Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment. And the reason is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), has been a major sponsor of this legislation and has been unable to speak. That is not fair to him as one of the major sponsors of this legislation. It is the way the rule runs, and I would hope the Chairman would allow us the 5 minutes to do that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody agrees, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has said, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) has said, and I certainly agree with what both of them have said, and I have discussed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) said, not only can we fix this, but I would hope we would all pledge, as I will, to fix this. What the concern is, correct, nobody had any intention to divert from low-economic or medium-income areas assistance. Clearly, it was my intent, I think the intent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the intent of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), I know that the assistance here would go, CDBG funds are for, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) correctly pointed out, for low- and moderate-income areas. We need in conference to make sure that that is made very explicit; not implied, explicit. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is correct. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will agree with that. In conference, we will make sure that language explicitly limits such expenditures to areas currently eligible for CDBG.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, yes, 5 and 5.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minutes in support of the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes in support of the amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I might say that he started out with saying that he had a long history in dealing with libraries and was going to go back to his childhood; and I want to tell my friend I was going to jump to my feet and yield him more time on the theory that it might take some time. He is a distinguished scholar and a distinguished Member of this body, and I want to join in his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this concurrent resolution which honors the Library of Congress and its extraordinary staff. As the oldest Federal cultural institution and the largest library in the world, the Library of Congress serves a unique role in American life. It is the keeper of our past and a teacher of our future. The Library archives America's cultural history through its collections of 119 million items, including books, films, musical recordings, prints, maps, and photographs. Make no mistake, though, the Library is not simply a collection of documents wasting away in a Federal warehouse. Due to an extraordinarily talented and dedicated staff, the Library, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has pointed out, is a true American treasure. The employees of the Library of Congress make millions of items in the collection come to life as a living history of our Nation. Through its 22 reading rooms on Capitol Hill and its extensive web site, the Library, as I said, educates America. Whether it is a Member of Congress examining an issue, a school child researching a report, or an author writing a book, the Library of Congress will have what they are looking for and its staff of ``knowledge navigators'' will make sure they find it. Just last month, Mr. Speaker, I introduced my new web site at the James Madison Middle School in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. The student who was helping me demonstrate the site was doing a paper on the Gold Rush. Through my site, we linked to the Library of Congress' American Memory web site. The student searched for information on the Gold Rush and emerged with a treasure trove of information, letters from frontiersmen, pictures of the Old West, lyrics from music sung on the trail. I saw a light, Mr. Speaker, in that young boy's eyes as history came alive for him. This is but one small example of the power and impact of the Library of Congress. It is an example that is repeated daily in classrooms all across America. The answers that boy found, the answers the Library helps all of us find, do not come to us simply because we click the mouse or pick up a phone or visit the reading room. The answers, Mr. Speaker, come because of the hard work and dedication of the staff of the Library of Congress. We do not always know their names, but it is impossible not to know their work. They are the ones who find the books, who organize the materials, who research the issues, who write the summaries, and, yes, who update the web site. Our lives and the American people's lives are richer for their work. I am proud to join my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), in honoring them today and the Library itself. I am honored and privileged to support this resolution. The Library of Congress is among the finest institutions in our land and, yes, even more so than that, probably the finest library in the world and one of the finest institutions in the world. It is led by an extraordinary American, Dr. Jim Billington, my friend, a scholar himself, one of the intellectuals of this Nation, one of the experts on Russia and many other subjects. But he and the staff with whom he works have brought alive the information so necessary to succeed in our society today. Mr. Speaker, the Library of Congress was relevant when it was founded 200 years ago. In the information age, I suggest to my colleagues, the Library is more relevant today than it has ever been. It is opening up the gateway to knowledge, knowledge essential not just to the young but to all of us if we are to succeed and to enjoy this information age in which we live. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I rise in strong support of this concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any requests for time, I tell the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I know my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), join me in my comments and in the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and in their congratulations to the Library of Congress and to its staff. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his comments and for his making a comment about the time between what was done in 1965 and that bridge being crossed, and I would comment that when we crossed the bridge in 2000, 35 years later, I think all of us were struck by the fact that there were Alabama troopers on the other side of that bridge but their response, when the end of the Edmund Pettus Bridge was reached by John Lewis and others, was to salute, to salute in honor of all that John had accomplished and all that John represented, and showed a revolutionary change in those short 35 years. The governor of Alabama, rather than talking about interposition and other doctrines of States' rights, met John and the President at the bridge and Governor Siegelman welcomed John Lewis home because, of course, John Lewis comes from Alabama; moved to Georgia and represents that State very well. I think the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Hoeffel), from Montgomery County as opposed to Montgomery, Alabama, made very clear the point that the march of 1965 continues to this date. Now I would like to recognize my friend who now represents Birmingham and surrounding areas in Alabama, a former member of the State legislature, a State senator who himself was involved in the struggle, who himself was a fighter for freedom. I am pleased to recognize and yield to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for those remarks. We all share his view of John's place in this House. I yield to my friend from the city of brotherly love. I say that not facetiously. We in Penn wanted that to be a State and City of Brotherly Love, but we know all too often in this Nation where brotherly love is preached and brotherly love gets a doff of the hat from time to time, unfortunately there are too oftentimes when it is not practiced. So I am pleased to recognize someone who went with us and who added immeasurably to our experience, a gentleman from the Philadelphia region and Montgomery County, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New York for the depth of his integrity and the quality of his leadership in this House. I want to yield to my very good friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection, who has spent his time as a Member, he has been with this institution for a long period of time. I guess he is now in his third decade of work in this institution but a relatively new Member, succeeding his mentor and a great Member of this body, Bob Michel, but who has done as much as any Member in this body to try to bring us together collegially irrespective of party or faction or ideology, and that is a service that this institution needs. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. HOYER. I apologize for that. That was an unfair thing to do.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, he notices I chose to speak before the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for giving us all that opportunity and for his comments which are as compelling tonight as he always is, because they are real, heartfelt, and live sentiments. I thank my colleague. We are all honored to be his friend. I now want to yield to another extraordinary American. In the context of cochair of the Faith & Politics Institute, an American who comes from an extraordinarily different background from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who superficially people would say is much different than the gentleman from Georgia but they look on the outward manifestation of the color of skin which is just a superficial difference because he is, as the gentleman from Georgia referred to him, very much a brother, very much someone whose heart and head tells him that we are all in this together and we need to respect one another and lift one another up. We are all honored to serve with him in the Congress of the United States, my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to commemorate and to recall an extraordinary weekend that I and many of my colleagues had the opportunity to spend with our colleague, one of the historic Members of this House. He is probably, I suppose, the most historic Member of this House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). The event that we participated in just a couple of weeks ago was under the aegis of the Faith & Politics Institute, headed up by the Reverend Doug Tanner. Reverend Tanner delivered the prayer, Mr. Speaker, at the opening of this session of the House, and he is here with us on the floor. It was an extraordinary opportunity for many of us to relive with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and with others the courage and commitment shown by some Americans so that all Americans would have the right to avail themselves fully of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. We went to Birmingham, Alabama, then to Montgomery, then to Selma, and back to Montgomery. Montgomery, Alabama, is, of course, the capital of Alabama. Birmingham, as I will say briefly, was the site of a confrontation between freedom and evil, between those who would deny other human beings basic rights because of the color of their skin. We see in today's world across the globe that happening too often, where nationalism and racism and other ethnic divisions drive people to commit heinous acts against others. It is appropriate that we remember what has happened in the past so that we can hopefully avoid it happening in the future and sensitize ourselves to the pain of others when they are inadvertently shut out, even if we are not consciously setting them aside and denying their rights. Mr. Speaker, as we stand at the dawn of a new century and join the strongest economy in 50 years, we sometimes overlook what brought us to this point. Two weeks ago, as I said, we were again reminded, reminded that the book of American history includes chapters that are both repugnant and, thankfully, triumphant. We were reminded that the courage to confront injustice and inhumanity is an indelible part of our national character. And we were reminded, Mr. Speaker, in the words of abolitionist and journalist Frederick Douglass, if there is no struggle, there is no progress. On Sunday, March 5, we witnessed dramatically this progress, and we honored the courageous and continuing struggle for social justice. Two Sundays ago, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who is here with me on the floor, cochaired with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) this effort and the congressional participation in the Institute on Faith and Politics. We were joined by nearly 20 other Members of Congress, by President Clinton, leaders of the civil rights movement and thousands of others in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate a seminal moment in American history, Bloody Sunday. That phrase entered the American lexicon on March 7, 1965, 35 years ago, when Alabama state troopers and the posse of sheriffs, so-called deputies, attacked 600 men, women and children who had marched peacefully across the Edmond Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Those brave marchers who were lead by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and Reverend Josiah William had committed no crime or offense. In short, there was no reason that they would be attacked by those who were sworn to uphold the law, protect the citizens of Alabama, and honor the Constitution of this great Nation. Those marchers had simply demanded the most basic of American rights, the most basic right in any democracy, the right of a citizen to express their opinion to participate in the decision-making process of their Nation, by voting. In Selma, in 1965 less than 1 percent of eligible black residents were registered to vote. Not, Mr. Speaker, because they did not desire to vote, not because they did not think that voting was important, but because they were being precluded by various devices. Literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation were the weapons used to disenfranchise and discourage those from participating in their democracy. The marchers sought to change that, but their rightful demand was met with nightsticks, bullwhips, tear gas, ignorance, and hatred. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who has now joined us on the floor, was one of the first to fall, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman led this march through the courage of his convictions, not just for African Americans, but for all Americans, knowing full well that if justice was not accorded to African Americans, it would not be accorded to any American ultimately. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) when ordered to do so by the state troopers stopped in his place as he crossed the Edmond Pettus Bridge. They told him to retreat. Rather than retreat, however, he bowed his head and began to pray; and the response of the Alabama state troopers on that March 7, 1965, was to assault the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and those with whom he marched. They fractured his skull with a nightstick, injuring him seriously. That event was a dramatic historic event in the history of this country. A few days later, President Lyndon Johnson put these horrific events into context, declaring to a joint session of Congress, and I quote, ``At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom.'' ``So it was,'' he said, ``at Lexington and Concord, so it was a century ago at Appomatox, and so it was,'' Lyndon Johnson concluded, ``last week in Selma, Alabama.'' Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the Faith and Politics Institute for organizing this recent pilgrimage to Alabama and for allowing me and so many of my colleagues to attend. As we walked by the statues of snarling dogs in Birmingham's Kelly Ingram Park and toured the 16th Street Baptist Church where four little innocent unknown beautiful girls who happened to be black died in a murderous explosion in 1963. I was struck, Mr. Speaker, again, by the depth of the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Lewis) courage and commitment to justice for all and how that same courage and commitment was shared by so many men, women, and children that we will never know. Mr. Speaker, we rise to commemorate their courage tonight and their perseverance too; for on this night, March 21, 1965, began the Selma to Montgomery march that successfully concluded on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol 4 days later. The marchers who were brutalized on Bloody Sunday and the marchers who made it to Montgomery 2 weeks later reminded us that nightsticks are no match for reason; that bullwhips stand no chance against courage; and that ignorance and hatred have no place in the land of the free and the home of the brave. A little more than a year later, a year after Bloody Sunday, Robert Kennedy summed it far more eloquently than I can hope to do; and I repeated those words as we met at the end of that incredible weekend. He was speaking in Capetown, South Africa, to a group of African students; and he said this, that ``each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or speaks out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, they build a tide that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' There were 600 people who left the AME Church, the Brown AME Church in Selma, walked the few blocks to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, who were standing up for an ideal, were speaking out against injustice, were acting to improve the lot of others. And as the attack on them appeared on television that night, they, through their courage and commitment, built a tide that did, in fact, sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. What a debt of gratitude, Mr. Speaker, this Nation owes to those brave souls. So it was in Selma in 1965. And what 1965 tells to us most clearly is that it is that way today. We have made much progress. But all of us know there is a far way to go. There is a great song, Mr. Speaker, that ends with this refrain in the first verse, ``Facing the rising sun of our new day begun, let us march on til victory is won.'' History tells us that full victory is never won. There are victories in battles. But, unfortunately, man's inclination to discriminate against his fellow man always seems to crop its head above the surface. And so, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), he teaches us a lesson and all those with whom he marched; he honored us by allowing us to help commemorate that day with him and others who marched on that day. Let us all pray that, when the next time comes, we too will have the courage that he displayed to stand up, to speak out, to act against oppression, to, with him, knock down those mighty walls of oppression and resistance. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), as I said, a historic figure who has contributed beyond perhaps all of us collectively to the realization of what this great democracy means not just to the American people but to the peoples of this world.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. We appreciate his comments and appreciate his welcome to his district and appreciate his invitation back. I think I pointed out, and the point that was made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) was apt, that Selma is America, and America can learn lessons from Selma, as Selma needed to learn lessons from America. Doug Tanner, we all do thank you. You have made our lives richer, more whole, by your ministering to us, ministering to us in a variety of different ways, some of which some would say are religious, some would say secular, but surely ministering to our souls and to our hearts and to our heads so that we will be better persons and treat one another as we would want to be treated. As I was sitting here and listening to all of you speak, I thought to myself, we rise here every day as we begin this session and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The lesson of Selma is for all. Indivisible. We cannot segregate rights and expect any of us to long enjoy those rights. That, John, is the lesson I think you were teaching to the country, that Martin Luther King, Jr., was teaching to the country. If you hold truths to be self-evident and you say that all men are created equal and endowed not by the State, not by government, but by God, by their creator, with inalienable rights, then God's creatures mean for all, liberty and justice for all. John, I think you made us a little more cognizant of what that really means; and as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has pointed out, it teaches us better how to go home with our friends and neighbors, families and colleagues, and to emphasize how important it is for our Nation to be better than it is today. As great as it is, as just as it is, it can be better, if we realize that we must have it as a Nation with justice for all. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving us this time to commemorate an extraordinary experience in the lives of each one of us. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I honor and thank my brother, John Lewis; and I thank my friend, Doug Tanner.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, with my fellow House Administration Committee Democrats, Chaka Fattah, and Jim Davis, I am introducing a new bill to accomplish FEC reform. Let me be clear--this bill is not and does not pretend to be campaign finance reform. Instead it is about making the Federal Election Commission more efficient, effective and responsive, and providing the agency with full funding so it can properly carry out its congressional mandate. It is about FEC reform. The bill consists of provisions sought by the bipartisan FEC Commissioners, including six legislative changes the Republican and Democratic Commissioners agreed were of the highest priority in a letter they sent to the President and the Congress earlier this month. This is a consensus measure that also incorporates many of the excellent ideas put forth by House Administration Committee Chairman Bill Thomas in his bill that was unanimously voted out of the House Administration Committee last summer. In a letter I sent to the Speaker last September, I urged him to take up and pass the similarly bipartisan measure then before the Congress. I urge him again to quickly take up this matter. This bill is an opportunity for us to work together to achieve a type of reform we all agree is both necessary and important, by providing the FEC with the tools and funding to do its job.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedicated service of Special Agent Thomas W. Fischer to the people of the United States. Mr. Fischer entered the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in 1977 and demonstrated early in his career that he possessed ambition and integrity that would lead him into a successful lifelong career. Special Agent Fischer began his enforcement career on February 27, 1967, with the Baltimore City Police Department. He served honorably and with valor for 10 years. Due to his considerable skills, tact, courage, and dedication to duty, he was promoted from patrolman to detective, tactical sergeant, detective sergeant, and lieutenant (select). While serving with the Baltimore City Police Department, Thomas W. Fischer received nine official commendations for valor and meritorious service. In 1977 Thomas W. Fischer began a career in Federal law enforcement as a Special Agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. His first assignment was at the Maryland State Capitol in Annapolis. As a seasoned law enforcement veteran he was quickly recognized as a rising star and leader. Continuing in his remarkable career, during the Iranian crisis, Thomas W. Fischer was assigned as the only civilian Federal agent aboard the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Tom set the NCIS Special Agent longevity record for at-sea time as a Special Agent Afloat (SAA), with 247 days at sea out of 255 days on deployment. This record remains to this day. Following his exploits at sea, Special Agent Fischer was assigned briefly to the NCIS office in Washington, DC. In 1981 Special Agent Fischer, ever in search of a challenge, transferred to NAS Cubi Point, the Philippines. After only a year, he was promoted to Squad Leader for the Foreign Counterintelligence (FCI) Squad, Subic Bay. He was subsequently promoted to the position of Assistant Rgional Director (FCI) for the Regional NCIS Office, Philippines. In June 1985 Special Agent Fischer accepted an assignment as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge for FCI at the NCIS office at Long Beach, CA. In August 1986, Tom transferred to NCIS Headquarters where he served as a Senior Staff Assistant to the Director as the Special Agent Afloat Program Manager. In 1987, Special Agent Fischer made history while assigned to the Bobsled Task Force investigating Marine Security Guard espionage activity. Special Agent Fischer traveled to Moscow, U.S.S.R. where he conducted interviews and other inquiries at the American Embassy. In September 1987, continuing supervisory ascent, Mr. Fischer was named Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the NCIS office in Washington, DC. In October 1988, Special Agent Fischer was named Special Agent in Charge of the Regional Fraud Unit, National Capitol Region, Washington DC. During June 1991, Special Agent Fischer assumed duties as the Deputy Regional Director of the NCIS European Region London, United Kingdom. He was then promoted to Regional Director where he served with distinction until his selection as Assistant Director for Inspections in May 1994. During the past 6 years, Mr. Fischer, as an Assistant Director, has brought vision, candor, and insight to many issues instrumental in building the NCIS of today. Special Agent Fischer served honorably and served as a role model and leader for an entire agent corps, who by living according to his high standard, remains as his lasting legacy to the organization he so nobly served. Special Agent Fischer's career, which includes active duty service in the U.S. Armed Forces from March 1962 to September 1965, spans five decades of service to the people of the United States.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the special order just given.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Boehlert amendment. I have the greatest respect for both of the sponsors of this amendment; but as my friend from Texas said, I believe this effectively guts the underlying bill. Indeed, I think that is its intent. The fifth amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from taking private property without just compensation. This prohibition is applicable to local governments, of course, as all of us know through the 14th amendment. I think that many of us are in agreement that a problem exists in the way that takings cases are adjudicated. Let me say that for the most part I have opposed the efforts on the other side of the aisle to gut environmental protections. I support substantively those provisions in local, State and Federal law. However, it now takes on average 10 years for the average takings case to be heard. Because of this delay, an unbelievable 80 percent of the cases are never heard on their merits. Robert Kennedy was quoted, and others have been as well, that justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that with takings cases, it is clear that justice is being delayed and denied. Therefore, I suggest to my colleagues this is not about States' rights or Federal rights. This is not about liberals or conservatives. This is about whether in the United States of America when an individual feels aggrieved by their government at whatever level that government happens to be, that they have an opportunity for relief and redress; that they can appeal in a timely fashion to have the government's actions adjudged by an independent judiciary. Now, because this is a constitutional right, it seems to me right and proper that they have access in a timely way to their Federal judiciary. Therefore, although I am in disagreement with most of my friends on this issue, which I perceive to be a process issue, an issue of not denying interminably the ability of Americans to seek redress in the courts, not a substantive issue as to the underlying environmental protections, which I support; but I very strongly support this bill on the process grounds that government ought not to, by constant and interminable delay, deny to any citizen, no matter how poor or how rich, the right to have their rights adjudicated in the courts of this land. Therefore, I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment and in strong support of the underlying bill, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This routine concurrent resolution will create, as the chairman has said, the customary joint committee of this Congress to prepare for the inauguration of the 43rd President and the 46th Vice President of the United States on January 20, 2001. The joint committee will consist of three Senators and three Representatives who will plan the ceremony transferring the highest office in the land to the person chosen as our next chief executive. That simple but elegant, dignified ceremony is the grandest in our national life, and symbolizes our commitment to peaceful, democratic self-governance. The chairman correctly pointed out that ours is the longest-standing democracy in history. That transfer of power is a magnificent testimony to the people of the United States and our commitment to democracy. I urge all Members to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all of us were very pleased that the judgment was made to move into the rotunda, and, that in fact, the rotunda was available on January 20, 1985. I think the temperature outside with the windchill was many degrees below zero. It was a very cold period. Very frankly, the health of all of those in attendance, including the President himself, would have been at stake had we remained outside. More than that, however, the rotunda, of course, is one of our most historical sites, in the middle of the United States Capitol, which is perceived around the world as the center of democracy. I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again introduce a resolution for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby to hold its race along Constitution Avenue. This bill will permit the 59th running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which is to take place on the Capitol Grounds on Saturday, June 24th, 2000. This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby in complete compliance with rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol Grounds. In the past, the full House has supported this resolution once reported favorably by the full Transportation Committee. I ask for my colleagues to join with me, and Representatives Albert Wynn, Connie Morella, Jim Moran, and Tom Davis, in supporting this resolution. From 1992 to 1999, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby welcomed over 40 contestants which made the Washington, DC race one of the largest in the country. Participants range from ages 9 to 16 and hail from communities in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia. The winners of this local event will represent the Washington Metropolitan Area in the National Race, which will be held in Akron, Ohio on July 22, 2000. The Soap Box Derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain valuable skills such as engineering and aerodynamics. Furthermore, the Derby promotes team work, a strong sense of accomplishment, sportsmanship, leadership, and responsibility. These are positive attributes that we should encourage children to carry into adulthood. The young people involved spend months preparing for this race, and the day that they complete it makes it all the more worthwhile.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to bring to the House's attention an article about the Government Printing Office from the December 1999 issue of In-Plant Graphics. This prestigious printing-industry journal has, for a second consecutive year, ranked the Government Printing Office first among the ``Top 50'' printing plants surveyed, thus labeling GPO as the best in- plant operation in America. The December 1998 issue of In-Plant Graphics, while bestowing the same honor for the first time, described the GPO as ``better than ever.'' These accolades, from a respected trade publication, together speak volumes about the diligence and dedication of the versatile GPO workforce. As the 1999 article, entitled ``The Digitizing of GPO,'' reveals, in recent years technology has changed dramatically the way many Americans acquire government information, and the GPO has been in the vanguard. GPO still prints the Congressional Record and the Federal Register each night for its many customers who must have traditional paper copies, including the Congress itself, and produces other printed products around the clock. However, GPO also distributes these and other products in electronic format, quickly, economically and widely. As a case in point, late one Friday afternoon last November, the federal district court in Washington delivered to GPO for publication its findings of fact in the Microsoft antitrust case, a proceeding of immense economic significance and national interest. Within one hour of GPO's subsequent release of the document at 6:30 PM, interested persons had accessed it 152,000 times through a special GPO website established for that purpose. Simultaneously, walk-in customers could purchase printed copies of the document in GPO's main bookstore. While preserving its capability to produce ink-on-paper, GPO recognizes that demand for electronic products will increase exponentially in the years ahead. The public already downloads over 21 million documents each month through GPO Access [http:// www.access.gpo.gov], GPO's electronic gateway to more than 160,000 federal titles. The GPO is committed to working with its customers and others to facilitate that change. GPO is itself reaping the benefits of technology and passing the savings along to the American people. The agency accomplishes all these feats with 30% fewer production employees than it had just six years ago. Mr. Speaker, please join me in saluting the dedicated men and women of the digitized Government Printing Office, still better than ever. The article follows: [From the In-Plant Graphics, Dec. 1999] The Digitizing of GPO (By Bob Neubauer) When the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia prepared to release Judge Thomas P. Jackson's ``Findings of Fact'' in the Microsoft case in November, the court contacted the U.S. Government Printing Office. GPO was asked to make advance preparations for the rapid dissemination of the document. GPO, as always, was ready for the challenge. Judge Jackson's decision was announced at 4:30, and the court sent a printed copy and a disk version of the 207-page document to GPO, where print production began immediately. Covers had been produced in advance. By 6:30, when GPO's main bookstore reopened, copies were available. By 8:30, 147 had been sold. Meanwhile, GPO made the findings available on its Web site in WordPerfect, PDF and HTML formats. It established a URL for this information (usvms.gpo.gov). In the first hour of release, the site experienced 152,000 successful connections. For GPO, the largest in-plant in the country, such monumental projects have become second nature. Now in its 139th year of existence, GPO drastically changed itself over the past few years from a strictly ink-on-paper provider to a high-tech digital data delivery organization. The public downloads some 20 million documents a month from GPO Access, GPO's Web site (www.access.gpo.gov). ``We're putting more and more electronic products up, which seems to be what the public wants,'' notes Public Printer Michael DiMario. He recently signed a request for more Internet bandwidth in the form of a T3 line to accommodate the anticipated demand. The successful online dissemination of the Microsoft findings was welcome news for those who remember the initial posting of the Starr Report last year, when GPO Access was jammed with traffic, which clogged the system. ``We took certain steps to upgrade the number of T1 lines that we have and install additional servers,'' notes Andrew M. Sherman, director of congressional, legislative and public affairs. A BigIP load balancer, served by five T1 lines, kept heavy volume from freezing some visitors out. Over the past few years, Sherman notes, online delivery has helped to decrease print volume--as well as outside procurement. (Also contributing were shrinking government budgets and fewer requested copies.) Concurrently, the skills of GPO's work force have migrated toward the electronic end. But print is still strong. GPO's two new Krause America LX170 computer-to-plate systems are now up to speed, Sherman says, and they're being used to run plates for all major publications, including the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. The new passport bindery line is operational, as well. And with 7.5 million passports passing through GPO last year, the line has its work cut out for it. In the next decade, DiMario says, GPO will strengthen its efforts to share its expertise with other government agencies. Already it has expanded its Federal Printing and Electronic Publishing Institute, which offers courses to help agencies deal with technological changes. GPO also hopes to provide digital access to even more government documents in the future, he says. As for GPO's size, DiMario doesn't see it changing much. GPO has already downsized dramatically in the 1990s. In 1994 it employed 1,701 production personnel; today there are 1,173. ``We're probably scaled back as much as we can be . . . without some potential problems,'' observes DiMario. ``We've got a very professional work force. The results speak for themselves.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about an item that ought to outrage not only everybody on this floor but everybody throughout the world. The plight of Afghani women is desperate. So desperate, in fact, that at least half of the passengers on a recently hijacked Afghani airliner have now sought political asylum in England. So desperate that English authorities continue to investigate whether some of the passengers, men and women, aided their captors in an effort to escape the brutal, vicious, thug-like Taliban regime in Kabul. Mr. Speaker, as we enter a new century marked by hope and optimism, marked by the expansion of freedom and democracy, the Taliban regime seems bent on dragging its citizens, and in particular its women, back to the dark ages. In fact, it is probably worse than the dark ages. To be female in Afghanistan today is to be a target, a target for repression, a target for brutality, a target for physical and emotional terror that knows no peer. As First Lady Hillary Clinton has stated, ``We must all make it unmistakably clear this terrible suffering inflicted on the women and girls in Afghanistan is not cultural, it's criminal. And we must do everything in our power to stop it.'' The First Lady was absolutely correct. Ever since the Taliban seized power in 1996, it has enforced edicts that have destroyed basic human rights for Afghani women. According to the U.S. State Department and human rights groups, women and girls are prohibited from attending school. With few exceptions, women are prohibited from working outside the home. Women and girls may not go outside unless they wear a head-to-toe covering called a Barca. A three-inch square opening provides the only means for vision. Women are prohibited from appearing in public unless accompanied by a male relative. My colleagues, listen to this: Access to medical care for women and girls is virtually nonexistent. Mr. Speaker, I am the father of three young women, three girls, and the grandfather of a beautiful 13-year-old granddaughter. Intolerable situations. Women are not allowed to practice medicine. And listen to this: Male doctors are prohibited from viewing or touching women's bodies. How can a woman get medical services if women are prohibited from practicing medicine and men are prohibited from viewing or touching women? Windows in houses that have female occupants must be painted so that one cannot see from the street. It is hard to believe that any society in the world would force its citizens to endure such Draconian conditions. But, in the 21st century and the dawn of the century, it is the sad truth. Violations of the Taliban code brings swift, brutal punishment from the religious police, known as the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtues and Suppression of Vice. What a warped understanding of virtues the Taliban has. Women have been beaten on the street for showing an inch of ankle below the Barca or for wearing shoes that make sounds while walking. One woman reportedly was shot for appearing in public while taking her sick child to a doctor. What a warped sense of virtue these Taliban have. Other women are randomly rounded up and imprisoned for no apparent justification. Women are frequently stoned, hung, and beaten for alleged violations of various Taliban laws. Some, I suppose, would argue that the treatment of Afghani women and girls half a world away is none of our business. But when basic human dignities are stripped from so many and so violently, we should not, we must not stand by silent. Indeed, we must express our collective outrage and, yes, perhaps do more than that. It would be, Mr. Speaker, unconscionable for us to look away while an entire generation of Afghani women are desperately crying out for help. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time, but more importantly, I appreciate the fact that all of my colleagues join in expressing this outrage and reversing this criminal behavior. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), in bringing this matter, this desperate matter, to the attention of our colleagues.