Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. One additional question. As he knows, we have been talking for some period of time now about the creation of a select committee on election reform. Does the gentleman have any idea whether we might have a proposal on the floor for an equally balanced committee being appointed for the purposes of considering election reform?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his response. I would simply say that clearly this is a critical issue which I do not think is a partisan issue. I think there is not a Member on the House floor of either side of the aisle or our two Independents who do not believe that citizens ought to be encouraged to vote, facilitated in casting their vote and to having the technology available that will make sure that they count their votes. We focused on Florida, but as we have learned, this problem exists in many jurisdictions. It is not a partisan problem, it is in some respects a technological problem and in some respects election officials are not trained as well as they ought to be, not through any fault of their own but just we have not had the mechanisms to do that, to reach out and to make sure that citizens have access to the polling places. I know the Speaker is focused on it. I know the minority leader is focused on it. I hope that we could accomplish this in the short term so that we might effect reforms prior to the next election. That is our concern about timing. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman for any comments he might want to make.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on whatever side of the issue, we all ought to be against this legislation on the floor today. To the new Members who come here, did they come here expecting to have no hearings, no consideration, no full debate on issues of consequence to hundreds of thousands and, yes, millions of Americans? Is that how we are going to run the House of Representatives? Is that the responsibility we owe in a democracy? The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been rolled on the Patients' Bill of Rights by his own leadership? Why do we come to the floor rolling us once again, and when I say ``us,'' not the Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives, but the thousands of people who might just want to come here and tell us how they believe, what they think, what their perceptions are. The gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Norwood) said this, ``No reason to believe they,'' speaking of Libby Dole and George Bush, ``would be for this legislation.'' Of course there is no reason to believe, because we have not asked them. We have not asked any American to come in and tell us what should we do. That is not the way to legislate. Reject this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the final Workplace Safety Standard issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on November 14, 2000, was the result of a 10-year public process initiated in 1990 by Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole. Use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Workplace Safety Standard is an extreme measure. Not only would it represent the first vote ever in Congress to take away a public health and safety protection, but it would also prevent OSHA from ever issuing other important worker health and safety measures. Each year, U.S. workers experience 1.8 million work-related repetitive stress disorders. And every year 600,000 workers in America lose time from work because of repetitive motion, back and other disabling injuries. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34 percent of all lost workday injuries are related to repetitive stress injuries. These injuries are often extremely painful and disabling; sometimes they are permanent. Last year the Department of Labor estimated that the workplace safety rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries per year, and save $9 billion in workers compensation and related costs. Due to riders and similar block-at-all costs tactics since 1995, the delay in implementing this rule cost $45 billion in workers' compensation and related costs, and allowed 1.5 million painful and disabling injuries that could have been prevented. The problems are real, but so are the solutions. The time for delay is past. The time to act is now. American's workers can't afford to wait. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the joint resolution of disapproval.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for his contribution. And the gentleman is correct, the history of this institution would not be nearly as rich, as important as it is without the contribution of Americans of African descent. Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a distinguished representative of a great State. She is the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on an additional subject, today together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my colleagues, and 60 additional cosponsors, I am introducing the Voting Improvement Act. This bill provides a short-term and a long-term solution to a crisis we face in the wake of the 2000 elections. Mr. Speaker, today together with my colleagues Mr. Horn and Mr. Price, and with 60 additional cosponsors, I am introducing the Voting Improvement Act. This bill provides a short term and a long term solution to crisis we face in the wake of the 2000 election. One of the reactions that I have heard repeatedly from my constituents in the months since the election, was shock at the sheer number of votes that were cast but were not counted--19,000 discarded ballots in Palm Beach County alone. Those numbers are shocking--and they have the potential to drive voters away from the polls permanently unless we can act quickly to repair our voting system and repair the voters' confidence in that system. In 615 days we will be having a federal election. That election will be subjected to the greatest amount of media scrutiny that has ever befallen an election in this country. And that is why I believe that it is imperative that we devise a way to bring about the most dramatic reduction possible in the number of votes that are cast but not counted. The quickest way to get more votes counted is to target the system with the highest rate of error and the lowest rate of public confidence. That system is, without a doubt, the punch card. A joint MIT Caltech analysis recently estimated that the nationwide error rate for punch cards is 2.5 percent. This translates to as many as 986,000 votes cast but not counted on punch card systems alone. Almost a third of voters used punch card systems in 2000, making it the most commonly used voting method. Yet, in some jurisdictions punch cards have had error rates as high as 6.25 percent or one in every 16 ballots. These disturbingly high rates of spoiled ballots also have a troubling tendency of occurring in jurisdictions with high populations of minority voters. For example, in Chicago rates of uncounted ballots increased from 1 in 20 in precincts that were less than 30 percent African American, to 1 in 12 ballots in precincts more heavily populated with minorities. Fifty one precincts in Chicago had ballots that were ruined at a rate of 1 in 6 ballots. These 51 precincts were 90 percent African American and Hispanic. Punch card technology has not changed significantly since its introduction in 1964. This is true even though there is virtually no other technology that has not undergone revolutionary improvements since 1964. We no longer use rotary dial 1964 telephones, or portable 78 rpm record players. Desktop computers have completely displaced typewriters, and even the venerable rolodex is being quickly replaced by the Palm Pilot. Yet the punch card counter remains virtually unchanged. In fact, punch cards themselves, a standard IBM product used in any number of computer systems in 1964--today are produced only for the purpose of voting! There is no excuse for keeping a punch card voting system in place. Particularly as this bill will provide $6,000 a precinct to any jurisdiction that replaces punch cards by Election Day 2002. While punch card voting systems are the number one offender, they are not the only problem. One estimate from a Bryn Mawr computer scientist is that nationwide, and across voting equipment, about two percent of the votes cast nationwide in 2000 were not counted. That means that over 2 million voters were unintentionally disenfranchised. Spoiled ballots occurred on lever machines, on punch cards, on optical scanners and on modern electronic touch screens. The number of ballots not counted far exceeds any measure of the margin of victory in the Presidential election. We have neglected our election system as a whole--trusting in outmoded equipment because it is familiar--and trusting in wide margins of victory because they often occur. I believe that with focus and funding we can develop voting technology that is cost effective, that is accurate, and that is accessible to all voters including the blind and the disabled. While it is not possible to eliminate spoiled ballots, there is no reason that we should not be able to reduce the nationwide error rate to .5 percent. I know that it is possible as a nation to drastically reduce the numbers of uncounted votes and do it quickly. It is possible because my own state of Maryland did it. They went from a statewide error rate of 1.5 percent in 1988 to a statewide error rate of less than .5 percent in 2000. They accomplished this remarkable achievement in part by getting rid of punch cards. Maryland stands as an example and a challenge to the rest of the states. If we can reduce the number of uncounted ballots to .5 percent nationwide, one and a half million more voters would have their votes counted. Whatever the means by which we seek to reduce the number of uncounted votes--through this bill--through some other Congressional proposal--or by State action--we must work hard to get these votes counted. I also want to say to the States and to the counties--this is an urgent problem. Do not wait. Do not trust that federal resources are coming. Act now to make improvements including buying new equipment for 2002. I fear that one of the unintentional effects of the discussion about this issue on Capitol Hill, is that we are unintentionally producing a disincentive for states and counties. The Voting Improvement Act would provide reimbursements to any punch card jurisdiction that acts now and gets new equipment in place for Election Day 2002. I challenge those state and counties to do so. Nonetheless, money and equipment alone cannot solve the problems with our voting system. New technology must be accompanied by voter education, and by polling place resources including helpful and well trained workers and officials. That is why the punch card buyout is simply step one of the Voting Improvement Act. The Voting Improvement Act would also create a new four member bipartisan Election Administration Commission. The primary function of the new agency would be to administer an annual grant program to aid states in the administration of elections. In 2003, the punch card buyout would be replaced by a grant program to provide $140 million annually to states and to counties. Unlike the buyout which requires no commitments from the States, the grant program would require States or local jurisdictions to provide 25 percent in matching funds. States will also be required to install equipment that can be used by blind and disabled voters to vote privately, and States must also provide assurances that they are in full compliance with existing laws. Ten million dollars of the grant money would also be reserved for research and development by manufacturers. one of the problems that election officials have faced in buying new equipment is that the available technology is simply not as good as it could be. In part, that is because the market for voting equipment is not that large. Thus, the grant money would help to stimulate the production of equipment that better accommodates all types of disabilities, is more cost effective, and is more accurate and easy to use. A minimum of 20 percent of grant funds for States and local jurisdictions would be required to be used for voter education and for training. Voter education plays a critical role in getting more votes counted. The implementation of new voting systems cannot be successful unless the voters are amply educated in how to properly use it. Polls must also be staffed with people trained to aid voters in getting their votes cast and counted, not at discouraging them from voting at all. To that end, the bill would provide leave to any federal employee who worked in a polling place on a federal election day. Making federal worker resources available is an attempt to aid election officials in the tremendous task of recruiting and training the huge work force that play a key role in making federal elections work. The new Commission would also be responsible for creation of a Model Election Code. Like the Uniform Commercial Code or other Model Codes, it would serve as a resource to States that are seeking to protect themselves from legal challenges. The Model Code would cover statutory provisions including what constitutes a vote, when and how a recount should be held, and how an election contest should be handled. I hope that an organization with experience in producing model laws, such as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, will agree to draft the Model Code, as I believe that a product will that imprimatur of expertise and credibility could prove a valuable resource in improving election statutes nationwide. Finally, the new Commission would serve as a national clearinghouse for information and study on what elections practices work best. It would develop voluntary ``best practice standards'' to study issues including how a ballot should best be designed, how voter registration list should best be maintained, and how many votes continue to go uncounted across the country. This bipartisan legislation is supported by a broad and diverse group of Members. I am very hopeful that we will continue to add more co- sponsors and move this legislation forward. A few weeks ago, President Bush met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and remarked: ``This is America. Everyone deserves the right to vote.'' However, as we all know now, the right to vote is not enough. Every vote also must be counted. The Voting Improvement Act will help us do just that, and will go a long way in restoring public confidence in our election system and our democracy itself.*****-*****- -Name: -Payroll No. -Folios: -Date: -Subformat:

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her contribution. I want to join her in saying that it was not any individual Member of this Congress of African American descent seeking to have a new book published with his picture. It was a thought, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) mentioned and the gentlewoman has mentioned, that we have millions of young people around this country who are not sure of what the opportunities are. And knowing that there have been trailblazers who have done that and been there will give them a confidence that they, too, can seek opportunity and success in any place in America. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my very close friend, who is the Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a great leader of this Congress.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is one of the most eloquent Members we have in this body. When he was in the Maryland General Assembly, he was the Speaker Pro Tempore of our House of Delegates, the second highest leader in our House. The gentleman did an extraordinary job there. He is doing an extraordinary job here, and I thank him for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the immediate past Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, whom I have known for almost 40 years. He and I started out in the Young Democrats together. We have gone through a lot of history ourselves. He came to this Congress several years ago. He is a colleague on the Committee on Appropriations, a real leader on the steering committee, the managing committee of our party. He has done an extraordinary job in leading the Congressional Black Caucus and an extraordinary job in serving South Carolina and America.

Mr. HOYER. Stop doing that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for his remarks. I want to say that, having known him for a long period of time, there is no doubt in my mind that he has himself been a spark, an inspiration to many, many young people, not only in his home area of South Carolina, but around this country, to see the opportunities available to them.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and contributions. He and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) have two fathers who are very, very proud, and I know mothers, as well, proud of their sons who are serving so ably and following their fathers' footsteps so appropriately. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that on Sunday I would be marching across the Edmond Pettis Bridge. One of the people that I am sure will be walking with us is a great fighter for civil rights who was there during the darkest days, most difficult days of the struggle for, as Martin Luther King, Jr., said, America to live out its promise. He represents Birmingham, the city of Bull Connor, one of the examples of how hate and racism can inflict a community like a cancer. The gentleman was perhaps not as famous, but a giant himself of the civil rights movement. I am very proud to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), formerly a member of the Alabama Senate and chairman of one of its most important committees.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for her remarks. She is impossible not to include, Mr. Speaker. She is effervescent, ever-present and ever-ready; and we thank her for her participation. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that today is the last day of Black History Month. It is appropriate that we look back on this history and we look back with our eyes wide open at the injustices committed on American soil. The stain on our history deserves no defense because it is simply indefensible, but let us take this opportunity today to look back and learn from those who led our Nation out of darkness through the strength of character, through the unbreakable human spirit, through the unending quest for freedom and human dignity and in the words of that great national anthem, ``facing the rising sun of their new day begun, let us march until victory is won.'' The inspiring lives of our colleagues teach rich lessons for all of us. The inspiring lives of great African Americans do so as well: George Washington Carver; Frederick Douglas; Sojourner Truth; Harriet Tubman; W.E.B. DuBois; Thurgood Marshall, from my own State; Jackie Robinson; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and Shirley Chisholm, who served with such high distinction in this House. Mr. Speaker, that list of great African Americans could go on and on; and that list is continually growing. If we take a look around this very body, Mr. Speaker, we will see a new generation of African-American leaders who serve the American people so ably, so proudly. It is important that we recognize their contributions and their service to the people of America. It is important that we capture the rich lessons of their lives which inspire generations yet to come, not just of young African-Americans who will see them as role models, but young Americans and young people throughout the world who will see them as courageous human beings who have overcome great adversity, racism, in many instances, economic deprivation, cultural deprivation. Some, have come from advantaged homes, but they have not forgotten that there is a struggle that continues. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I have joined more than 40 of our colleagues in introducing a bipartisan concurrent resolution for the printing of a revised edition of the House document entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870 to 1989.'' I introduced this because in the last 10 years now we have had many distinguished African-Americans join our ranks. I and my cosponsors want to make sure that they are remembered. The latest edition of this work, published in 1990, contains biographies, photographs, and other important historical information about the 66 distinguished African-Americans who had served in either Chamber of Congress as of January 23, 1990. Since that time, an additional 40 distinguished African-Americans have served or are now serving. As we celebrate Black History Month, therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution, which directs the Library of Congress to revise and update this volume. It will be a tremendously important resource for Members, scholars, students, and others. To appreciate history, we must recognize where we have been and how far we have come. When the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1965, there were five African-Americans in Congress. Today there are 38, nearly eight times that number. Progress? Yes. But our work is far from finished. We cannot, rest on our laurels or that accomplishment. That, Mr. Speaker, as all of us in America know, became painfully clear during last November's national election. Yesterday I participated in an important hearing on election reform convened by the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is undeniable that the election problems and irregularities that arose not just in Florida, where we focused, but all across this land, contain a profound civil rights dimension. It is a basic right of American citizenship to have the opportunity to vote. It is a fundamental responsibility of our democracy that we ensure that their everyone's vote is properly counted. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses punch card machines similar to those that gained so much notoriety in Florida, one in every 16 ballots for President was invalidated. In Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, two largely white neighboring counties that use more modern optical-scan equipment, the nullification rate was one in 200. Think of it. In the inner city, one in 16 ballots was thrown out. In the more affluent suburbs, which could afford better technology, only one in 200. What a stark contrast that is a 1,250 percent difference. That is not acceptable in America, it is not acceptable in any democracy. In many Chicago precincts populated by African-Americans, one in every six ballots was thrown out. In contrast, neighboring DeKalb and Henry Counties, which are mostly white and use optical scan equipment had a spoilage rate of only three-tenths of a percent, one in six versus three-tenths in 100. It is painfully clear today, Mr. Speaker, nearly 36 years to the day after the famous bloody Sunday civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, an event that awakened the Nation to rank injustice and led to enactment of the Voting Rights Act, that our work is not finished. Far from it. Those brave foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, including our beloved colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), marched in Selma and across our Nation for the most basic right in a democracy, fought for the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I will be marching across the Edmond Pettis Bridge on Sunday. I will be marching across that bridge with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and many others to commemorate that historic march which directly led just a few months later to the passage and enactment and signing by President Lyndon Johnson of the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote alone is simply not enough. Even in a Nation as great as ours, we must redouble our effort to ensure that every single vote is counted, and that the integrity of our election system is never threatened. It is startling, Mr. Speaker, that women were not able to vote in this country until the 1920s. African-Americans could not vote, not because legally they could not, but because they actually were discouraged. They were not empowered by being encouraged to register to vote. They were instead given literacy tests and other devices were used to preclude them from exercising what the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments said was rightfully theirs as citizens of this country. As we conclude Black History Month, as many of us prepare, as I said, to join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and others this weekend in a pilgrimage to the historic civil rights sites in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma, let us redouble our commitment to the spirit and righteousness of that historic Voting Rights Act and say, never again, never again will we accept an election system that fails to count every vote. As Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist and journalist who escaped from slavery, said so many years ago, ``The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' When we join the earnest struggle for human liberty, then and only then, Mr. Speaker, will we have learned the rich lessons that Black History Month helps us to teach. Then and only then will we honor the extraordinary Americans, African Americans, but Americans, committed to their country, chosen by their neighbors to serve in this Congress who have enriched this institution, enriched their fellow African Americans, and enriched this Nation by their service. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in this special order to urge every one of my colleagues to support this resolution to reprint this fine publication to ensure that even the newest Members of this Congress who are African Americans are included in it, so that everybody in America can know of their background, of their service, and of their commitment. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished former member of the Missouri Senate, the son of a distinguished former member of this body, William Clay, who chaired the Committee on Education and Labor for a number of years, who was a giant in speaking out for the education of every American child, white or black, yellow, brown, or red. The gentleman's father is, I know, extraordinarily proud of his son, who has been selected by his Missouri neighbors to represent them here. No father can send a son here; only the citizens can do that. I am pleased now to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the son of a great American, a great American himself, and the president of the House freshman class for the year 2000.

Mr. HOYER. I hear the gentlewoman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is the last day of Black History Month, a vital commemoration that we celebrate in our Nation each February. I have had the privilege of hosting for 20 years, every year that I have been in Congress, a black history breakfast in my district, to which I have invited extraordinary speakers over the years, including our colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson); as well as his father; and many other distinguished African Americans and Members of this House. At the outset, because she has a committee meeting to attend, I would like to yield to one of our newer colleagues but who is not new to the struggle for civil rights in this country and in her city. She is also a leader in her city as a prosecutor and as a judge. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) for his contribution, not just to speak on this resolution, but his contribution over at least three, possibly four decades of service to his State, to his community and to our Nation. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), my friend, one of our newer Members, but one of our most able Members.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I have been friends since he came to the Congress many years ago. He serves on the Committee on Armed Services and is one of the most knowledgeable Members in the Congress on matters related to our national defense. But probably less well known is his extraordinary depth of knowledge of Russia, of the former Soviet Union, of former Soviet officials, and present leaders in Russia itself. He is a friend of many, a colleague of others, and an interlocutor of many more. Obviously, our relationship to Russia is one of the most important relationships that we have as a Nation. The relationship between Russia and the United States is one critical to international security and stability. As vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have the opportunity to meet regularly with members of the Duma. However, under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and with the concurrence, as he pointed out, of then-Speaker Gingrich and minority leader Gephardt, we established a formal relationship. It is interesting to note that the supreme Soviet, when the Soviet Union was still in existence, sought a formal relationship with the Congress. We demurred and did not want to enter such a relationship. The reason for that, of course, is they were not a democratically elected parliament. We have seen historic changes, revolutionary changes as Russia emerged as a new democracy. It is a democracy, obviously, struggling with its economy and struggling with a developing democracy. It was the thought of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), with which I strongly agreed, that the better and closer relationship they had with representatives of the people's House and of the United States Senate, really the examples for democratic parliamentary bodies in the world, it would assist them in their developing democracy and would assist us as well in establishing a relationship which would lead to better understanding and, therefore, more cooperation. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned that I chaired and am now the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission. That commission focuses on human rights. I kidded when we were in Moscow, when Viktor Chernomyrdin was at dinner with us, that I was coming back to the United States and raising a human rights issue about the gentleman from Pennsylvania making us work so hard. Forty-one meetings in 4 days is quite a schedule. But I found the meetings extraordinarily productive, worthwhile, and I think establishing a better relationship between our two countries and, indeed, between the leaders in Moldova, although they are now new, and the leaders in the Ukraine, although now troubled. I had to leave the trip early and go to Vienna for a meeting of the standing committee of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe where I have the privilege of representing our country, but I know from talking to Members who concluded the trip that it was an extraordinarily worthwhile trip. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) is going to speak after me. He is a new Member of Congress. This was, I think, his first visit to Russia and to some of the former Soviet states. It was my 15th or 16th visit. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has been there, as I recall his saying, 23 times. Mr. Speaker, we need to continue these visits. We need to continue this conversation. We need to continue with cooperation. There will, of course, be and are times when we disagree; but we need to disagree while talking to one another. We need to disagree while understanding the perspective of one another. It is critical for our own countries and critical for all the world, and I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and to tell him how much I appreciate co-chairing the Congress-Duma committee with him and the worthwhile work that we and other Members of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and the Duma are doing to establish an ongoing, continuing, positive relationship with this great merging democracy, Russia. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HOYER. I will take a little more time. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has a meeting to go to, and I want to get to him, but I did have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Kiselov, who, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out, is sort of our Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather rolled up into one. Media-MOST and NTV is the only independent TV station in Russia. It is funded by, in part at least, by a gentleman named Gusinsky. We urged the members of the Russian Duma and other officials with whom we met to ensure that they would continue to be free and independent. It is interesting that Ted Turner, who has so successfully opened up the eyes of the world to other lands through CNN, an extraordinary contribution to the interchange of peoples and the knowledge of one people of another, it is interesting that he has made an offer, along with partners, George Soros and others, to participate at the level of $30 million in helping to finance this independent TV station. We urged the leaders in Russia to ensure that that station would remain independent, because we know that a democracy cannot flourish without an independent press, without independent criticism, without an independent voice letting the people of that democracy know what their government is doing. If it is only a government-owned station, or if it is only a station owned by an organization like Gasprom, dependent on the government, then it will not be a free and objective voice. It will not be an alternative voice. So that was one of the issues that we had the opportunity to raise. I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is probably the expert in this Congress on national missile defense, will relate the numerous discussions we had on that issue to ensure that there is not a misunderstanding on either side as to what the objectives are and what the sense of responsibility is with respect to defending our peoples, both in Russia and in the United States, from those who would terrorize our peoples by ballistic missile attacks from a Third World nation. So the issue of independent media outlets, the issue of defense and security arrangements between our two peoples, were very important issues among many, many others that we raised. I am not going to go into them all, because I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will as well. But we talked about health issues, we talked about the environment, we talked about fighting drugs, and we talked about confronting terrorists in a cooperative way, because all of those issues were convergent in the best interests of both of our citizenry. Again, the discussions that we have that lead to better understanding and more cooperation will certainly result in a more stable and secure international environment. Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak briefly about the importance of NTV and Media-MOST to the growth of the democracy in Russia. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with the co-sponsorship of 44 of our colleagues, I have today introduced a concurrent resolution providing for the printing of a revised edition of the House document entitled Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989. The latest edition of this handsome work, published in 1990, contains brief biographies, photographs or sketches, and other important historical information about the 66 distinguished African-Americans who had served in either house of Congress as of January 23, 1990. An analysis of the membership of the six subsequent Congresses reveals that, as of today, an additional 40 distinguished African-Americans have served since the last edition. Moreover, several of the distinguished Members depicted in the last edition continued to serve in this House, and their biographies require appropriate updates. Clearly, the time has come to revise and reprint this important historical work. My concurrent resolution directs the Library of Congress to revise the volume under the direction of the Committee on House Administration. The resolution provides for the printing of a number of copies of the volume, in a suitable binding, for distribution to Members of both houses as determined by the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Mr. Speaker, the 1976 and 1990 editions of Black Americans in Congress have been a tremendous source of historical information for Members, scholars, students, and others about the distinguished African-Americans who have served their countrymen in the halls of the Senate and House of Representatives. The next edition will doubtless similarly become a tremendous resource, and a treasured addition to libraries across this land. I urge the Members to support my concurrent resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, late last month the Office of Compliance reported on its comprehensive fire-safety inspections of the three Library of Congress buildings. After previous dire warnings over the last two years from the House Inspector General and the Compliance Office about the state of fire protection in the Capitol and congressional office buildings, I had hoped for a better report on conditions at the Library. Unfortunately, the Compliance Office found that the Library buildings suffer from many of the same deficiencies as the Capitol and congressional buildings. I strongly believe that Congress must take every reasonable step to maximize the physical safety of the thousands who work in the Capitol complex every day and of the millions who visit every year. Congress also has a responsibility to safeguard the numerous valuable artifacts, many of them irreplaceable, which are housed in the Capitol and among the Library's collections. In view of the Compliance Office's findings at the Library, the new Chairman of the House Administration Committee [Mr. Ney] and I have written jointly to the Architect of the Capitol, who has responsibility for maintaining the Library's buildings, asking for a detailed report on the status of his efforts to correct the deficiencies there. Specifically, we have requested detailed plans, timelines, and an identification of any additional resources needed to complete the task. We have also written to the House Inspector General, who has demonstrated substantial expertise in fire-protection matters, asking his office to participate in regular meetings with Architect and Library staff, offer whatever guidance he deems appropriate, and monitor progress, as he does in connection with ongoing fire-safety work in the House. Last September the Architect unveiled before the House Administration Committee a staff reorganization plan that places all AOC fire-safety work under the supervision of a single senior-level subordinate, as proposed in a bill (H.R. 4366) that I introduced in the last Congress. The AOC is clearly moving in the right direction and I appreciate the progress he has made. The Chairman and I look forward to working with the Architect to ensure the deficiencies previously noted, and those just identified at the Library, are remedied as soon as practicable. I include for the Record the texts of our letters to the Architect and the Inspector General of the House: House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, February 7, 2001. Hon. Alan M. Hantman, AIA, The Architect of the Capitol, The Capitol. Dear Mr. Hantman: We have received the recent Office of Compliance report on its fire-safety inspections of the Library of Congress buildings. As you know, the Office found numerous fire-safety deficiencies in the three Library buildings, the same types of deficiencies found last year during thorough inspections of the Capitol and congressional office buildings. We are greatly concerned about the report and the grave danger posed to Library employees, visitors, and to the Library's enormous collection of books and artifacts, many irreplaceable, by decades of inadequate attention to fire-safety matters. We know you share our concern, and trust that you also share our determination to see these additional deficiencies corrected at the earliest possible date. Toward that goal, we ask that you provide us immediately with a comprehensive report on the status of AOC efforts to correct deficiencies found in the Library buildings. Please provide detailed plans for the correction of deficiencies that remain uncorrected, including an identification of any additional resources that you may need to complete the work and timelines for its completion. We also ask that you assess the level of fire protection now afforded to the Library's most valuable artifacts, and indicate how you will prioritize the correction of deficiencies related to their protection. We appreciate the progress that AOC has made in addressing fire-safety deficiencies in the House office buildings since the Inspector General's and Compliance Office's previous reports. We hope the Library can benefit from the AOC's experience in addressing those deficiencies. In that vein, we encourage you to incorporate into your approach for the Library the use of frequent, regular meetings among AOC, Library, and House Inspector General staff, to coordinate efforts and facilitate communication . A similar approach has worked well in the House. Thanking you for your prompt attention to this request, with kindest regards, we remain Sincerely yours, Bob Ney, Chairman. Steny H. Hoyer, Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for his very poignant and powerful comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).