Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have 50 seconds remaining; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me respond to the gentleman from Illinois. These issues were raised over 2 years ago, not last night, not the night before, or the night before that. The issues we raise in this legislation were raised 2 years ago, and 4 years ago, and we all know that. They are legitimate issues, and they will be issues that will be fought out in the future in front of the Supreme Court. But this amendment is not appropriate on this piece of legislation at this time, not because we do not subscribe to the first amendment, not because we do not want to ensure that the Constitution is followed in our legislation, but because we all know that it is time to act, time to adopt this reform, and not the time to pretend that we are doing things that we do not have the power to do. Vote this amendment down.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) at the outset for the purpose of entering a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and then I will respond.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is no different than the two amendments like it which we previously defeated. In fact, it is in essence exactly like the last amendment. I tell my friend from Oklahoma that this is not about whether we are for or against civil rights. I take a backseat to no one in this institution in support of civil rights and human rights, here and around the world. This is about making some speech more protected than other speech. The first amendment does not say that. In fact, it is the essence of the first amendment that all speech is protected, that no speech is more protected than any other, that there is no State-favored speech. This is about a bill which I suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) does not stop any speech, contrary to his representations. Does it say under the rules that someone has to use hard money that is discloseable to make that speech on television and on radio? Yes, it does, and it treats all speech exactly the same. If it were not so, I suggest to the gentleman it would be unconstitutional. The gentleman may take the position that, in fact, the bill is unconstitutional, and that will be argued clearly in the Supreme Court; but this is not about undermining civil rights speech, undermining speech about the second amendment, undermining speech, in fact, pursuant to the first amendment. This is about reforming campaign finances. And I will say to my friend that this amendment, like the other amendments, clearly is designed, in my opinion, to undermine and defeat campaign finance reform, not to protect civil rights speech, which is, in fact, protected under the first amendment, which is, in fact, protected under the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. This amendment, like its predecessors, which were exactly alike, is unnecessary, unneeded, and ought to be opposed.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for the purpose of saying that everybody's speech is protected. It is how we fund it that is critical. It is how we fund it so that the American people know who is talking to them, that is the issue here, as well as the freedom to talk. Both are protected under Shays-Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who, as I have said before, has risked life and health to protect the civil rights of not only African Americans, but all Americans.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if an argument lacks substance, Members create a straw man, and make that straw man look exceedingly bad. Then they knock that straw man down, and then say how great that is. The problem here is this straw man is hollow and not true. There is no restriction in this bill for any American to raise an issue on either side of the second amendment, to raise any first amendment issue, or to raise any issue of civil rights. There is no Member of this House on this side, and I do not believe there is any Member on that side, who would stand to limit debate or speech on any of those issues. That is a straw man. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about campaign finance reform. This bill is about letting Americans know who is paying for elections. This bill is trying to give Americans confidence that they are included in the process. Mr. Chairman, I reject out of hand the straw man, and let us reject out of hand this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time did he yield back to me?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is an amendment like the four other amendments. It is an interesting proposition that we have before us. We are talking about campaign finance reform. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said that he went and asked his people about whether or not they thought that everybody ought to be covered by the same rules. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said yes, all of them agreed that everybody ought to be covered by the same rules and they ought to know who advertises and tells them things so they can figure out for themselves what people are saying. I suppose there are some on the other side of the aisle who will go home and say yes, I am for campaign finance reform, but I voted to exempt everybody from its coverage. That would be an interesting campaign finance reform. We have it on the books; but by the way, it does not cover anybody. Everybody is exempt. Now, this amendment exempts workers and families and farmers and individuals. I am trying to figure out who, therefore, would be included if we adopted this amendment, seeing as how most of us sort of consider ourselves individuals? So this is an extraordinarily interesting amendment, but it is also an extraordinarily bad amendment; and I do not believe any Member who is at all serious about trying to have some meaningful campaign finance reform could in good conscience, with any intellectual honesty, and with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas whom I have a great relationship with and greatly respect, possibly vote for his amendment. Therefore, I enthusiastically urge Members to vote against it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. First of all, let me say that the information we currently have is that military personnel can, in fact, contribute. They cannot solicit, but they can contribute. Second, I would say that when we say that I left my lamp beside the golden door, it means that you are welcome. And when we say to somebody, you are a legal permanent resident and you can pay taxes and serve in the service, it means not only are you welcome, but you can participate. Let us not shut that golden door tonight. Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The reason, of course, it is important to remember is so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. We human beings are inclined to do that. Some 60 years have passed since the Holocaust almost, and it perhaps fades in our immediate memory. But ceremonies like this are critically important to remind us that we need to be vigilant. The gentleman from Virginia correctly observed that the rotunda is an appropriate place to have this ceremony. There probably is no place in the world seen as a symbol of the defense of freedom more than the rotunda. So I am pleased, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of our committee, whose leadership on these types of issues has been always present and always effective, I am pleased to join them in support of this resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 325, which authorizes the use of the rotunda for the observance of the Days of Remembrance. Congress provides for this ceremony every year at this time, and other related events will be occurring all over this country. This is an opportunity for Americans of all faiths and nationalities to reflect on the Holocaust, to remember its victims and to strengthen our sense of democracy and human rights. Very frankly, it is more appropriate perhaps than most years, post-September 11, to remember the atrocities that have been committed against innocent people for reasons of their nationality, their ideology, their place of birth, their place of residence. It is appropriate, Madam Speaker, that we use the rotunda, which has been the location of so many historic events, to again draw attention to one the greatest tragedies in human history. It reminds us that such events must never be permitted to recur. Very frankly, Madam Speaker, it reminds us that, inevitably, perhaps not on the scale, but that they will reoccur, as they did in New York. Each year the ceremony has a theme geared to specific events which occurred during the Holocaust. This year's theme for the observance is Memories of Courage, to honor communities and individuals who resisted Nazis and ethnic religious genocide they practiced against Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and, yes, others who were perceived to be different than they. Such resistance was practiced all across Europe. In Poland, Oskar Schindler, memorialized in the great Spielberg movie Schindler's List, was the subject of the Oscar-winning movie and related how he used jobs in his company as a way to protect a large number of Jews, one of literally thousands of individuals who displayed courage to save others. Polish Jews in Warsaw revolted in April and May of 1943, fighting street to street, hand to hand, building to building, in one the most dramatic examples of unexpected public resistance to terror and genocide. It was not only Jews who resisted, of course. For example, in Denmark, in October of 1943, a German diplomat courageously alerted Danish authorities to the impending deportation order sending the occupied country's Jewish population to Nazi death camps. The Danes did not sit idly by. In fact, local fishermen, local citizens, banded together to make sure that almost every Jew got to a boat and was ferried to Sweden. In fact, Denmark, with a population of over 5,000 Jews, perhaps as many as 7,000, lost only 50 Jews in the holocaust. In fact, Denmark is the only nation, and Yad Vashem, that memorial in Israel that has a tree planted, all the other trees are planted for individuals like Oskar Schindler. History, Madam Speaker, is replete with the example of those who gave shelter to Jewish families or helped smuggle them to safety, sometimes at the loss of their own lives. Those acts of courage and humanity are examples to us today, examples that we ought to act, not perhaps at the risk of our lives, but perhaps only at the risk of our inconvenience, that we ought to act, to reach out, to help, to lift up, and yes, perhaps save lives. While the Days of Remembrance commemorates historical events of the days of the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, the issues raised, as I have said, by the Holocaust remain fresh in our memories as we survey the political scene in the world today. The nature of war, the identity of an enemy may change; but what remains is the terror, the cruelty, the madness and, yes, the evil of it. It is especially timely now to encourage public reflections on the fate of Holocaust victims and to remember that there was then, as there still is now, evil in the world. The ceremony we are authorizing today reminds us that individuals as well as nations can be vigilant and can strike a blow to preserve the values on which human civilization rests. I urge passage of this concurrent resolution. I expect it, of course, to pass unanimously. But simply passing it unanimously will not be enough. It will be a time for us to rededicate ourselves as Oskar Schindler did, as the Danes did, as so many others did, to the defense of liberty, the preservation of freedom, and the protection of each and every individual with whom we live on this globe to the extent of our abilities. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Walter H. Maloney, known to his friends as Mike. Mike represented the First District on the Prince George's County Council at the time of his death and he was a leading figure in County politics for four decades. He was legendary for his political independence, perseverance and his remarkable commitment to public service. Mike was born in Kansas City, Missouri in 1930 and came to Washington, DC in 1937 when his father was recruited to work in the Roosevelt Administration. Mike's mother taught music at the Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC where Mike also attended school. Mike went on to graduate from Georgetown University and its law school. He also received a LLM degree from the University of Michigan Law School before joining the U.S. Army. Mike was commissioned as a first lieutenant and served in the Judge Advocate General's Corps in La Rochelle, France. After serving in the Army, Mike embarked upon his impressive career as assistant counsel to the United States Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights chaired by Senator Sam Ervin. He then moved on to the National Labor Relations Board as a trial attorney in the Baltimore regional office, and was appointed a Federal administrative law judge at the NLRB in 1973. Mike worked at the NLRB until his retirement in 1994. He also taught labor law on the adjunct faculty of the University of Maryland University College from 1956 to 1971. Mike prided himself on fighting for the little guy and his work at NLRB is proof of that dedication. As an administrative law judge, he won national acclaim from the nation's editorial pages and from Congresswoman Bella Abzug on the Floor of this House for his decision in the landmark Farrah slacks case in which he detailed the mistreatment of factory workers in a Texas textile shop. Mike and his wife, Cecelia, moved to Prince George's County in 1958. He quickly immersed himself in civic activism and was elected a delegate to the statewide Democratic convention in 1962. He also began forty years of involvement in County public affairs by joining efforts to adopt a home rule charter for the County and reform zoning practices. In 1968, Mike was elected to the Charter Board, which was created by the voters to draft a proposed home rule charter for Prince George's County. Mike chaired the five member board and is widely regarded as the author of the County's modern form of government. Mike's efforts helped bring about a sweeping reform of the County's government. The County Commissioner system was abolished and replaced by an elected County Executive and council with home rule powers. Prince George's County had previously been run by the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis. Mike's reform efforts did not stop with the adoption of the new Charter. He led the way in the election of a bipartisan slate in 1971 and was appointed as the first County Attorney under the new Charter. Mike helped guide the new County government during his time as Attorney General until he resigned to become a Federal administrative law judge. The incisive and hard-hitting nature of his legal opinions as Attorney General earned him the nickname ``Iron Mike.`` Mike's demanding career at NLRB did not prevent him from being active in local affairs or from working extensively on local bond and zoning issues over the years. In 1994, following his retirement from the Federal Government, Mike ran a successful grassroots campaign for the Prince George's County Council. He was re-elected in 1998. As a member of the Council, Mike continued to assert his political independence and to use his sharp mind to challenge land use and spending policies, and fight for the best interests of the community. At the time of his death, Mike was ineligible to run for the Council again thanks to term limits that he helped put in place. Mike was a devout Catholic and had a deep interest in Catholic history. He authored a profile of 58 historic catholic churches east of the Mississippi titled ``Our Catholic Roots.`` He also received many accolades throughout his long career in public service for his dedication to his local community and the environment. Mike is survived by his wife of 46 years, Cecelia Fitzpatrick, and six children, Timothy F. Maloney, Eileen Maloney Flynn, Kathy Maloney Gawne, Patrick J. Maloney, John M. Maloney, and Ann Marie Maloney, and twelve grandchildren. One of his greatest prides was his loving family and all of their many achievements. Mike was known to boast about them all and was happiest when surrounded by his many children and grandchildren. Mike Maloney will be sorely missed not only by those who knew him but also by the residents of Prince George's County whom certainly benefited from his dedication to his community and to the ``little guy.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this dedicated public servant who leaves behind a loving family and many admirers who will miss him greatly.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Irish- American success story, Judge Gerard Devlin of Prince George's County, Maryland. Judge Devlin is called Jerry by his friends of which I am fortunate to be one. I have known Jerry for over thirty years, since I was an intern in Senator Brewster's office and Jerry was an elevator operator in the Capitol. I have valued Jerry's friendship over those three decades and have always enjoyed his boisterous and comic Irish sensibility. We have also shared a close professional relationship and Jerry was always a faithful ally through our days in the Young Democrats, the Maryland General Assembly and beyond. I pay tribute to Jerry today not simply because he is a good and old friend but to thank him upon the occasion of his retirement. His distinguished career in public service is not matched by many and his affable and courteous manner is appreciated by all. Jerry was born in Dorchester, Massachusetts on May 29, 1933. He attended public schools in Dorchester and Boston, and served in U.S. Marine Corps from 1955 to 1957. He went on to Boston College and Suffolk University, and graduated from the University of Baltimore School of Law in 1969. He also earned his masters from the University of Maryland in 1970. Jerry began his career in public service as a staff member in the United States House of Representatives in 1959 and later worked in the United States Senate. His service was not limited to the national level however. He served his local community for five years as a member of the Prince George's County Board of Election Supervisors from 1964 to 1969, and as a member of the Charter Review Commission of the city of Bowie. Jerry also served his community as a teacher to Prince George's County's youth at Gonzaga High School, Bowie State University, and Prince George's Community College. In 1975, Jerry took his talent to the Maryland General Assembly where I had the pleasure of serving with him for six years. He was a member of the House of Delegates for eleven years and was named Freshman Legislator of the Year by the Maryland Young Democrats in 1975. He was also named Legislator of the Year by the Prince George's Municipal Association in 1983, 1985, and 1986. Jerry stepped down from his position as Associate Judge in the 5th District Court of Maryland this past September and retired from a long and praiseworthy career in civic affairs. During his tenure as a judge, Jerry was well-liked and respected by both bench and bar for his even- handedness and wisdom. He had a good feel for fundamental fairness and through it all his Irish wit and humor shone through. Judge Bob Sweeney, the former Chief Judge of the Maryland District Court, said this of Jerry, ``One of the ten things that a good judge needs is courage. For a judge that means doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Jerry Devlin personifies that type of courage.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat today an Irish Blessing for my dear friend Jerry Devlin to thank him for his years of service and to wish him well in retirement: May your blessings outnumber the shamrocks that grow,/And may trouble avoid you wherever you go./May the road rise up to meet you,/May the wind be always at your back,/May the sun shine down upon your face,/And the rain fall soft upon your fields,/Until we meet again,/May God hold you in the hollow of his hand. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this great Irish American who gave forty years of public service to Prince George's County and the state of Maryland.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the first session of the 107th Congress draws to a close, I wish to thank the staff for their assistance throughout this eventful year. None of us could discharge our responsibilities without the help and support of the staff. Let me begin by expressing gratitude to the employees of the Architect of the Capitol, who maintain the Capitol buildings and grounds. Without the vital work of engineers, carpenters, painters, electricians and others, especially the custodians who clean our offices each night, we could not work. AoC employees do a wonderful job under difficult circumstances, and they deserve special recognition. Next, I wish to thank the three House Officers and all their employees, who collectively maintain the framework in which the House operates. Jay Eagen, our Chief Administrative Officer, and his deputy Lawrence Davenport, manage a diverse organization that provides us with everything from furniture and carpets to office supplies and information technology, child care and other personnel-related support, including food services and even our paychecks. Bill Livingood, our Sergeant at Arms, and his deputy, Kerri Hanley, oversee Capitol security for the benefit of Members, staff, dignitaries, tourists and others who visit the complex every year, working in conjunction with the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. Our Clerk, Jeff Trandahl, his deputy, Martha Morrison, and their staff compile the House Journal, tally our votes, enroll our bills, transcribe our debates, and generally ensure that our legislative process functions smoothly. Jeff also oversees the Page program, which provides an enriching experience for the Pages, who do a great job. Let us all give thanks for the House Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin, who tends his flock superbly. Charles Johnson, our distinguished Parliamentarian, and his learned duputies and assistants John Sullivan, Tom Duncan, Muftiah McCartin, Tom Wickham, Ethan Lauer, Gay Topper, Brian Cooper and Debby Khalili, provide invaluable procedural guidance to the Speaker and Members who preside over the House. I recall being greatly comforted by their presence when, during an earlier era, I occasionally occupied the Chair. The General Counsel, Geraldine Gennet, and her staff well represent the House in legal matters. The Law Revision counsel, John Miller, and his staff organize our legislation into a useful body of laws. The Inspector General, Steve McNamara, and his staff help us seek ways to improve the administration of the House. For all of them we are grateful. We are also greatly indebted to the Legislative Counsel, Pope Barrow, and his staff for helping us draft legislation. They work long hours, often under intense pressure, transforming our public-policy ideas into the magic words of bills and amendments, doing so with grace and magnanimity and making it look easy. I want to applaud one particular legislative counsel, Noah Wofsy, whose help has been indispensable to the Committee on House Administration, most recently on the landmark Help America Vote Act (H.R. 3295). I greatly value Noah's help and expertise, and look forward to working with him again during the second session. We also owe special thanks to our cloakroom staffs, who always have the answer to our favorite question (``when's the next vote?''), and to our leadership and floor staff, who are crucial members of the team. We should also remember our ``extended'' staff, including Dan Mulhollan and his experts at the Congressional Research Service, and Dan Crippen and his Congressional Budget Office staff, all of whom provide excellent support to our deliberations. The Attending Physician, Dr. John Eisold and his staff, have coped superbly with the anthrax attack and its aftermath, inspiring confidence. As always, the professionals of the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office have provided exceptional support. Our tour guides provide constituents wonderful tours of the Capitol, for which we, and they, are always thankful. Finally, I wish to thank the committee and joint-committee staffs, and the personal staffs of Members, whose efforts are also highly valued. I am obviously most grateful for the work of my own staff, beginning with Cory Alexander, John Bohanan, Betsy Bossart, Tom Craddock, Chonya Davis-Johnson, Stacey Farnen, Wanda Hardesty, Corey Jackson, Dayle Lewis, Kenya McGruder, Kathy May, Scott Nance, Faron Paramore, Andy Quinn, Thomas Richards, Betty Richardson, Betty Rogers, Erica Rossi, and Ryan Seggel of my personal office; Keith Abouchar, Robert Bean, Kevin Cyron, Connie Goode, Michael Harrison, Charles Howell, Ellen McCarthy, Matt Pinkus, Bernard Raimo, David Ransom, Brian Romick, and Sterling Springs of the House Administration Committee; Rob Nabors, of the Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee; and Marlene Kaufman, of the Helsinki Commission. I could not fulfill my responsibilities without them. Mr. Speaker, Members aren't always aware of what all the staff do, and the staff aren't always aware of what Members do. But together, we make this House work for the American people. I hope all Members will join me in thanking the staff, wherever they work and whatever they do, for all their hard work this year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), our chairman, who is new this year to this subcommittee, although certainly not new to the Committee on Appropriations, he is our senior member next to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for their leadership. I want to talk not about the overall bill, as it is a good bill. I will enthusiastically vote for this. It speaks to the health needs of America. It speaks to the educational needs of our children. It speaks to working people, as well. But I want to refer to a couple of specific items. First of all, immunization. Immunization, I believe, is a critical concern, not only of this bill but of this country. There are areas of this country where immunizations are not nearly where they ought to be. In fact, generally speaking, we went back about 1 percent, from 78 to 77, overall immunizations of children in this country. It is inconceivable that in the year 2001, despite all of the technological and scientific advances that we achieved during the last century, Mr. Speaker, that nearly 1 million American children do not enjoy the benefits of full immunization. Indeed, only 77 percent of our 2-year-olds are adequately immunized. We need to continue to work to increase funding for this important program. In addition, I would like to say how pleased I am that this conference report contains language that will continue to fund state- assistive technology programs. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for focusing on this issue. In the scheme of things, in terms of the billions of dollars we are spending on this bill, this is a small item, but a very, very large item in ensuring that those with disabilities will fully participate in the opportunities of our society. This assistive technology is critical. Many may not have known, but the current law for the assistive technology program includes a provision requiring a sunset of State grant programs, which was to occur in cycles, to gradually decrease States' funding until eliminated. In fiscal year 2002, nine States would have been eliminated for funding: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, and Nebraska. We have turned that around. We have provided funds. I appreciate their leadership, again, on that issue, and say that this is a good bill. It is a good bill for our country, and it is a good work product of our committee. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with my strong support the House recently approved resolutions expressing gratitude to the General Accounting Office for accommodating the House during the recent closure of the House office buildings, and honoring the Capitol Police for their commitment to security at the Capitol in the wake of the September 11 attacks. I wish to bring to the House's attention yet another legislative-branch agency that has gone the extra mile to support the Congress in this period of crisis: the Government Printing Office. We would be remiss in overlooking the GPO's many contributions of the last three months. When the presence of anthrax necessitated the closure of House and Senate office buildings in October and November, GPO was ready to lend a hand. GPO provided conference room and office space for personnel from the Office of the Clerk of the House and the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel to continue their important operations. For the Capitol Police, GPO made available the loading docks in its North Capitol Street warehouse for use in screening deliveries to Capitol Hill. Each day, up to 70 trucks destined for the Capitol complex pass through this operation, and it has been an enormous help to us. GPO has provided other help since September 11. For example, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regional office was destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center complex, GPO established a secure, password-protected area on their web site, so displaced EEOC employees could log-on from home or other places and resume the Commission's work. Personnel from GPO's Inspector General office even helped with recovery efforts at the Pentagon and in New York. While GPO has provided support in these extraordinary ways, it has also carried on its routine but essential work in printing and information dissemination under the leadership of Public Printer Michael F. DiMario. GPO's printing operation recently earned accolades as the ``Number One In-Plant in the Nation'' from In-Plant Graphics magazine, a printing-industry journal, for the fourth consecutive year. Mr. Speaker, the past three months have been unlike any in recent memory. People are working hard the world over to see that such a period never recurs, and to rid the world of terrorism once and for all. We are reminded that at times we must meet extraordinary challenges in extraordinary ways in order to fulfill our responsibilities. As a citizen, and as a Representative in Congress, I find it tremendously gratifying to know that we have in the GPO the creativity, the capability, and the willingness to keep the wheels of our democracy turning on behalf of the American people. I thank the dedicated employees of the GPO for doing their part of a job well done.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the football team of Bowie High School for winning the Maryland State Football Championship. An estimated ten thousand fans were in attendance at Byrd Stadium on the Campus of the University of Maryland to witness Bowie High School's first ever division 4A football championship. On December 1st, Bowie completed their season with a 23-6 victory over rival and previously unbeaten Eleanor Roosevelt High School. The game was the first All-Prince George's County title game since 1983, and the first time Bowie High School has played for the championship since 1987. The victory capped an outstanding season for Coach Scott Chadwick and his Bulldogs. The championship culminated an incredible revival of the football program. When athletic director Bob Estes was hired two years ago, the football program had not had a winning record since 1988. The team had a 38-61 record from 1989 to 1997, including six years with less than four wins. Since Head Coach Chadwick took over the team four years ago, they have increased their win total each year, and now have a championship trophy. Bowie High School's first championship is especially gratifying for the fans that have been vocally and passionately supporting the team throughout the year. Many parents of the team have been actively involved in the school's pep rallies and have stuck with the team throughout some tough years. I applaud the efforts of the team members, their coaching staff, their fans, the school system and the Bowie Community for a winning season and for being the Maryland State Football Champions. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join with me in wishing the Bowie High School football team continued success and congratulations on their outstanding achievement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). There is no one in this House, perhaps no one in this country, who has fought harder, risked more, shown more courage and commitment in assuring that every American has the right to vote.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Let me at the outset say that no one could have had a more positive partner in working on this legislation than I had in the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). The chairman of the Committee on House Administration is dedicated and committed to producing a positive product. He has done that. I have been pleased to work with him in this process, and I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago tonight in Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court effectively determined the outcome of our last Presidential election. But today this House has an historic opportunity to let this day be remembered not for one of the most controversial decisions in the court's history, but for congressional action to protect our most cherished democratic right: the right to vote and the right to have that vote counted. One hundred million Americans went to the polls on November 7, 2000, but an estimated 6 million, according to the CalTech-MIT study, failed to have their votes counted. Thus, today, on this 1-year anniversary of Bush v. Gore, I am pleased to join our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of our committee, and Members from both sides of the aisle in strongly supporting H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001. This bipartisan election reform legislation, the most widely supported election reform bill in the House with 173 cosponsors, addresses virtually every major election system flaw that came to light after our last national election. The Help America Vote Act is an important mixture of Federal assistance to States and minimum election standards. It will require, not ask, but require, all States to adopt a state- wide voter registration system linked to local jurisdiction; in- precinct provisional balloting; a system for maintaining the accuracy of voter registration records; uniform standards for defining what constitutes a vote on different types of voting equipment in different parts of the States; assurances that overseas military voters have their votes counted; assurances that voters have the right and opportunity to correct errors; and practical and effective means for disabled voters to cast secret ballots on new voting equipment. These election standards are not discretionary, nor are they dependent on the States' receiving Federal assistance under the bill. States shall enact them, and they shall be enforced. The Help America Vote Act also authorizes, as the chairman has said, $2.65 billion for Federal election reform, which includes $400 million for buyout of the infamous punch cards. The remaining $2.25 million will help States establish and maintain accurate lists of eligible voters, improve equipment, educate voters, recruit and train poll workers, and assure access for disabled voters. This bipartisan legislation is the product of numerous hearings, at least four in the Committee on House Administration, the most of any congressional committee this year, in which we received invaluable input from State and local officials. Furthermore, this legislation has been endorsed by, among others, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, known as the Ford- Carter Commission; the National Association of Secretaries of State; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the National Association of Counties; the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks; the Election Center; the National Federation of the Blind; and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County. Why is this important? Because it is those individuals who will have to run elections, and the fact that they are supportive of these requirements and these procedures is critically important to the next election. In fact, in a recent op-ed column in the Washington Post, former Presidents Ford and Carter observed: ``With the exception of the civil rights laws of the 1960s, this bill,'' that is on the floor today, ``could provide the most important improvements in our democratic election system in our lifetimes.'' This is an extraordinarily good bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it goes much further than anybody would have thought at the beginning of this session. Finally, I want to specifically thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform. Their insight and tireless advocacy on this important issue has improved this bill. H.R. 3295, in fact, incorporates many of their recommendations. This legislation is not a magic elixir. However, it will significantly improve the integrity of our election process, encourage voter participation and restore public confidence in our system. In short, it is a historic opportunity for this House to right the undemocratic wrongs in our election system. Election reform is a down payment on the right that defines us as a people. That is an investment in democracy that I urge every one of my colleagues to make today. This is a good bill. Let us vote for it. Let us pass it to the Senate. Let us take action.