Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, during my career I have had the opportunity to serve on the Page Board. And as I say each year, when we take an opportunity such as this to thank the departing pages for the service that they have given to this people's House, I had the opportunity to serve as president of the Maryland Senate, and in that capacity ran the page program in that body. It was one of the best duties that I had. Not only do our pages provide extraordinary service, but they learn a lot. They observe the dedication of the men and women who have been selected by their neighbors to serve in the Congress of the United States, in this, the greatest example of democracy in this world. Vaclav Havel came and gave a speech on that second rostrum, and he pointed out that the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Capitol itself, and the legislative process that occurs in this Capitol are inspiration for all the world. There are only a few young Americans who can have the opportunity to witness democracy in action firsthand. The process of 435 individuals coming together, representing roughly 600,000 people each, over 260 million people collectively, to resolve the questions that confront our country is truly extraordinary. You have had a unique window on that operation. I believe that experience places upon our departing pages a special responsibility, a special responsibility to return to their communities, their schools, and their neighborhoods, and to impart to their friends what they have learned. I believe that each of our pages leaves with a conviction that our democracy works pretty well and that it produces representatives who really care. They may differ, and they may fight, and on C-SPAN sometimes they appear overly contentious. But our pages have an opportunity to see a broader participation than C-SPAN affords most of the public; and, therefore, they can impart a much more accurate picture of this institution. I hope that each of our pages is as proud of this institution as each of us who serves within it. I hope that each of them leaves this institution with the intention to tell other Americans, whether they be young people, or their parents, or their uncles and aunts and relatives, and all of their peers, about how precious this democracy is and how important to its success is their participation in it. We have had a number of people who have served in the Congress who started their careers as pages. The late Bill Emerson is a specific example. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dale Kildee) is another, who used to chair this Page Board. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) is another. Any one of our fine pages standing in the well may stand here where I stand, or where the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) stands, and speak on behalf of his and her neighbors and friends. The only way to get to the House of Representatives as a Member is to be elected. One cannot be appointed. Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that it was constituents who selected their representatives, not governors, not presidents, but the people. That is why we proudly call this the people's House. Our pages have served here with us. They have served not only us, but America. We urge them to go back and continue to help us build a better country for us all. I know they will. Thank you and Godspeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could wax eloquent about the 37 years that Joan has put up with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but I will refrain from that and simply say that those of us who have the opportunity to serve with him and know Joan know them to be one of the most loving, caring couples that we know. We join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) in congratulating them on their 37 years. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill. I say to my colleagues in the majority, I do not know in whom you are repositing responsibility, but I do know this: There has been a lot of talk about working together. There has been a lot of talk about a family-friendly Congress. We went to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to talk about working together. That was apparently an objective of the majority. Well, I happen to serve on the Subcommittee on Legislative, which is chaired by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). I do not suppose there is anybody on the other side of the aisle that believes that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is a profligate spender. Is there? Apparently not. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) looked at this bill and I presume made a judgment, a judgment as to what this institution needed to run responsibly. In that process, of course we adopted a budget that was promulgated by the Republicans, the budget of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his Senate counterpart.. Now, very frankly, I voted against that budget. My belief is there are an awful lot of people who voted for that budget who know it will not work and know it is going to crash, period, paragraph, 30. Now we pursue a charade, and that charade is that we are going to nickel-and-dime. This entire bill is four-tenths of a percent of the discretionary spending that the appropriators will spend pursuant to the budget resolution. There is no Budget Act point of order that would lie against this bill. Why? Because it is within the budget resolution. This is not something that we went outside the constraints of the budget resolution and the 302(b) allocations to our committee. We are within the allocation. But there is now this pretense that somehow we are going to save education. We are going to put $2 billion, that is what the chairman of our subcommittee wants to do, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 2 billion extra dollars in NIH by somehow reconfiguring these figures at the last minute. The gentleman from North Carolina and I do not always agree, but I will tell my colleagues this, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) sat down with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the ranking member on our subcommittee, in a bipartisan fashion and said, how do we make this bill work? Guess what, Mr. Speaker, their bill passed out of our subcommittee unanimously. Then it went to full committee. In a bipartisan fashion, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) conducted the debate. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made his comments, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) made their comments, and it passed by voice vote unanimously out of the committee. This was not a bill that had great controversy to it. But then, as I said the other day on this floor, that happened on the agriculture bill. All of a sudden, arising from the bosom of the Republican Conference came a hue cry, ``This is not enough''; and without any consultation with our side of the aisle at all, totally destroyed the bipartisanship that had created a consensus on this legislation. We are confronted with these amendments which, yes, do undermine the ability of Members, in my opinion, to represent appropriately their constituents and to recognize the effort of our employees. This will not save education, which, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) pointed out, is $12 billion under what my colleagues say we need, what the chairman says we need, not us on our side of the aisle, but what my chairman says is necessary to fund adequately education and health care in the Labor HHS bill. Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said earlier, a charade to serve some rhetorical argument about fiscal responsibility while, at the same time we say we want to save education, we in fact underfund education. This is very early in the process. This is an extraordinarily easy proposal to make. But the hour will come when the proposals will not be so easy, the rhetoric will not be so symbolic, and when the consequences will be much more severe. Let us reject this rule.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the passage of this bill. I regret doing so, and I intended to support it. The comity in this body requires, I think, that we give notice to one another of actions that are being taken. Now, I understand the Republican Conference met, and they have had trouble passing this bill, and they had a discussion. I do not know what went on. I was not in the conference. Apparently there was a determination, well, we will cut some programs from the bill. We will cut some items from the bill, $102.5 million. These items were cut after going through the subcommittee and full committee. My belief is that they were not cut substantively, that is to say, I do not believe for one second that a substantive judgment was made with reference to the merits of these particular projects. In my opinion, these cuts were made essentially as somewhat an across-the-board cut in order to get the requisite number of votes to pass this bill on the Republican side of the aisle. Now, when we were in charge, I opposed those kinds of amendments, and I oppose them when we are not in charge. My colleagues will not be surprised to learn that one of the projects cut was mine. Now, it was not mine personally, it was a lab facility, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which this Nation has created. It happens to be located in my district. But it is America's research facility, and it is the best research facility in the world. Every farmer, not just in America, but throughout the world relies on the research that that institution has produced. In fact, productivity at every farm in America and every farm in the world that uses our technology is very substantially up because of the product of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. I was not singled out. Peoria, Illinois, had a project; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) took a hit. Others took a hit. So I do not perceive this to have been a partisan hit. I do not ascribe my colleagues' motives as partisan. I ascribe them to needing to get votes. But I suggest to my colleagues, and I suggest to my colleagues on the other side, my side of the aisle, this is not the way to legislate. This is not the way to make critical judgments on the priorities of America. Now, I know one of my colleague's Members had a lot of amendments, and he was going to offer hundreds perhaps until next week, and perhaps this got him on board. It appears that it did. He is not offering amendments anymore. I talked to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for whom I have not only great respect, but unrestrained affection. I think he is one of the finest Members of this body. Frankly, one of the other Members with whom I am very close, and he would say that, I hope it does not hurt his reputation, is the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I do not think they would have done this. I do not think they did do it. I think they were the instruments. But I do not think this is a good day for agriculture, for farmers, for consumers. I want to say something else about this bill. It plays a game, this $102 million. It takes $10 million in rental payments from FDA and says, we will not pay it. My colleagues just passed a bankruptcy act that said something about personal responsibility, about paying one's bills. But in the amendment for which my colleagues just voted, they said, but one does not have to pay one's rent, do not worry about it. So that when GSA goes to refurbish or maintain or build new facilities, there will not be any money in the pot. Why? Because we did not pay our rent. Guess what? It is free. It is supply side maintenance and building of capital assets. That is what this amendment does that my colleagues voted for. I would hope that my colleagues would vote against this bill. I would hope that we could go back to the board. If my colleagues want to cut, if the majority will is to cut, then let us do so in a rational, considered way, not by this, it was not midnight, but I had no notice of it, and I suggest that perhaps most Members did not have notice of it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on June 4th we commemorated the tenth anniversary of the massacre of thousands of students and workers at Tiananmen Square. We also remember the thousands injured, as well as the tens of thousands arrested and sentenced to prison or labor camps on that fateful day. We honor their bravery and courage, and the ultimate sacrifice which they made in the name of democracy and human rights. Ten years ago today, the forward march of reform in China came to a halt; crushed by the steel tread of tanks, trampled by the boots of soldiers. The human rights situation in China has continued to deteriorate during the past decade. As recently as last week, the Washington Post reported the arrest of Yang Tao, one of the student leaders of the 1989 demonstration. This was clearly an effort by the Chinese leadership to discourage further protest on the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. Beijing has also attempted to silence the internet, another medium through which the memory of that tragic day will certainly be refreshed. These efforts to erase the events of 1989 from popular conscience, Mr. Speaker, also include a strategy of redirecting the rage of the Chinese people by distorting the truth about the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Today we send a clear message, not only to Beijing, but to the people of China. The United States has not forgotten, and will never forget, the events that transpired ten years ago in Tiananmen Square. We support those who continue their valiant struggle for democracy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the millions of women and men who have given their lives to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. Their courageous efforts have been honored at this time of year since the fighting of the Civil War. During the Civil War numerous families began their heartfelt commemorative efforts and since then the countless events which followed have generated an uncompromising level of respect and reverence for our beloved soldiers. Yet we must not forget the reasons for which our Armed Forces have fought for our Nation: to preserve and protect the blanket of freedom under which we have rested with security for over 200 years. Since the end of the Civil War so much has changed, and yet so much in our society remains the same. Those Soldiers fought to protect our inalienable rights as humans and have continued to do so from that day to this. Even today our men and women sacrifice their lives to protect our interests overseas. We must remember them in these times of conflict. Our sentiments go out not only to the soldiers who have fought in our conflicts of yesteryear. We must include today's Armed Forces in our thoughts and our prayers for they continue to struggle and rightfully defend our beliefs in life, liberty, and freedom in Europe and around the world. Entering into the 21st century we look forward to a time of peace in which our decisions to take direction are reserved for reflection. I remind you Mr. Speaker that we do not remember in joy, but in sorrow. We do not reflect with happiness, we reflect in pain. The millions of men and women dedicated their lives to fight so that we can look forward to a time in which we shall fight no more and we must never forget them. Since the first official commemoration of our soldiers of war on May 30, 1868, as Decoration Day, our Country has devoted a continuous and conscious effort to support our troops and the battles they have fought. In 1971, to recognize the weight of their importance, Congress declared Memorial Day a National holiday. Mr. Speaker, to continue our recognition of our soldiers' tireless efforts, I am currently introducing a bill to grant the Korean Veterans Association a Federal Charter. Granting this Federal Charter is a small expression of appreciation that, we as a Nation, can offer to these men and women to show our continued support, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more. Please join with me in expressing full recognition and thanks to those who have served our Nation and its Armed Forces on this Memorial Day. The respect and debt of gratitude we owe these honorable men and women for preserving our Nation and our freedom is immeasurable.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. So essentially, other than the amount of money, the gentleman would adopt the proposal that the President made in his State of the Union?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying, so that the surplus would be there. Where would the money go?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary man, my good friend Dr. Robert Bickford, who is retiring after 27 years as president of Prince George's Community College. Dr. Bickford began his service to the State of Maryland as a physical education teacher at Maryland Park High School. He then spent 13 years as a physical education teacher at Suitland High School, where he also coached basketball, baseball, lacrosse, football and golf. In 1962, Dr. Bickford began his tenure with Prince George's Community College as a part-time physical education instructor and has never left. In 1964, Dr. Bickford assumed full-time employment status as the college's director of student activities and director. And, in 1967, he was appointed dean of the evening division, community instruction and summer sessions as the college moved to its new campus in Largo, Maryland. On November 22, 1972, Dr. Bickford was appointed to the position he currently holds, president of Prince George's Community College. In his tenure as president of Prince George's Community College, Dr. Bickford has been honored time and time again by the community for his commitment to education. In 1981, he received the Citizen of the Year Award from the Board of Trade of Prince George's County. In 1983, the George Washington University School of Education honored Dr. Bickford with the Outstanding Achievement Award. In 1991, the Prince George's Community College new physical education addition was aptly named the ``Robert I. Bickford Natatorium.'' But Dr. Bickford's greatest honors lie in the legacy he leaves at Prince George's Community College. During his tenure, the college's budget increased from $7.7 million to $50 million. Annual enrollment increased from approximately 10,000 students to over 35,000 students. He doubled the number of academic programs and greatly increased minority student attendance at the college. Dr. Bickford has left an indelible mark of excellence on Prince George's Community College, leading it to its greatest level of achievement and success. He has made a profound impact on his students, his colleagues and his community in his many years of service to education in Maryland. Today, on behalf of the citizens of the Fifth District of Maryland, I offer our thanks and our deepest gratitude for Dr. Bickford's lifelong work to provide a quality education for so many of our residents and I congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Summit School of Edgewater, Maryland on being named a 1998-1999 Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This is a special honor because The Summit School is a special institution. They strive for excellence and they have achieved that goal. The non-profit private school was created ten years ago to promote literacy among children ages 6 to 15 with unique educational needs. They opened their doors in 1989 with 25 students and now have 104 students representing six Maryland counties and the District of Columbia. The Summit School's mission is to leave no room for failure. The teachers foster an environment where success is an attainable personal goal for each and every student. The School houses a media center, an extensive collection of books, films, tapes and computers with Internet access. In addition to their classrooms, the school has transformed a barn into intimate reading rooms. Their record of achievement thus far is reflective of their dedication to the needs of their students; since The Summit School's creation, seventy percent of the students increased their reading scores by three or more grade levels in 4 years or less. Seventy-five percent of all eighth grade graduates go on to attend public and private schools with only limited support but great success. Mr. Speaker, The Summit School is one of those great success stories which are often overlooked. the hard working teachers and students of The Summit School have earned the right to be called ``A Blue Ribbon School.'' The Blue Ribbon Award is given to schools which display qualities of excellence, high quality teaching and up-to-date curriculum. The Summit school embodies all of these qualities and more. The school motto, ``Teachers of Excellence'' guides the educators in this institution as they work hard to bring out the best in their students. Teachers conduct lengthy staff meetings on a regular basis to address individual student's needs. They also undergo year-round training to constantly enhance their teaching skills. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have The Summit School in my Congressional District. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the teachers, parents, students and community members who have made this school an institution that should serve as a model for schools around the state and throughout the country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Bill. Although the bill authorizes funding for NASA's priorities including the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle Program and the Hubble Space Telescope, I am concerned with the bill's provision barring funding for the Triana Satellite, a project directed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California in conjunction with the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The Triana Mission, named for the sailor on Columbus' voyage who first spotted the New World, will provide not only a real-time view of the Earth for distribution on the internet, but will also include instruments to study solar influences on climate, ultraviolet radiation, space weather, the microphysical properties of clouds, and the measurement of vegetation canopies. $35 million is already being spent on this project in FY'99 and researchers and scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center are working hard on the design of the spacecraft and the ground system for the satellite as well as providing program integration and support. I am disappointed that this important project has become mired in a partisan debate over the Vice President's involvement. Despite the absence of the Triana program, the bill does support many worthwhile programs important to NASA and to the Goddard Space Flight Center. With continued funding of projects in the fields of earth and space science like funding for the Earth Orbiting System (EOS) and an additional $30 million in FY'00 for the Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, the bill authorizes funding crucial to these programs' continued success. The bill also authorizes funding to repair an aging infrastructure at Goddard. The $2.9 million for repair of the steam distribution network and $3.9 million for chilled water distribution are key construction projects for maintaining the Space Flight Center's status as one of NASA's premier facilities. Despite the many beneficial projects in this authorization bill, I cannot support a bill that puts politics before programs intended to provide a better understanding of our last true frontier.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi and great leader of this House for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I was 15 years of age, I was in high school at Suitland High School, just about 15 minutes from where we stand; that school was a segregated school. The county was segregated. I represent a district where all the schools were segregated at that point in time. My generation was a generation, or my cohorts, slightly older than the President, slightly older than those in their early 50s now. For them, the Vietnam War was a central compelling fact in their life. For me, it was the civil rights movement of the 1950s. Rosa Parks showed so much courage. Martin Luther King had a dream. He conveyed that dream to all of us. But I rise not only as a member of that generation but as also somebody from the State of Maryland. The reason a Marylander rises is because Thurgood Marshall is one of Maryland's most honored sons. Thurgood Marshall, as all of my colleagues know, was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a statue now between the Capitol and the Governor's mansion of Thurgood Marshall in testimony to, not only his service to the United States as a Justice on the Supreme Court, but also the role, the very central role that he played in Brown v. Board of Education as counsel. For those seeking justice in America, for those seeking an open door to opportunity, it is ironic that we just read in the papers about Thomas Jefferson's family and who is a part of that family. It is really a metaphor for America, because all of those individuals are members of the family. Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence that this Nation was founded on the premise that all men, and indeed he would have added today women, are created equal and that we honored each one of them and that they would do equal justice under law. Maryland, unfortunately, not unfortunately, he was great in many ways, but a captive of his times perhaps, is home to Roger Brook Taney. His statue stands right outside the Supreme Court. He was the author of, of course, the Dred Scott decision. Two Marylanders, two different conclusions; one in my opinion wrong, one right. It is appropriate that we honor this historic case. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to join in in saying that Brown v. Board of Education was nine justices saying that America, as Martin Luther King had said in 1963, needs to live out the realities of that which it claims to be its creed, equal justice under law for all its citizens, in their diversity and in their ability to add so substantively to the quality of this country. I am pleased on behalf of all of us who loved Thurgood Marshall, who believed that Brown v. Board of Education led us to a new and better day and who recognized that the central premise of Brown v. Board of Education is still at question today. It is important that we stand and speak out for an America that believes that every one of us is due respect which God endowed in us, not the state, not our fellow citizens, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for giving me this opportunity to join him in noting the historic contribution made by Brown v. Board of Education and the courageous and able people who saw it to the Supreme Court through some very difficult times and to whom this country owes us a great debt.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we tend to take our elections for granted, only briefly focusing attention when there is a disputed outcome or, more recently, to bemoan the lack of voter participation. This unfortunate detachment by the voting public is the result of many different factors, one of which is the lack of confidence in our election process. It is long past the time for Congress to recognize the vital importance of our election process and the need to shore up and strengthen our democratic election system. We can start by reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). I am confident that we can give the Federal Election Commission the necessary mandate and direction to better carry out its responsibilities. As the ranking Democrat on the two House committees that directly oversee the Federal Election Commission, the House Administration Committee and the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I feel a special responsibility to do everything I can to make sure this agency functions with maximum fairness and efficiency. As Congress prepares to wrestle with campaign finance reform, it is important to note that even the most promising reform is meaningless unless the FEC is able to carry it out. Hopeful that the 106th Congress will pass Shays-Meehan, I am determined to see that the FEC is equipped at the earliest practicable time to enforce both the letter and spirit of this much needed measure. To that end I am today introducing the FEC Reform and Authorization Act of 1999. This bill, which I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support, does not propose radical changes at the FEC because, quite frankly, radical change is not needed. As my colleagues know, in January the respected firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers delivered to Congress the results of a $750,000 independent audit of the FEC that was ordered last year in the FY99 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. To many people's surprise, the audit concluded that the FEC is ``a competently managed organization with a skilled and motivated staff'' that executes its responsibilities ``without partisan basis.'' The audit also found that ``high ethical standards are espoused throughout the organization.'' However, PricewaterhouseCoopers did recommend several common-sense actions that would improve the FEC's performance. ``The FEC's continued success will require that the agency aggressively pursue both incremental and significant changes in organization, work process, technology, and management practice,'' the report said. Several of these recommendations have since been formally endorsed by a majority of the FEC commissioners, making them truly bipartisan in nature. In addition, the FEC commissioners have themselves delivered to Congress a list of bipartisan recommendations, not explicitly included in the audit, that would help the agency do its job better. Mr. Speaker, this bill incoporates 29 recommendations that were either included in the audit and endorsed by the FEC, or were supported by a bipartisan majority of the FEC commission members. Together they will improve the efficiency and productivity of the FEC. Most of the recommendations included in this bill address such diverse areas as filing deadlines for campaign reports, eligibility rules for presidential campaign public financing, and FEC administrative procedures. Other can be regarded as more thorough campaign reform, like Section 201, which prohibits foreign nationals, who are now prohibited from making hard money contributions, from making soft money contributions as well. Each of these technical changes would fine-tune current FEC practices and clarify inconsistencies in current law that have confused FEC officials, contributors, and candidates alike who have had every intention of fairly obeying the law, but have not always been sure just what that law is. I firmly believe that when the underlying statutes are clear to all affected parties, administering and enforcing the law becomes a much more efficient, inexpensive, and straight-forward process. Mr. Speaker, I do, however, want to spotlight one of the centerpieces of my bill, electronic filing, which was the main audit recommendation and one of the first recommendations that all six FEC commissioners endorsed soon after the audit was released. Section 101 of this bill instructs the FEC to develop a comprehensive, mandatory electronic data filing system for the major filers. Mandatory electronic filing has been discussed for several years now. Unfortunately, no compelling case has been made for it. After studying the audit and hearing from the FEC, I am convinced that mandatory electronic filing is one of the most important changes we can make. Not only would electronic filing speed up the time it takes for campaign financial reports to be posted on the Web and made available to the public, it would also set off a chain reaction that would allow FEC auditors to analyze campaign reports much more quickly than they presently can. This in turn would allow them to forward much more quickly to the FEC General Counsel's office alleged violations of the law, giving the General Counsel more time to investigate cases before they go stale. In recent years, my Republican colleagues have sharply critized the General Counsel's office for its slow pace and tendency to dismiss too many cases. Electronic filing will provide the FEC with the tools necessary to expedite its business. While it is important to look for cost-effective ways to make the FEC more efficient, it is also crucial that the agency be given the funds needed to thoroughly conduct their business. This bill would authorize the FEC budget at $38,516,000 which is identical to the President's budget request. This is $2 million more than the FEC's FY99 budget, a 5 percent increase. Let me conclude by saying that Congress has not passed an FEC authorization bill in 19 years. There are many reasons for this, chiefly an absence of a coherent blueprint that both parties could accept. I regard the independent audit, and this legislation which I am introducing today, as that blueprint for bipartisan action and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill designed to ensure the continued ability of the Library of Congress to provide quality child care services to those who so ably serve that fine institution and other elements of the Legislative Branch, as well as to other federal government employees and private sector employees when space is available. Similar to the general law applying to other federal child care facilities, this legislation would amend the Library of Congress Child Care Center's authorizing language to specify that the Center must have at least 50 percent of its enrollees from families of federal employees. The legislation also establishes priorities for enrollment in the Center: first priority would go to children (and grandchildren and dependents) of Library employees; second priority would go to children of other employees of the Legislative Branch; and third priority would go to children of employees of other federal agencies. Children of non-federal employees would then be admitted as space allows, subject to the 50 percent limit. The 1991 law creating the Library's Child Care Center is ambiguous on the point of permitting the Center to admit children whose parents are employed outside of the Legislative Branch. The Library's General Counsel and the independent Library of Congress Child Care Association Board believe the clear authority provided in the bill I introduce today is needed to continue the ability of the Library to provide affordable child care to Capitol Hill staff. The proportion of Library and other Legislative Branch children enrolled in the Library's Child Care Center has steadily increased since the Center opened its doors in 1993. With nearly 50 percent of the Library's workforce becoming eligible for retirement by the year 2003, Library employees will have an even greater need for quality, convenient child care. Meanwhile, in order to remain self-sustaining, the Library's Center needs the same flexibility provided to other federal centers to admit a small proportion of children from families not employed by the federal government.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the men and women of law enforcement who made the ultimate sacrifice in protecting our civil society. Yesterday, I joined the families and colleagues of Officers Christopher Eney and Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson in dedicating the Capitol Police Headquarters in their honor. Their deaths, as tragic as they were, are only three of more than 15,000 men and women who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Thousands of law enforcement officers are converging on Washington for the Annual National Law Enforcement Week. This year, the names of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson will be read at the Candlelight Vigil along with the names of 156 other officers from around the Nation. The names of those 158 officers will forever be remembered on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Whether in the Capitol Building, on the highway, or in our neighborhoods, these men and women put on a badge and strapped on a gun, knowing that they risked their lives. No one escapes death. That is a fact that we have known since a young age. Our lives are precious, and a gift that is to be cherished and celebrated to its fullest. Yet, putting duty to their profession ahead of boundless risks, these officers forfeited that gift for what they believed in. For the 158 officers who lost their lives in 1998, their tragic deaths came too soon and without reasonable cause. In an instant, the families and colleagues of these officers had someone they loved and cared for taken away from them. And in an instant, we lost a dedicated and committed community servant. Abraham Lincoln once stated that ``Those brave men who here gave their lives that that Nation might live.'' The fallen men and women that we honor today gave their lives upholding the laws vital to maintaining our democratic form of government. Just as President Lincoln honored the fallen heroes of a war between brothers, we honor the brave husbands, wives, fathers and mothers from departments across the country that sacrificed their lives, enforcing the laws of rural towns and urban cities across America. God bless our fallen officers.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Goddard Space Flight Center on its 40th anniversary. Established in 1959, Goddard has played a vital role in furthering the goals of our space program. Whether in the field of Earth science, space or space communication, Goddard is a leader in furthering our knowledge and understanding of the last frontier. Named after Dr. Robert H. Goddard, a pioneer in rocket research, the center employs some of the world's most renowned scientists and engineers. Located on 1,270 acres in Greenbelt, Maryland, Goddard is a major employer in Prince George's County with almost 12,000 civilian and contractor employees. Through the years, Goddard has been a leader in many of NASA's most successful programs. Beginning in 1959 as the project manager for Explorer VI, Goddard's scientists beamed down the first images of the Earth for the world to see. Since that historic mission, Goddard has gone on to lead projects like studying aspects of the Earth's environment through the Earth Science Enterprise. By linking together the data of various satellites, the program has been able to monitor land-surface, biosphere, atmosphere and oceans. Joint projects like the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, coordinated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are providing important information on the expanse of the Antarctic ozone hole. And Goddard is working with Japanese scientists from the Japanese National Space Developmental Agency to measure tropical and subtropical rainfall through the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. Goddard is also home to the Space Telescope Operations Control Center, the command center for the Hubble Space Telescope. Not only did Goddard project managers and engineers play a major role in designing the telescope, but they continue to provide expertise in serving Hubble and providing round-the-clock monitoring of the telescope's images and data. I am proud to have played a role in working with the Maryland congressional delegation and members of the Goddard community in saving the center from closure in 1996. The work that Goddard personnel perform benefits every American and nations around the globe. I look forward to continuing to work with the Goddard community to promote and protect its vital interests and the region's space and technology industries. Goddard's forty-first year of operation is certain to produce new and exciting advances in space and earth science. Several launches of Goddard programs are planned this year. The GOES-L meteorological satellite will allow meteorologists to improve local forecasts while the FUSE satellite, in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University, will explore the Universe through high-resolution spectroscopy. I congratulate Goddard Space Flight Center on its leadership not only in space technology and science, but as a leader in the community as well. Whether through educational programs to area schools and universities or through outreach to Goddard's contracting community through the Goddard Alliance, Goddard is an incredible asset to Maryland, our Nation, and world-wide. Congratulations on forty years of excellence and best wishes for the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my problem is I want to have 5 minutes. If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) can do that on unanimous consent, I will not object. Mr. Chairman, I want to read a couple of portions of speeches that have been given recently about this issue, and I would hope my colleagues on the Republican side would listen. I came into the Chamber to make my remarks as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) was speaking. Shortly thereafter, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) spoke. Both of those gentlemen in 1991 voted on the Durbin amendment that the President did not have to come to Congress for approval of taking military action. Both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and, I might add, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) in 1991 took a different position with respect to the President's authority.

Mr. HOYER. Can I reclaim my time and perhaps the gentleman, on unanimous consent, can do that, spend the time finding that out? I am interested in the question myself. I will not object.

Mr. HOYER. Here is the roll call. Mr. Chairman, this is not, as John McCain said, about Bill Clinton's credibility. This is not about the credibility of this Congress. It is about America's credibility. It is about NATO's credibility. My colleagues heard me say on this House floor, after that 213 to 213 vote, that it was the lowest point in my congressional career. This Congress, in my opinion, did not stand for the principles for which this country stands at that hour. It did not stand for the kind of bipartisanship that we ought to have when we confront despots abroad. Let me read from a speech by Margaret Thatcher just given a few days ago. She said this, I understand the unease that many feel about the way in which the operation began but those who agonize over whether what is happening in Kosovo today is really of sufficient importance to justify our military intervention gravely underestimate the consequences of doing nothing. There is always a method in Milosevic's madness. He is a master at using human tides of refugees to destabilize his neighbors and weaken his opponents. She went on to say, there are, in the end, no humanitarian wars. War is a serious and deadly business. The goal of this war, she said, is victory. Let me read another two sentences. Mr. President, in a letter to the President, nothing could be worse than surrendering our principles, values and credibilities because we lack the will to do what it takes to win. That letter went on to conclude, history, history, my friends, he said, will record that at the end of the 20th century the United States and its NATO allies had the means to defeat a brutal, belligerent but second rate dictator in Europe. The only question, he said, not yet answered is whether history will record that there was the will to do so. That was a letter written by Bob Dole to the President of the United States just a few days ago. The rhetoric of confronting a dictatorship, the rhetoric of standing up for human rights, the rhetoric committed to political self- determination is useless, without effect, hypocrisy, if we are not prepared in the final analysis to stand and fight for those beliefs. This is, as John McCain has said, not about the credibility of Bill Clinton, not about the trust for this President. This is about the credibility of America. I urge the defeat of this amendment and the support of this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the effort being undertaken by NATO in Kosovo and Serbia. I rise in agreement that we must fund our armed services at increased levels to ensure that our security and our ability to join our allies in maintaining international security and stability is maintained. Mr. Chairman, I believe the President has requested the correct sum for the war until September 30th of this year, $5.9 billion. I believe that war against Serbian genocide and ethnic cleansing is absolutely essential for us to participate in. But, Mr. Chairman, I also believe we must assist our farmers who find themselves in real crises, and the almost 1 million victims of this hemisphere's worst natural disaster in this century. I therefore, Mr. Chairman, will support the Obey amendment. I will also, I tell my good friend and the chairman, be supporting increasing the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for our military to ensure the objectives of which I have spoken and of which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has so eloquently spoken. Our national interest, our commitment to humanitarian and moral principles, will be served by the passage of the Obey amendment and it will do so in a way more consistent, I believe, with fiscal responsibility and our responsibility to our men and women in the Armed Forces and to our allies in this just war in which we are now involved. Mr. Chairman, if the Obey amendment fails, I fully intend to support the Young alternative. There is no question but that we must support this effort which is undertaken by NATO and ourselves to defend the principles for which NATO was created, for which this country stands, and which are critically important if the world is to be the place in which we want our children to live and in their future succeed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate with the Saint Maries Optimist Club as they recognize the lives and labors of our local law enforcement community. Mr. Speaker, It has been said: ``Encouragers need to be encouraged!'' I can think of no greater group today to applaud than our men and women who wear blue everyday to protect our communities and promote peace on a daily basis. In July 1965, former Optimist International President, Carl Howen, recognizing the need to bridge the gap between police officers and the community, initiated the ``Respect For Law'' program and tonight, the Saint Maries Optimist Club continues to honor those who serve us in law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it has been reported that every 40 seconds a child is reported missing. According to a study by the U.S. Justice Department, 359,000 are kidnapped every year. These statistics are staggering and although numbers can be misleading we must no longer tolerate adults abducting or abandoning our adolescents! This is just one of the countless stressors that our law enforcement officers and officials have to deal with on a daily basis. The ``Respect For Law'' educates parents and communities of the pitfalls that plague our society (i.e. drugs, theft, arson, violence, battery, rape and murder). On a positive note, crime in St. Mary's County has decreased 15% since 1998, and much of the credit can be attributed to Lt. Doug Slacum of the Maryland State Police (Leonardtown barracks) and St. Mary's County Sheriff, Richard Voorhaar. I would like to recognize Mr. Tom Slaughter, ``Respect for Law'' chairman and Rich Fry, President of St. Maries Optimist Club and their colleagues whom annually applaud the service and sacrifice of St. Mary's finest! My friend, Ms. Mary Whetstine of Mechanicsville has played a pivotal role as the Lt. Governor for zone 5 and I am pleased by the efforts of our law enforcement team of the Sheriff's Department, State Police and our prosecutors. For the record, the six law enforcement agencies represented this evening are the Maryland State Police, Department of Natural Resources, Sheriff's Department, Department of Corrections, NAS Police Department and St. Mary's College Department of Public Safety. At this moment, I would like to mention and pay tribute to Deputy Keith Fretwell of the St. Mary's Sheriff's Department who recently passed away in his prime of a brain tumor. I attended Deputy Fretwell's funeral and his commitment to St. Mary's County will be the benchmark for all recruits to follow in the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and the remainder of my colleagues to reflect with admiration and appreciation of those who serve and have served in the respective districts of which we are so fortunate to represent in Congress.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Dante said that nothing was necessary for the spread of evil but that good men do nothing. Yesterday, last night, shamefully the House of Representatives voted to do nothing. It sent an uncertain trumpet, not only to our NATO allies, but to one of the evils of this world: Slobodan Milosevic. Let me read from a speech given by John McCain, not a member of my party, but one of this body, the Congress of the United States, that knows about war and knows about the American interest, not the partisan political interest. He said this: Let me close by saying that both the Congress and the administration must show resolve and the confidence of a superpower. Our cause is just, and our early success is imperative. Let us keep our nerve and see the things through to the end. No matter how awful the images of war appear on television, the cost of failure, John McCain said correctly, are infinitely greater than the price of victory. Madam Speaker, we failed last night. Let us not fail in the days ahead.