Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I think it is a very positive addition to the bill. I join the chairman in support of the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, since the development of audio-recording technology in the 19th Century, composers, musicians, and others have created thousands of sound recordings that have amused, entertained, and enriched us individually and as a Nation. Sadly, as the 21st Century dawns, many of America's most precious sound recordings, recorded on perishable media, may soon be lost unless we act to preserve them for the use and enjoyment of future generations. Today I am delighted to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, in his introduction of legislation similar to the bipartisan bill that I introduced last year to help preserve this irreplaceable aspect of our cultural heritage. I hope all Members will support this effort. In 1988, Congress wisely enacted the National Film Preservation Act, which established a program in the Library of Congress to support the work of actors, archivists and the motion-picture industry to preserve America's disappearing film heritage. The revised bill introduced today, the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, follows the trail blazed by the Library's successful film program. The measure would create a National Recording Registry at the Library to identify, maintain and preserve sound recordings of cultural, aesthetic, or historic significance. Each year the Librarian of Congress would select recordings for placement on the Registry, upon nominations made by the public, industry or archive representatives; recordings will be eligible for selection ten years after their creation. A National Recording Preservation Board will assist the Librarian in implementing a comprehensive recording preservation program, working with artists, archivists, educators and historians, copyright owners, recording-industry representatives, and others. A National Recording Preservation Foundation, chartered by the bill, will encourage, accept and administer private contributions to promote preservation of recordings, and public accessibility to the Nation's recording heritage, held at the Library and at other archives throughout the United States. The bill authorizes appropriations of up to $250,000 per year for seven years to fund the Library's preservation program, and amounts over the same period to match the non-federal funds raised by the Foundation for preservation purposes. Mr. Speaker, by enacting this modest bill and working with the private sector to leverage the available resources, the Congress can spark creation of a comprehensive, sensible and effective program to preserve our Nation's sound-recording heritage for our children and grandchildren. I urge its quick enactment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I attended a ceremony in Pennsylvania for the National Governor's Association. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening today became the Chairman of the National Governor's Association and because of my attendance, I was unable to vote on H. Con. Res. 253, H.R. 4442, and H. Res. 415. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 379, 380, and 381.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply speak on behalf of the amendment that was already adopted, which I strongly support, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for supporting. I also want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for supporting this as well. This dealt with the alternative fuels amendment that was already adopted, and the reason I wanted to rise in support of it is because for the last 11 months the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which is located in my district and so strongly supported by the committee, has been conducting a pilot project using biodiesel. Biodiesel, or any of the other alternative fuels, makes sense for two reasons, Mr. Chairman. First, because biodiesel is derived vegetable or soybean oil it opens another potential market for our Nation's farmers. Secondly, biodiesel is good for the environment. It is a renewable resource that burns much cleaner than conventional diesel. At BARC, they use 80 percent diesel and 20 percent soybean oil mix. Their test results found that using biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions 16 percent. Now that may have already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. Particulate matter, which is a major component of smog, is reduced by 22 percent and sulfur emissions are reduced by 20 percent. Mr. Chairman, to date the 143 vehicles in their fleet have used over 60,000 gallons of biodiesel in their trucks, tractors and buses. They have found that maintenance costs are the same as using conventional diesel fuel. In fact, the mechanics at BARC's motor pool actually prefer using biodiesel. Not only does it increase lubrication throughout the engine but unlike regular diesel, it does not emit fumes that cause eye irritations, a fact that those of us who have been behind buses from time to time will think is a pretty good idea. I was going to urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, but I want to commend my colleagues for already having done that, but I am pleased that I had the opportunity to rise. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for this initiative.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and thank her for her leadership. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), my friend, for his leadership as well. Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Sanford

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her comments with reference to the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. I rise not to talk about the substance; I know there is some concern expressed by the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from Florida and others about exactly where this bill is now; but I do want to say to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that I echo the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). There is no more affable individual nor better friend to any of us in this House than the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), an honorable, decent and good legislator; and I thank him for his help. I rise simply to say that we do have a lot of interests in my district in farming and agriculture. We have a lot of interest obviously in the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his focus on those concerns and certainly the gentlewoman from Ohio, who does such an extraordinary job on behalf of the agriculture community, not just in Ohio, but throughout this country. I thank both of them for their leadership. Very frankly, it is unfortunate that we do not work together as collegially in every instance as I know these two do and we do on our committee. I might say in closing that I trust that we can get back at some point in time during this process to where we were when we came out of committee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, a distinguished son of Wyoming, Mike Sullivan, now an ambassador, is quoted on this very impressive brochure related to the Chief Washakie sculpture project. I think he says it well: ``Washakie is a model for leaders across the generations.'' How appropriate it is to have a statue representing the State of Wyoming, representing Native Americans, and representing the kind of country that does and should honor a leader across the generations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who represents Wyoming so well, in rising in support of this resolution. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) referred to it as an important resolution, and that it is. It may not be controversial, but it is important. Mr. Speaker, as ranking minority member of the House Administration Committee and the Joint Committee on the Library, I am pleased to support this concurrent resolution to enhance the National Statuary Hall collection by accepting this statue of Chief Washakie submitted by the State of Wyoming. Each of the 50 States, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, is permitted to submit two statues for our collection, which then become the property of the United States. This is Wyoming's second statue and brings the total number of such statues in the Capitol to 97 since the law creating the collection was enacted in 1864. Mr. Speaker, Congress has usually adopted concurrent resolutions such as the one before us today upon the arrival of a new statue for the collection from a State. H. Con. Res. 333 provides that the statue of Chief Washakie will be displayed for not to exceed 6 months in the Capitol rotunda. It will then be moved to a permanent site within the Capitol, as directed by the Joint Committee on the Library, since there is not sufficient enough space in Statuary Hall to accommodate all of the existing collection. The concurrent resolution would also authorize use of the Capitol rotunda on Thursday, September 7, at 11 o'clock a.m., for a ceremony where Wyoming will formally present the bronze statue of Chief Washakie by the noted sculptor Dave McGary. The concurrent resolution would provide for the printing of an appropriate number of copies of the transcript of the proceedings, under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, for use by both Chambers of Congress and by the senators and the representative from Wyoming. Chief Washakie, as it has been noted, lived from 1798 to 1900. He was a leader of the Shoshone tribe who united his people into a significant political and military force. Both warrior and peacemaker, he recognized that survival of Indian tribes in the western United States depended upon accommodation with migrating settlers and the United States Government. In 1868, he signed the Fort Bridger Treaty, establishing reservation boundaries of more than three million acres around the Warm Valley area of Wyoming. Chief Washakie spoke English and French as well as a number of other Indian languages, including, of course, Shoshone. He was a skilled negotiator who gained substantial benefits for his people at a time when many other tribes engaged in futile warfare with the army and incoming settlers. Chief Washakie knew that peace was better than war for his people and, as a result, did very well by them and was honored until his death by them and is honored today by them and by their State, Wyoming. When Chief Washakie died on February 23, 1900, he was accorded a full military funeral. I am told that he is the only known Indian chief to receive such an honor. Mr. Speaker, Wyoming has exercised its prerogative to honor Chief Washakie for his significant role in the early history of the State. We in this Congress, I know, are pleased to support this concurrent resolution and congratulate its sponsor on her leadership and for helping to facilitate the presentation of the statue to the people of the United States.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a map here, and the gentleman represents, am I correct, Baltimore County?

Mr. HOYER. And the Tolchester Channel is essentially southeast of the gentleman's congressional district and northeast of the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)?

Mr. HOYER. Whose district is it in? It is in the middle of the water; is that correct?

Mr. HOYER. So because it borders the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and it borders his district, both gentleman can equally claim it; am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. I just wanted to make sure that we understood.

Mr. HOYER. Good. We have all got maps.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the argument as to where to dump the spoil will have to be debated at some point in time. I would suggest to my friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that now is not the time to join it. I know the gentleman wants to stop this project and other projects; the gentleman has had, presumably, a change of heart since the 1996 letter, but we have moved ahead as a united delegation on this. I cannot speak for our two colleagues in the Senate, but I know they support this project as well. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the Congress to reject this amendment and not stop the study from being completed. We will argue the issue of dredging at some later time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I first heard about this amendment about 4 hours ago. Let me first put this in context for the Members. I believe that five Members of the Maryland delegation will rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Furthermore, while I have great respect for my colleague, we all adjoin the Chesapeake Bay, as a number of other districts adjoin parts of other waterways. We are talking about the waterways of Maryland. No particular one of us owns the waterways; they are common to all of us. The gentleman says this has been a controversy in the 1990s and that throughout the decade of the 1990s, the Corps has been unable to justify the costs of this project. Now, the gentleman has another amendment and we will be talking about it as well; but I want to call to the attention of the House of Representatives, my colleagues, a letter dated April 30, 1996. That letter was sent to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In it, the Maryland delegation, all eight Members, all 4 Republicans and all 4 Democrats, wrote to the committee stating: ``We write to ask your committee's favorable consideration of 3 important channel dredging projects affecting the welfare of the Port of Baltimore and the State of Maryland.'' We went on to say in the next paragraph, ``We cannot stress enough the importance of these projects in maintaining the vitality of the port. In fact, the competitive position of the port could turn, in large measure, on their implementation.'' That letter was signed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), myself, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). Why? Because we felt this was a vital project to our State and to the economic viability of our port on which thousands of persons rely. Now, my two colleagues from Baltimore will speak, I think, more pointedly to that. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). The deepening of the C&D Canal is absolutely essential for the viability of Maryland's port. The Port of Baltimore operates in an increasingly competitive environment. Anybody who represents a port knows that to be the case. The C&D Canal is a major access route between the Port of Baltimore and the North Atlantic coast ports. Use of the canal saves shipping lines time and money, which means competitive positions. The size of ships entering North Atlantic coast ports, including Baltimore, are already outgrowing the depth of the C&D Canal. That is why this study is being conducted, and this $100,000 is absolutely essential to complete this study before this project can proceed. As container vessels outgrow their ability to safely use the C&D Canal because of sailing draft constraints, they will be forced to sale substantially greater distances, via Cape Henry between the Port of Baltimore and North Atlantic coast ports, or use another port. That is why we wrote this letter. All eight Members of the Maryland delegation signed this letter. The transfer of cargo jobs and taxes to other States will have an absolutely deleterious effect on the citizens of the State of Maryland. Moreover, although vessel services and cargo may be lost due to a failure to maintain competitive access channel depth, the substantial fixed costs of the port do not change for the smaller volume of remaining cargo. This will result in reduced port efficiency, increased Corps' costs of port improvements for the remaining users and, therefore, put us in an increasingly uncompetitive status. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) that I would hope that he and the ranking member would oppose this amendment. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and I have talked about this amendment; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and I have talked about this amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern. The gentleman's concern is the dredging and where we put the spoil. That is a very significant issue that all of us are engaged in trying to figure out so that we do that correctly. But I would urge this body to reject this amendment, which stops the study. This does not deal with the dredging. The gentleman is correct, if we go ahead with a project, at some point in time we have to figure out where to put the spoil. I understand the gentleman's concern. Perhaps he did not have that concern in 1996 when he signed this letter.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate his comments. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues, in listening to the debate of my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), what he is particularly animated about and what we all share his concern about is pollution, not only in the Chesapeake Bay but in its tributaries as well, that obviously run to and from the Bay, irrespective of studies that tell me it is running both ways. That is a little perverse, and I share the gentleman's skepticism at this finding. But he is very concerned. And he has talked about the pollution in Chesapeake City, the pollution in other areas, the results of dredging, the results of spoil. That is the gentleman's issue. The issue is he does not want dredging. I understand that. Now, the gentleman has offered very frankly some comments about the studies: that the studies that he believes were done in 1997 and 1998 are not accurate; that the Corps has asked for new studies, and that they are trying to complete this study. The gentleman wants to, in effect, preliminarily cut the head off of this item. And his staffer is shaking his head very vigorously, yes. That is what the gentleman wants to do. He wants to kill this project. I understand that. He did not want to kill it in 1996, when he signed a MD delegation support letter. Now, why do we have a joint letter? We had a delegation letter because we thought it was a State issue and all eight of us signed the letter. All eight of us, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) whose district does not touch the Chesapeake Bay, although his district does touch on the Potomac River, which does come into the Chesapeake Bay, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), whose district touches the Potomac River which connects to the Chesapeake Bay; myself and every other Member in the delegation signed the letter. The gentleman's concern is well understood in the delegation. He is very well-schooled on this and works hard on it, and I have the utmost respect for the work that he does and the work he expresses. But as the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), pointed out, we are all concerned about that. All of us are very concerned about this issue. Mr. Chairman, I frankly will tell the gentleman that I have been involved in trying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and support Chesapeake Bay cleanup programs since long before he was in office, when I was in the State Senate, as has the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). The fact of the matter is that he is concerned about that. Now, we should allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete this study. Then we can have the debate, because it will take money to dredge. Then we can have the debate. At this point in time I would assure my colleagues that this is a State issue, not a local issue. This is a State issue. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Baltimore County, Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), who represents parts around Baltimore City, County and Anne Arundel County as well and Hartford County that all border the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries who himself has an interest in the Port of Baltimore, for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue on which Maryland is not divided. The Governor of Maryland opposes this amendment. The State Legislature opposes this amendment, not because they voted on this particular amendment, but because they support the Tolchester Channel straightening. Why? Because it is a safety issue. The pilots have been lobbying this very heavily. The Coast Guard, in two letters I read to my colleagues, said this is a significant safety issue, it needs to be resolved. The gentleman says we have not had any accidents. Well, the Exxon Valdez had an accident where there had been no accident. Very frankly, we have a pipeline down on the Patuxent River which for 40 years carried oil without an accident. But there is going to be an accident here, and the consequences may be very significant. The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee have heard this issue, they have gone the regular process, and they have approved this project. The majority of the Maryland delegation opposes the amendment of the gentleman. One of our former colleagues has worked very hard on this issue, Helen Bentley, a Republican; and I, as a Democrat, have worked hard on this issue. I share absolutely the concern of the gentleman about the environmental impact of dredging. We ought not to dredge if we cannot do so environmentally safely, period. That is a given. But we ought not to by this amendment with, and I reiterate, 4 hours' notice to the Maryland delegation that this amendment was going to be offered, defeat this project, which has been worked on since 1996, actually before that, with the participation of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). Now he has changed his mind. Let us not change our minds. Oppose the Gilchrest amendment. Support the Maryland delegation, the bipartisan Maryland delegation.