Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on July 17, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents will honor civil rights pioneer Dorothy Irene Height with the sixth annual USM Regents' Frederick Douglass Award. Dr. Height, chair and president emerita of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) in Washington, D.C., is a legendary figure in the civil rights movement. In 1989, President Reagan acknowledged her achievements by presenting her with the Citizens Medal Award. In 1993, the NAACP awarded her its prestigious Spingarn Medal. That was followed by the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award, bestowed by President Clinton in 1994. Last August, a feature story on Dr. Height in the Cincinnati Enquirer declared that every president since Eisenhower has called on her for advice. In their book, The African American Century, Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., cited her as one of the 100 most influential African-Americans of the 20th century. Dr. Height was born in Richmond, Virginia, in 1912, but grew up near Pittsburgh in a household where volunteerism prevailed. In those days, blacks from the southern states were migrating north to jobs in the steel mills. Height's mother and father, a nurse and building contractor respectively, helped these families settle in, thus instilling in her a sense of responsibility and integrity. Dr. Height earned both bachelor's and master's degrees in educational psychology from New York University in four years and graduated in 1933--the height of the Depression. She then turned her attention to social work in New York City, later working for the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). During those years, she also was active in community service and religion, and eventually became one of the first leaders of the United Christian Youth Movement. From her position in the church and at the YWCA in Harlem, she spanned caps between the city's impoverished ethnic groups and the government, spotlighting the plight of unemployed domestic workers for national figures such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Langston Hughes. Dr. Height's successes did not escape notice by the leadership of the NCNW. In 1937, she was approached to conduct committee work for the organization, an affiliation of civic, education, labor, community, church, and professional institutions headquartered in Washington. By 1957, she was its president. Under the guidance of educator and NCNW founder Mary McLeod Bethune, she organized voter registration drives in the South, testified repeatedly before Congress on social issues, and worked tirelessly on the more mundane tasks of the civil rights movement, such as jobs programs and food drives. She became an international leader in the Dr. Height, who has been called the ``grande dame'' of the civil rights movement, has served in the leadership of dozens of organizations devoted to social change, most notably as president of Delta Sigma Theta sorority from 1947 to 1956. In 1986, she founded and organized the Black Family Reunion Celebration, a national coming together of African-American families designed to promote historic strengths and traditional values. The Frederick Douglass Award will be presented to Dr. Height at Westminster Hall, in Baltimore, adjacent to the University of Maryland School of Law. Those in attendance will include Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening, USM Board of Regents Chairman Nathan A. Chapman, Leronia A. Josey, member of the USM Board of Regents, Thelma T. Daley, past national president of Delta Sigma Theta sorority, and USM Chancellor Donald N. Langenberg. Frederick Douglass IV, professor at Morgan State University and a direct descendent of Douglass, will provide a dramatic reading from the latter's work. David J. Ramsay, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, will welcome the audience. The Frederick Douglass Award was established in 1995 by the USM Board of Regents to honor individuals ``who have displayed an extraordinary and active commitment to the ideals of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity exemplified in the life of Frederick Douglass.'' Previous recipients include the Honorable Parren J. Mitchell, a member of Congress for the 7th District of Maryland (1996); Benjamin Quarles, scholar at Morgan State University (1997, posthumously); Samuel Lacy, Jr., sports writer for the Baltimore Afro-American (1998); the Hon. Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1999); and Beatrice ``Bea'' Gaddy, advocate for the poor and homeless and a member of the Baltimore City Council (2000). Statesman, publisher and abolitionist Frederick Douglass was the leading spokesman of American blacks in the 1800s. Born a slave in 1817 in Tuckahoe, MD, he devoted his life to the abolition of slavery and the fight for black rights. Douglass's name at birth was Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey, but he changed it when he fled from his master in Baltimore in 1838. He ended up in New Bedford, Mass., where he attempted to ply his trade as a ship caulker, but settled for collecting garbage and digging cellars. In 1841, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Antislavery Society, Douglass delivered a lecture on freedom that so impressed the society that it hired him to talk publicly about his experiences as a slave. He then began a series of protests against segregation, and published his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, in 1845. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House take great pride in joining me in congratulating Dr. Dorothy Irene Height on this very special day for her lifelong work. She is truly deserving of the Frederick Douglass Award and I rise to congratulate her on this esteemed award.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I did not rise to defend the Washington metropolitan area as a place to live, notwithstanding his observations. But I did rise to say thank you on behalf of all of us, not on a partisan sense, although I am on this side of the aisle, and there are others on the other side of the aisle, but to, again, remind ourselves how critically important to the operations of the people's House are those who never rise and speak. They also serve who stand and record, the poet might have said. To Anne and Cindy and Vicky, we appreciate very much what you have done. You have at times been asked to spend long, long, long hours. You have fought fatigue; and I am sure, although you do not have to admit this, fought boredom as well in the operations that you have been responsible for. You make it possible for the American public, even if they cannot see us on C-SPAN, even if they cannot be in the gallery, even if years later they are trying to find out what happened on the floor of the House, their House, doing their business, you make it possible for them to find out. You do so with incredible accuracy and efficiency. We thank you for that, and we acknowledge how critically important you are to the operations of this House. I am not surprised that one of you is going into the private sector. Maybe both of you are going into the private sector, I am not sure, our two reporters, or Anne returning to North Carolina to be closer to her family, because there are, in my opinion, no more talented, no more highly motivated, no more productive people that could be hired by the private sector than those who work on this Hill and certainly, all those who work at the desk and who record our debates. It is a hallmark of American democracy that we want to be open to the public. We want to have a historic and accurate record of proceedings. You have enabled us to continue to do that. We thank you. We wish you Godspeed. We hope that you take with you very positive feelings about this House, that you know firsthand that, although there are fights and disagreements, and sometimes we are much smaller than we ought to be, that, at bottom, almost everybody, indeed everybody in this House, cares about their country and cares about their constituents. You have had the opportunity to see that firsthand. As I tell the pages, I hope you will tell that story wide and far. We thank you, and we wish you the best of everything in the days ahead. Thank you for yielding.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this should not be, in my opinion, a hard decision for us to make. The risk is too great, when you consider the damage a spill would cause to one of the world's environmental treasures. Twenty percent of the world's fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes. It is much too precious to risk for additional drilling. And what would that drilling get us? The existing 13 wells have produced enough over their lifetime to provide only approximately a quarter of 1 day's use of natural gas in this country, and only approximately 2 percent of 1 day's use of petroleum. At what cost? I cannot imagine what type of drilling would have to occur to make a serious dent in Michigan's energy needs. Since receiving criticism for taking the hard road of production versus conservation, the Bush administration has tried to say nice things about conservation. But the facts are clear: the Bush budget proposed to cut the Department of Energy's renewable energy and efficiency programs by almost 30 percent. It cut innovative technologies like wind, solar, and hydroelectric research by 50 percent. The American people clearly do not want to see a policy of drilling at all costs, and the people of Michigan do not want it either. I urge my colleagues to support this very excellent amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago this month, on June 3, 1976, a law was enacted creating the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We know it as ``the Helsinki Commission.'' One of the smallest and most unique bodies in the U.S. Government, it perhaps ranks among the most effective for its size. I have been proud to be a member of the Commission for the past 16 years. When President Gerald Ford signed, in Helsinki in 1975, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, he said that ``history will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow--not only by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.'' That piece of rhetoric has not only been repeated in various forms by every United States President since; it has continually served as a basis for U.S. policy toward Europe. Credit for this fact, and for the Commission's establishment, first goes to our late colleague here in the House, Millicent Fenwick, and the late-Senator Clifford Case, both of New Jersey. Observing the foundation of human rights groups in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to monitor and, it was hoped, to encourage their governments to keep the promises made in Helsinki, she and other Members of Congress felt it would be good to give them some signs of support. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this was in the midst of detente with Moscow, a polite dance of otherwise antagonistic great powers. It was a time when the nuclear warhead was thought to be more powerful than the human spirit, and the pursuit of human rights in the communist world was not considered sufficiently realistic, except perhaps as a propaganda tool with which to woo a divided European continent and polarized world. The philosophy of the Commission was otherwise. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is, as the Helsinki Final Act indicates, a prerequisite for true peace and true security. As such, it is also a principle guiding relations between states, a legitimate matter for discussion among them. This philosophy, broadened today to include democratic norms such as free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law, remains the basis for the Commission's work. Of course, the Commission was not meant to be a place for mere debate on approaches to foreign policy; it had actually to insert itself into the policy-making process. The Commission Chairman for the first decade, the late Dante Fascell of Florida, fought hard to do just that. It was, I would say, a bipartisan fight, with several different Congresses taking on several different Administrations. Moreover, it was not just a fight for influence in policy-making; it was a much tougher fight for better policies. The Commission staff, led during those early years by R. Spencer Oliver, was superb in this respect. It knew the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It worked with non- governmental organizations to increase public diplomacy and, subsequently, public support for In 15 years at the East-West divide, the Commission also championed policies, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment, linking human rights to trade and other aspects of U.S. bilateral relationships. The concept of linkage has often been chastised by the foreign policy establishment, but it comes from the passion of our own country's democratic heritage and nature. With persistence and care, it ultimately proved successful for the United States and the countries concerned. The Helsinki Commission also became the champion of engagement. Commission members did not simply speak out on human rights abuses; they also traveled to the Soviet Union and the communist countries of East-Central Europe, meeting dissidents and ``refuseniks'' and seeking to gain access to those in the prisons and prison camps. At first, the Commission was viewed as such a threat to the communist system that its existence would not be officially acknowledged, but Commissioners went anyway, in other congressional capacities until such time that barriers to the Commission were broken down. The Commission focus was on helping those who had first inspired the Commission's creation, namely the Helsinki and human rights monitors, who had soon been severely persecuted for assuming in the mid-1970s that they could act upon their rights. Ethnic rights, religious rights, movement, association and expression rights, all were under attack, and the Commission refused to give up its dedication to their defense. Eventually, the hard work paid off, and the beginning of my tenure with the Commission coincided with the first signs under Gorbachev that East-West divisions were finally coming to an end. Sharing the chairmanship with my Senate counterparts--first Alfonse D'Amato of New York and then Dennis DeConcini of Arizona--the Commission argued against easing the pressure at the time it was beginning to produce results. We argued for the human rights counterpart of President Reagan's ``zero option'' for arms control, in which not only the thousands of dissenters and prospective emigrants saw benefits. They were joined by millions of everyday people--workers, farmers, students--suddenly feeling more openness, real freedom, and an opportunity with democracy. Dissidents on whose behalf the Commission fought--while so many others were labeling them insignificant fringe elements in society--were now being released and becoming government leaders, people like Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek and Czech President Vaclav Havel. The independence of the Baltic States, whose forced incorporation into the USSR was never officially recognized by the United States, was actually reestablished, followed by others wishing to act upon the Helsinki right to self-determination. The Commission was among the first Of course, Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Commission knew that the fall of communism would give rise to new problems, namely the extreme nationalism which communism swept under the rug of repression rather than neutralized with democratic antiseptic. Still, none of us fully anticipated what was to come in the 1990s. It was a decade of democratic achievement, but it nevertheless witnessed the worst violations of Helsinki principles and provisions, including genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and brutal conflicts elsewhere in the Balkans as well as in Chechnya, the Caucuses and Central Asia, with hundreds of thousands innocent civilians killed and millions displaced. Again, it was the Commission which helped keep these tragedies on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, holding hearings, visiting war zones and advocating an appropriately active and decisive U.S. response. In the face of such serious matters, too many sought to blame history and even democracy, equated victim with aggressor and fecklessly abandoned the principles upon which Helsinki was based. Again the Commission, on a bipartisan basis in dialogue with different Administrations, took strong issue with such an approach. Moreover, with our distinguished colleague, Christopher Smith of New Jersey, taking his turn as Chairman during these tragic times, the Commission took on a new emphasis in seeking justice for victims, providing much needed humanitarian relief and supporting democratic movements in places like Serbia for the sake of long-term stability and the future of the people living there. In this new decade, Mr. Speaker, the Commission has remained actively engaged on the issues of the time. Corruption and organized crime, trafficking of women and children into sexual slavery, new attacks on religious liberty and discrimination in society, particularly against Romani populations in Europe, present new challenges. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, the latest Commission Chairman, has kept the Commission current and relevant. In addition, there continue to be serious problem areas or widespread or systemic violations of OSCE standards in countries of the Balkans, Central Asia and the Caucuses, or reversals of the democratization process as in Belarus. The Commission was born in the Cold War, but its true mission--the struggle for human rights, democratic government and the rule of law-- remains as important now as it was then. It remains an essential element for true security and stability in the world, as well as, to paraphrase Helsinki, for the free and full development of the individual person, from whose inherent dignity human rights ultimately derive. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to erase any illusion I have given in my praise for the Helsinki Commission on its first quarter of a century that it had single-handedly vanquished the Soviet empire or stopped the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic. No, this did not occur, and our own efforts pale in comparison to the courage and risk- taking of human rights activists in the countries concerned. But I would assert, Mr. Speaker, that the wheels of progress turn through the interaction of numerous cogs, and the Commission has been one of those cogs, maybe with some extra grease. The Commission certainly was the vehicle through which the United States Government was able to bring the will of the American people for morality and human rights into European diplomacy. To those who were in the Soviet gulag, or in Ceausescu's Romania as a recent acquaintance there relayed to me with much emotion, the fact that some Americans and others were out there, speaking on their behalf, gave them the will to survive those dark days, and to continue the struggle for freedom. Many of those voices were emanating in the non-governmental community, groups like Amnesty International, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch. Through the Helsinki Commission, the voice of the United States Congress was heard as well, and I know that all of my colleagues who have been on the Commission or worked with it are enormously proud of that fact.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of honoring New York City firefighters John Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford. Mr. Speaker, these three brave men made the ultimate sacrifice on June 17th when they responded to a fire at a hardware store in Queens in the early afternoon. Some might have called it a routine call. All three men were veterans of the department and had between 11 and 27 years of experience in one of the busiest departments in the country. Undoubtedly they had all been on this type of call hundreds of times before. Unfortunately, no call in the fire service is ever really routine. Every 82 seconds in this country the call for help goes out to America's fire service. And when that alarm bell rings, the men and women of the fire service know all too well that the call could be their last. Every year in this country we lose about 100 firefighters in the line of duty. A number that I consider appallingly high. An additional 45,000 firefighters suffer injuries--some of them permanently debilitating. When you factor in training accidents and injuries sustained responding to calls, the number tops 88,000. I did not know firefighters Downing, Fahey, or Ford. But they say that the measure of a man's character is his service to others. By this standard these men were giants for the sacrifice they made. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the efforts of the chairman and the ranking member on this bill. I rise to speak on behalf of a provision which will help the Anacostia waterfront become a vibrant community of residents and commerce, a project that will make Poplar Point a recreation destination, and to make South Capitol Street the center of a vital community and an appropriate gateway entrance into this capital city. Last year, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) shepherded through the Congress a bill to allow private development of the Southeast Federal center. Her bill was key in bringing commercial and residential growth into this community. Over the past several months, I have been working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), Mayor Williams, and a host of Federal and local agencies and all of my colleagues from the Washington metropolitan area to identify what the Federal Government's next step can be. The next step must be addressing the terrible state of the South Capitol Street entrance to the Nation's capitol. I therefore rise in strong support of the initiative in this bill for the Transportation Department to examine how to rework South Capitol Street. The transportation study will examine ways to create better infrastructure that links the waterfront community to the existing Capitol Hill community. Once completed, this study is certain, certain to help community residents, Federal and District officials, and entrepreneurs to combine their skills and energy to realize the Anacostia's full potential. We in Congress, Mr. Chairman, have a duty, a duty to this great city. By supporting the South Capitol Street traffic pattern study, we will be giving our Nation's capital a critical planning tool to make a smart, balanced development decision in the next few years. We will also be sending a powerful signal to District residents and entrepreneurs that we care about Washington, D.C.'s future. I am very pleased to support this bill and the initiative. I think it is an initiative that all of us will look back on a decade, 2 decades from now and say, this was a substantial step, not just for the capital city, but for America as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to Gerald A. Bowles for his 30 years of exemplary service to the House of Representatives. Each of us here in the House have benefited from Jerry's talent, professionalism and congenial manner. In the 30 years that Jerry has served with the office supply service, he has seen many changes. From the limited scope of office equipment in the early seventies to the high tech demands of today, Jerry has managed to assure that each member's office has all of their supply needs ready and at hand. Jerry started working for the office supply service on August 1, 1971, as a stock clerk. He was promoted to special orders clerk then to inventory control specialist, sales floor supervisor, assistant chief and then director of office supply service. Jerry will be retiring from office supply service on August 31, 2001. Jerry was born on May 26, 1951, to John Ignatius Alberta Ellis Bowles of Compton, Maryland. Jerry is the fifteenth child out of sixteen children, having nine sisters and six brothers. Growing up in a family of this size, Jerry learned the importance of working hard, getting along with everyone and being able to figure things out. These skills have helped him to be an effective manager--well liked, yet able to get the job done. There never was any problem which didn't have a solution in Jerry's mind. He has always been able to find an available resource, offer an alternative fix and make the customer happy. Staff from all around the Hill and particularly his colleagues from the office supply service will miss his smile, his willingness to listen and his ``can do'' attitude. Jerry has served the House well. His loyalty, determination and professionalism will long be remembered. As Jerry retires to enjoy his home in St. Mary's County where he will fill his days with fishing and crabbing in the Patuxent River as well as working at the Drift Inn Crab House, we wish him well and a long happy retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate his representation, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education regarding funding for the Pell Grant maximum. I am happy to see that the bill fixes a technical problem with title I funding with ESEA and the Department of Education, but I am disappointed that we were not able to do the same with the Pell Grant maximum funding. In the final fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, the Pell Grant maximum was set at $3,750, a $450 increase over fiscal year 2000, an increase that will help millions of low-income students go to college. However, because of unexpected growth in the number of eligible students, the fiscal year 2001 Pell Grant appropriation was $117 million less than the amount actually needed to support the $3,750 maximum. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to fix this problem, but was hesitant to do so without an offset. Furthermore, we had discussed this issue. It is my hope, and I think the gentleman's as well, that we may work together to remedy this situation as soon as possible.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is simple why the FMS and others decided they could not do it in one mailing, which seems to make sense to everybody, and that is because the majority in its conference report, which was seen by nobody on the floor when they voted on the bill, said that the majority, who, of course, the President is a part of their party, the President is the Chief Executive of our country, the Chief Executive is the executive officer of the FMS.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) told me that in private as well. I think that is an interesting observation and option. It is the difference between blatant and subtle, I would suggest to my chairman.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my silent ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding those quiet 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I will not be quite as quiet. First of all, it is interesting that this administration that wants to send out this check did not ask for this money to be sent to the taxpayer this year. This essentially was an initiative on this side of the aisle to make an immediate payment, number one. Of course, the letter does not go into that slight detail. It would be inconvenient to do so, I understand. Secondly, it is their money. It is their money, and we ought to spend it carefully. So we are sending a letter telling them they are going to get a check. It is not taxable; and by the way, they do not have to do anything. The taxpayer will be overwhelmed with that information, without which think how at sea they would be. They do not have to do anything. There is no answer, and the gentleman who is extraordinarily bright and able, struggled for an answer to the question of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Why is the check and the information not sent in one envelope and save $30 million of their money? Now, $30 million is a lot of their money. This amendment is opposed by the NTEU, the National Treasury Employees Union. Do we know why? Because they are fearful that the administration's desire to send out this money, and by the way the conference that included no Democrats, this is not in the statute, they do not have to do this statutorily. They have to do it in the conference report. I guarantee, maybe two people on the House floor knew that was the case when they voted for this bill. Maybe. I do not want to ask the chairman whether he knew or the ranking member whether he knew. I did not know, I will say, and I am the ranking member of the subcommittee. Nobody knew this. It is in conference report language; and by the way, the conference report does not even direct that it be done. It says, we expect that it will be done. What the Treasury employees are worried about is, if this money is taken out, the letter will be sent anyway and make the Treasury employees eat it. Cut the costs of the IRS because you want to impose this Dear Taxpayer, George Bush is giving you some money back. In another context, this might be called $30 million of public financing of campaigns which, of course, President Bush and the minority side are very much against; and in my opinion probably most taxpayers are against that as well, but that is what is happening. We are spending $30 million as a campaign letter. Now, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) fully knows that 1-800 number could be included in the mailing of the check. Let me say, when they get the check is when it is going to motivate them to call. So if we think we are saving money on calls, we are going to have to look at that when the committee marks up this bill later on, because I guarantee it will not. Why? Because there will be certain people who will look at this letter and say, oh, that is nice; not do anything, not take any action, not really have any knowledge. But when they get the check, that is the operative time that the taxpayer will get interested. If he does not get the $300 or they do not get the $600, they will pick up the phone and say, why not? Hopefully we will answer them. If they do not and they call and we use this $30 million to mail them this what we believe to be a political notice, if they do that then we are going to have 30 million less dollars that they could use for taxpayer service. We passed the reform bill, said we wanted to be taxpayer friendly, which meant the ability to answer phones. Sending this money off this way will undermine our ability to serve our taxpayers well. I urge a vote for this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to join him, my colleague from Oklahoma, in underscoring the importance of the funding for the security of the 2002 Winter Olympic games. This primary component of our public safety and anti-terrorism policy is essential to uphold public confidence and to ensure that no situation ever develops that would require the services of the FBI or FEMA. My friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) has been talking to me about this, and I know that you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who will be next speaking, have expressed great concern about this issue. I share that. I will continue to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to see that this funding is provided in a timely fashion.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ralph Stanley. Mr. Stanley recently passed away, leaving behind him a legacy of outstanding public and private sector work in the transportation arena. Throughout his career Mr. Stanley established, among other things, a true expertise for mass transit projects. Mr. Stanley was a graduate of Princeton University and Georgetown University Law School. He joined the Transportation Department in 1981, serving as chief of staff to Transportation Department Secretaries Drew Lewis and Elizabeth Dole. He then served as the chief of the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration for four years. During this time I worked closely with Mr. Stanley, particularly in the expansion of Metro for the Washington Metropolitan area. Had it not been for our working relationship, the vast system of public transportation we all enjoy today would not have been possible. Mr. Stanley found the Virginia Toll Road Corporation in 1988 and spent four years as chief executive. In 1992, he became vice president for infrastructure and development for Bechtel. While at Bechtel, Mr. Stanley helped direct the expansion of the light rail transit system in Portland, Oregon, as well as the economic development of the land near the rail expansion. Mr. Speaker, although Mr. Stanley and I did not always find ourselves on the same side of public policy issues, he was fair, forward looking and supportive of the transportation projects on which we worked together. Mr. Stanley was dedicated to create a better and more efficient transportation system for that we are grateful.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a strong voice for freedom and human rights, and my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who, as the previous speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), pointed out, has been such a strong, strong courageous voice for human rights wherever they are undermined in the world. Mr. Speaker, this week our Nation closed a chapter on the deadliest act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil. We were reminded again of the dangers of fanaticism, its assault on civil society, its attack on our values, its rejection of the rule of law. We were confronted again by the evil that works within the zealot's heart, where basic human decency is drowned in a sea of arrogance, ideology, and hatred. As we attempt to heal the wounds caused by this madman at home, let us recognize that as the leader for democracy, freedom, and human rights throughout the world, we must fight fanaticism, bigotry, and hatred wherever it rears its head. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this critically important resolution introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). Today the people of Afghanistan toil under the boot of the brutal Taliban regime, whose crimes, as have been catalogued earlier in this debate, are legion. Since ceasing power in 1996, the Taliban has systematically denied Afghani women and girls their basic human rights. They are prohibited from attending school. They are prohibited from working outside the home. With few exceptions, they are prohibited from appearing in public with nonrelative males. The Taliban's chokehold on the Afghani people has only tightened recently. It destroyed two ancient statues of Buddha, in spite of all the world's protests. It shut down a hospital opened by an Italian charity. It prohibited Afghani women from working with the international relief agencies, even as an estimated 4 million people are at risk of starvation this year in Afghanistan. In an order reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Taliban rulers decreed in May that all non-Muslims would have to wear an identifying label on their clothing to distinguish themselves. Earlier in this debate, the experience of the Danes and the Jews was referenced. My father was born in Copenhagen. King Christian, when the edict came down from the Nazis, said ``I will wear the Jewish star,'' and all Danes wore the Jewish star to indicate their solidarity with their Danish brethren, not distinguished by other forms of discrimination. Mr. Speaker, through this resolution today we join the world community in condemning the Taliban regime for their flagrant human rights violations. As the leading voice for freedom and human rights throughout the world, it is our responsibility, it is our duty, it is our opportunity and our cause. We must state unequivocally the savaging of human rights by misanthropic fanaticism has no place in a civilized world, and it must not stand. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is an important statement, and we must join with others to confront this evil perpetrated by the Taliban.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Graduates, I suppose is the appropriate term, of the class of 2001 Page School, congratulations. I am no longer on the Page Board, but I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and others say that this has been a model class. I served on the Page Board, and from time to time we had individuals who were perhaps models, but not the kinds of models we wanted, but they were very, very few. I am always disappointed that we do not have the networks covering this ceremony, disappointed because the networks will cover tonight and almost every night young people who are not doing positive things, either for themselves, for others, or for their community. You, on the other hand, are doing very, very positive things. I wish that ABC and NBC and CBS and CNN and all the national networks would cover each and every one of you by name and say, this is Clare and she has done a great job, and then mention each one of you by name. I was President of the Maryland Senate back in the 1970s, before you were born. I have done so much before you were born that I feel old at these times. But as President of the Maryland Senate, with the Speaker of the Maryland House, we ran the page program. The page program was not as extensive as this. It was not a year-long program. The Maryland General Assembly meets for 90 days a year. But some of the top students in Maryland from each of the counties were selected to serve 1 week early and 1 week late. It is a 10-week session, actually about a 14-week session, and you get to serve early, when it is not so busy, and you get to serve late, when it is very busy. You have, of course, gotten the spectrum: a residential program, as was said; going to school a year; and serving on the floor with all of us. You are a critical part of the work process of the House of Representatives. We need you here to do some of the work that you do so that we can facilitate the legislative policymaking process of this House. But much more importantly, in my opinion, you have, as has already been referenced, been given an experience that is relatively unique, that an incredibly small percentage of your age group will ever get. Our Framers created this House as the people's House, essentially as the bedrock of our democracy, elected every 2 years to be the direct voice of the people of the United States of America, correctly viewed around the world as the most vibrant, vital democracy in the world. What a privilege that is. It has been said that of those to whom much is given, much is expected. What I try to say to the page classes is that you have been given an opportunity that few others have been given. You know and I know that your parents and friends and others sometimes are pretty negative on the House, the Senate, democracy, Washington, your State capital, your county seat. It is, as Mr. Shimkus said, the making of sausage, which is not always pretty. Therefore, if you are really exposed to it and understand it a little better, and I think you have gotten this, I hope you have gotten it, the Pages that were in Annapolis, in Maryland, I think got it, you have a much more positive view of how conscientious the Members are who have been selected by their neighbors to come here and represent them, how seriously they take their responsibilities and duties. Yes, they differ and they argue, and as a result, it can look very contentious, and in fact is, just as are some of the disagreements you have in the dorm or in the classroom or maybe even at home. Now, none of my children, of course, ever had any differences of opinion with me or their mom at home, but perhaps you do. Life tends to be contentious because we have different opinions. But you have been given an opportunity to see democracy firsthand. I think you have, therefore, a particular responsibility to go home to your parents, to your friends in the community, to your classmates at school, to your classmates as you go on, to the people with whom you will work, to your community at large, and hopefully bring the message back that their democracy does in fact work and they can make a difference. You have special knowledge. I hope you feel a responsibility to impart that knowledge, that observation, your opinions as to what this institution does and how best it reflects your communities, because that, in my opinion, is the real value of the page program. You are special assets to America with special knowledge, special insight. As some of us have tried to impart that to you, hopefully you in turn will impart it to others. Congratulations for all you have done, and with high expectations for all that you are going to do, God speed. Thank you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am glad to join him. All of us have staff members and they have become extraordinarily close. We work together sometimes some intense and long hours, and I know how much Joe Moakley thought of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). To the extent that Joe is gone, he certainly will live on in the gentleman on this floor who replicates his decency, his honesty, his integrity, and his ability, and his commitment to people. I say to the gentleman, we count him as a colleague who will reflect Joe's values on this floor for years to come. Mr. Speaker, this is D-Day. It was the beginning of the end of the great conflict in our lifetime. There were other conflicts, and there will be others, but Tom Brokaw correctly reflects on the Joe Moakley generation as being the greatest generation. On December 7, of course, 1941, that war began essentially for the United States. We had been participating to some degree, but it began for us then, that day that will live in infamy. Days after, Joe Moakley, at the age of 15, said, ``I am going to be a part of the defense of freedom,'' and he volunteered for the United States Navy. Initially, as I understand, even he could not get away with it, being 15. But a few months later he bulked up, I suppose, and maybe grayed his hair a little bit. I am not sure what he did, but he made it in, because he wanted to serve. He wanted to be in the forefront of the defense of liberty of the country that he loved. It has been said so many times here that Joe Moakley did not forget from whence he came. I went to the Maryland State Senate at the age of 27, and there was an individual there who I thought was old then, but he is probably younger than I am now. His name was William Hodges. They called him Bip Hodges. He had been a fighter, a prize fighter. He represented the Sixth District of Baltimore City. He was, from my perspective, sort of a Damon Runyon type figure. Everybody loved Bip Hodges. Everybody in his district referred to him as Bip. I thought when I went there fresh out of law school that this was sort of a rough-hewn guy that really did not know what was going on. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Senate Finance Committee, and every day that I served with him, every week and every month and every year, I became more aware of how in touch he was with his district, of how in touch he was with his people. I do not frankly think it was so much that Joe Moakley never forgot his district; Joe Moakley was what he came from. To that extent, I think everyone who has spoken reflects the truth that Joe Moakley represented exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted this body to be: representatives of their people. No one with whom I have served better reflected that representation, that sense of his people, of their decency, of their fortitude, of their faith, of their courage, better than our friend, Joe Moakley. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) spoke of it, as have others. He loved this institution. He loved what it represented, as well as the opportunity that it gave him, as he did as a boy of 15 defending freedom on the front lines, and here defending freedom at every opportunity; as has been mentioned, sometimes in the front lines, and sometimes when his people perhaps did not exactly understand what the defense of freedom was and what he was representing. We have all been blessed to have served with a person of the wit, of the warmth, of the well-grounded and in-touch nature that was Joe Moakley. There are a lot of smart people in the world, but there are not so many wise people. Joe Moakley was smart, Joe Moakley represented his people, and Joe Moakley was a wise and extraordinarily good human being. The Founding Fathers, were they on this floor speaking, I think would say, ``Joe Moakley is what we had in mind when we created the House of Representatives.'' His friend, Tip O'Neill, has been called a man of the House, and he was. His dear friend, Joe Moakley, was equally a man of the House, a man of south Boston, a man of Massachusetts, a man of the Irish, a man of America. How blessed America was by the life of Joe Moakley.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, the Capitol rotunda has been the scene of many ceremonies in our Nation's history, some jubilant, others more somber. The rotunda has witnessed the awarding of Congressional Gold Medals to 34 worthy Americans who have distinguished themselves in various ways in service to our country. I think most of us can think of no American who has brought more smiles to more faces of children and adults alike, and thus deserves to join the pantheon of distinguished gold medal honorees more than the late Charles Schulz. In recognition of Mr. Schulz' lifetime of service, last year Congress enacted and President Clinton signed legislation authorizing this honor, which is Congress' greatest expression of national appreciation for civilians. A gold medal, Madam Speaker, is entirely appropriate for a tireless man who drew every frame of his Peanuts comic strip for nearly half a century. His cartoonist career followed his service in the infantry in World War II, during which he entertained his comrades with cartoons about military life. I am certain that his cartoons helped many soldiers endure the horrors and hardships that confronted them during that time. I think all of us regret that Charles Schulz cannot be present to enjoy the honor that the Congress has bestowed. Although Mr. Schulz left us early last year, his work, of course, is timeless. Fortunately for us and for generations yet unborn, Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus, Lucy, and the rest of the Peanuts gang will always be here to amuse us and, yes, to teach us. They have become, as last year's legislation noted correctly, part of the fabric of our national culture. Madam Speaker, there could be a no more fitting use of the rotunda than to honor Charles Schulz in this way. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the sponsor of the resolution and last year's legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), in whose district Mr. Schulz lived.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, and of course, I shall not object and, in fact, I will urge the support for this request, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for an explanation of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his remarks and for his personal observations with regard to Mr. Schulz. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the measure. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.