our fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, that future generations will not have to sacrifice as their ancestors have. It is also our hope that all parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh will build on the now four- year-old cease-fire and renew their efforts through the OSCE process to reach a negotiated settlement. Nothing could honor the memory of the victims of 1915 more than an independent and flourishing Armenia living in peace with all of its neighbors, and moving and impressing the world with both the spiritual and material products of the unbreakable Armenian spirit.