Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. And, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona did not offer objection. I made a mistake in picking up the wrong piece of paper, having thought the staff had already handed it to the desk, the proper motion. When the incorrect motion, the motion the gentleman and I also discussed, was read, my staff pointed out that I had handed the incorrect paper. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my friend I understand his problem. But I also want to tell my friend that we are now cutting a very fine point in terms of knowing full well that I had talked to the gentleman about the motion, I picked up the wrong piece of paper, and I would hope my friend would not put me in a position or the House in a position of an inadvertent picking up of the wrong piece of paper puts us in a position where procedurally we will now be, I think, responding in a way that I think is not going to facilitate the work of the House.

Mr. HOYER. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I apparently had two motions in my hand. That is the incorrect motion. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the incorrect motion and to offer the correct motion.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, have the conferees been appointed?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer a motion to instruct.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, although I have not consulted with our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I think I speak for Mr. Obey, and he is here, he can speak for himself obviously, but it is not our intention to debate this at any length. Very frankly, we think this issue is known to the House, known to the Senate, and we believe this ought to be done very quickly. Am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his consideration. Frankly, I did not stand up in time, we all know that, and that was my fault. But the issue that has been raised is a serious one. The gentleman is correct, we have discussed it at length. There is an emergency situation as it relates to making sure that in the year 2000 that our computers in the Federal Government whether they be FAA comptrollers or whatever else they may be, are ready to make that transition from this century to the next. The Senate has obviously tried to accommodate that and ensure that both the Defense Department and all other departments of government have sufficient resources to accomplish that objective. We believe the Senate was correct, and we would urge the House to agree with the Senate's position and so instruct the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think I just did, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has articulated the issue very well. I explained it as well. The reason this motion is being offered at this time, however, is fairly straightforward. The reason is that we had this debate in July. That is now some 2 months ago, 60 days ago. We were told that this matter was going to be resolved and that agencies would have appropriately the expectation they would have sufficient resources to meet this challenge. I tell my friend that this is not solved. The Senate has tried to solve it, but we have not solved it on this side, and we are 60 days later, some 2\1/2\ weeks or 3 weeks with I guess about 12 legislative days left in this session supposedly, at least until we adjourn subject, perhaps, to the call of the Chair. We are only a few short legislative days from adjournment. This matter must be resolved. We must address it. The Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman's subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, and the full committee recommended that we resolve it in exactly the way that the Senate has proposed. Exactly. It is my understanding the Republican leadership, the chairman of our committee and our subcommittee took this action. This is exactly what we proposed. Now I say to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, A, I appreciate his allowing us to move forward on this issue, but B, that it is time for us to ensure that this objective is accomplished. If it is not, the losers will be the American public, and the reason we have offered this motion is because contrary to the intention that I think was a good- faith intention expressed by the majority leader on the floor that this would be resolved before the August break, it was not, and we must resolve it. I would hope the Members of this House, therefore, would approve this motion and that in committee and in conference, Mr. Speaker, we could exceed to the Senate position, which is, I believe, the responsible position to meet this emergency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois rose and said correctly that each of us in this body took a solemn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. A part of that Constitution gives us the awesome responsibility of judging the conduct of public officers and holding them accountable if they do not meet their constitutional responsibilities in carrying out their duties of office. This proceeding, as we go forth from this day, will be about that responsibility. But today's proceedings are not about the President of the United States, but about the fairness that this House is going to accord in the carrying out of its responsibilities. Our citizens expect fairness. America's constitutional system is almost unique in its adherence to due process, to giving citizens their right to be heard. We should do no less for those whose conduct we have the responsibility to oversee. This week, I tell my friends, is not a harbinger of fairness to come. Without notice, quickly, and to some, surprisingly, with unique timing, theatrically, obviously designed for television exposure, a report was delivered to this House, creating, I suggest to you, more of a circus atmosphere than a judicial, considered atmosphere. We have now failed to provide one of the parties with notice as to what was going to proceed. I tell my friend from Illinois, whose intellect and integrity I have no question of, that if we are in fact acting as a grand jury, we would not release information, as no grand jury does. We in fact would review that information, consider its import, and then, and only then, report our findings. That is not to be the case, for we will release this document. Many believe that we ought to release it so at least it is seen in whole, not in part, through leaks, which surely would happen. Mr. Speaker, you have called for nonpartisanship, but all of us know that this surely is one of the most partisan Congresses in history. We need more, my friends, than rhetorical recognition of fairness. We must have substantive adherence and the realization of fairness. Let us do our responsibility, as the citizens expect us to do that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois rose and said correctly that each of us in this body took a solemn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. A part of that Constitution gives us the awesome responsibility of judging the conduct of public officers and holding them accountable it if they do not meet their constitutional responsibilities in carrying out their duties of office. From this day forward, this proceeding will depend upon that responsibility. However, today's proceedings do not relate to the President of the United States, rather, they relate to the fairness that this House is going to accord in the execution of its responsibilities. Our citizens expect fairness. America's constitutional system is almost unique in its adherence to due process, as it grants citizens their right to be heard. We should do no less for those whose conduct we have the responsibility to oversee. Unfortunately, this week is not a harbinger of fairness to come. Surprisingly for some, theatrically for most, a report was delivered to this House. It's unique arrival created more of a circus atmosphere then one of judicious consideration. We have already failed to inform one of the parties involved in this matter with proper notice as to what is yet to come. I tell my friend from Illinois, whose intellect and integrity I do not question, that we were in fact to act as a grand jury, then we would not release information. No grand jury does. We would, in fact, review the information, consider its import, and then, and only then, report our findings. That will not be the case here. We will release this report. Many believe we ought to release it so at least it is seen in whole, not in part as a result of leaks, which surely would happen. Mr. Speaker, you have called for non-partisanship. Yet all of us know that this surely is one of the most partisan Congresses in history. We need more than rhetorical recognition of fairness. We must have the substantive realization of fairness. Let us execute our responsibility as the American citizens expect and as we are solemnly pledged to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Many of these amendments go at the very heart of home rule, none more than this, and this is broader, I would suggest. We will argue an amendment at some point in time tonight where I will disagree with the gentlewoman, and I will disagree on the proposition that it affects individuals outside of the District of Columbia. My position has historically been if legislation affects people inside the District of Columbia, that is for the District of Columbia government to decide. It seems to me that this amendment deals with one of the most basic rights that Americans have. It is a unique right. It is a right that conservatives and liberals and moderates, Republicans and Democrats, those from the east and west, north and south all should adhere to with a religious passion. That right is articulated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. It says, not only do we have the right to freely speak our views. That is an extraordinary right when you compare it with the abridgment of that right around the world. Those of us who have had the opportunity to travel, not just to the Soviet Union but to nations that espouse democracy and are in fact democracies but who limit, far more than we do, the right of those in a democracy to speak, to articulate their view, to address the issues of the day, and try to make their point made to their fellow citizens. Our Founding Fathers in the first amendment thought that right so fundamental that they articulated it first. The first amendment probably is one of the most historic provisions of any political document in the world. It is significant, I think, that the last phrase of that amendment says this, or let me read more of it: ``Congress shall make no law, no law, no law, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble.'' And then they concluded this historic amendment with this phrase: ``And to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' There is no more basic right in a democracy for the people than the right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. That is what this section speaks to and tries to, by law, impede, deny and diminish. I would hope that in this greatest body of democracy in the world, in this palace of freedom, this center of democracy, we would not only not say to the District of Columbia government but we would say to no one in America that we will pass a law with its obvious intent of undermining your ability to petition this government and your fellow citizens for the redress of grievances. Clearly what section 148 tries to do is to diminish that most fundamental of rights. For that reason alone, I suggest to my colleagues it should be rejected.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the ranking member for yielding me this time. I rise to express my pleasure at the fact that this bill, again this year, deals with a disparity that has existed for some period of time, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and I worked on, and now the committee is continuing to work on, and I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and that is the effecting of equitable pay for the fire fighters of the District of Columbia. For many, many years, the fire fighters of the District of Columbia have not only received less pay than their counterparts in this region outside of the District of Columbia, but also have been paid disparately with respect to the police in the District of Columbia. Indeed, the police themselves went for long periods of time with a freeze on their pay. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and I were concerned about that. Action has been taken, and we believe that that has moved in the proper direction. When we talk about police and fire in the District of Columbia, we obviously talk about those agencies that are charged with the protection not only of the non-Federal part of the District of Columbia but the Federal part as well. Obviously, the Federal Government does not have fire fighters. They are, in fact, the fire fighters of the District of Columbia, charged with the responsibility of responding to fires. Most recently we saw the fire at the Longworth Building to which the D.C. Fire Department and rescue squads responded. They did an outstanding job. They, along with the Capitol police, ensured we exited the building and we confronted the fire. So that when we talk about the D.C. Fire Department, we are talking about those individuals, those Americans who daily are called upon to respond to emergencies of literally millions of visitors from throughout the United States that come to this capital, visit other monuments and office buildings around this city, and generally come to see their capital city and to share the pride that we have in that which it represents. So I want to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Virginia for their leadership, and the gentleman from California for his leadership over so many years, and others, as well as Mr. Miconi, the staff member who has so ably staffed this committee for over, I guess two decades. I am not sure, but a long time. It is appropriate that we do this, and it is appropriate that we do it not just for the city, though doing it for the city alone would be appropriate, but we do it for all the citizens of the United States who have invested much of their resources in building this capital city and then visiting it, and these brave men and women of the D.C. Fire Department and rescue squads who ensure their safety while visiting here. And the fact that we are now going to pay them appropriately is a testament to the good judgment that the committee is showing. I will certainly enthusiastically support that and congratulate the committee for its actions. I want to say as well that he sits here not as the ranking member or as the chairman, but I do not know anybody who has paid closer attention, been more supportive, is more knowledgeable about the District of Columbia as it relates to the Federal Government than my friend from California, the distinguished member of this subcommittee, but formerly the chairman for many, many, many years of this subcommittee, under whom I had the privilege of serving for many years on this committee. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for all the work that he has done, and thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and look forward at some future point to discussing other aspects of this bill. Generally, I want to say that I am a strong supporter of home rule. And where home rule affects citizens who live in the District of Columbia solely, I think it ought to be left to its own devices, whether we agree or not. When it affects others, I think it is appropriate for us to intervene, and we will discuss that at a later time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember a time since I have served in the Congress of the United States, since 1981, that there has been any more supported delegation in the Washington metropolitan area of the District of Columbia than this time. In our suburban delegation, there are no D.C. baiters or bashers. They are uniformly supporters of a healthy, vibrant region that we call the Washington metropolitan area. The previous speaker is one of my very close friends, but I tell her, ethnic inferences go both ways. There are all types of ethnic identities that may or may not be welcome. I will tell my friends and my colleagues, there are some 4.3 million people in this metropolitan area, and 3.8 million of us live outside of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capitol. It is a distinct and unique city. It is the Nation's city. Let me tell the Members how the Nation's city came about. Our early forefathers decided to have a Capitol here, and they asked some States to donate some land. They did so. Maryland donated all the land on which the District of Columbia now resides. Virginia donated some, and it was reverted to the State of Virginia. Frankly, we in Maryland think it is very ironic that we would donate land, the Nation's Capitol would grow thereon, and subsequently, we would be told, you need not apply. Let me tell the Members where there is not a residency requirement, where all those who live in this metropolitan area are welcome to apply and to work: In Montgomery County, Maryland, the District of Columbia residents are welcome to apply and work; Prince Georges County, Maryland, District of Columbia residents are welcome and can work; Fairfax County, the District of Columbia residents are welcome and can work there, while at the same time choosing where they want to raise their families, where they want to send their kids to school. There has been some discussion of a waiver. Yes, there are waivers. The distinguished gentlewoman from California, who probably knows more about this issue than anybody on the floor and with whom I was involved for some period of time, discussed this matter during the 1980s and early 1990s. We had a lot of discussions. Guess what, it was the District of Columbia City Council that decided to repeal the then existing residency requirement. Why? Because it was replete with exceptions. It was replete with exceptions for the special people, mostly who earned a lot of money. It is the average worker who does not have much clout who was squeezed by this, who cannot choose where to raise their children, where to grow that garden. This is America's Capitol. Every United States citizen ought to be welcome, wherever they choose to live, to work in the government of the Nation's Capitol. That is why Americans come to Washington, they are proud of their Capitol, not just the 1,535,000. Do they have a unique ability and responsibility? They do. Do I support that? I do. But when they say to the rest of us, you need not apply, stay out, yes, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, ethnic inferences run both ways. They run both ways, I say to the gentlewoman. It is not healthy for either side to exacerbate those inferences, I tell my friend. Yes, the two police officers gunned down defending America's House of freedom, one lived in Woodbridge, Virginia, in the District of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and one in the District of my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Al Wynn), because they wanted to raise their children in a suburban setting. But they wanted to come into Washington and defend freedom's House. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to reject this amendment, and allow every American to be welcome to work in their Nation's Capital.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor former Secretary of the Treasury Bill Simon for his service and dedication to helping the poor. His commitment to the poor is unfortunately a rarely publicized aspect of an extraordinary man. He served the country under two administrations as Secretary of the Treasury but his greatest gift is the hope he has given the less fortunate. My friend Paul Harvey honored Bill Simon in an address he gave on ABC Radio Networks on July 25th. In that address Mr. Harvey said and I quote: You are likely carrying around in your pocket the autograph of a most extraordinary man. It's on your dollar bill. Because he was our nation's first Energy Czar and subsequently Secretary of the Treasury under two administrations. After serving his Country in public office, Bill Simon went back to the world of commerce and industry and got rich. Though his greatest wealth is not his hundreds of millions of dollars, but his family. His wife, two sons and five daughters. They remember from their earliest Christmases that dad would arise early and leave his New Jersey home to head off to volunteer at a shelter for runaway youths in New York City. As the children grew older he took them along. They'd work in the kitchen, they'd clean, serve meals, hand out Christmas presents--and sometimes--most important--just listen to the poor, the disabled, the unwed mothers, the lonely elderly. So the children matured responsibly respectful of their obligation to help others. Bill Junior now has his own charitable foundation. Sister Mary is much involved with the Kids in Crisis Shelter in Connecticut. The Simons believe as did Andrew Carnegie that people are helped best by helping them to help themselves. And each of the Simon siblings emulates the example of their parents. Today you might find Bill Simon in Harlem at the Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Center--Talking to an aids patient-- praying with him--a procedure which he has repeated with literally thousands of terminally ill and destitute patients at that center. He calls this Eucharistic Ministry the most important thing that he has ever done. I've watched Bill Simon for thirty years--demonstrating that a good Businessman--can also be a Good businessman. Now preparing to give away most of the rest of his 350 million dollars, he says he hopes others who can, will. He calls giving `the ultimately rewarding experience, Paul Harvey's speech honoring Bill Simon for his service to the less fortunate is surely an accolade Mr. Simon has long deserved. I am glad I was able to share this speech with you and I hope we all can learn from the example Bill Simon has set.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I said yesterday that for the past 2 days, all of America has paid its respect, its admiration, and its thanks to two heroic officers, two officers who themselves acted in the defense of freedom and this institution, but who also symbolize those who every day place themselves in harm's way to ensure civil order in our democracy, civil order which is absolutely essential if our democracy is to function as our Founding Fathers conceived it. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, if adopted as I expect it to be unanimously, will provide an additional way in which we can honor those two officers through contributions to this fund that will ensure that the families who have sustained an inestimable loss will nevertheless be, to the extent that we can as a generous Nation provide for them from an economic standpoint, that the loss that they sustained will be to that small degree diminished. It is an appropriate resolution, an appropriate action, and I would be pleased to again, under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, many of us attended the funeral of Detective Gibson today, and tomorrow morning we will be attending the funeral of Officer Chestnut. It has been a sad week for all of us; in some ways, however, a very proud week as well when we consider the actions of these two brave and courageous men, and indeed, the actions of their colleagues on the Capitol Police Force and other emergency response teams that came to the Capitol to assist our own Capitol Police. Mr. Speaker, as we drove from the church, there were literally thousands upon thousands of Americans who stood by the curb and watched the procession go by, waved, saluted, placed their hands on their hearts, in recognition of the contribution to their own welfare and the welfare of their country, that these two brave and courageous Americans had performed and the sacrifice they had made. This will allow all of us, all Americans and indeed others, in a very tangible way to participate in showing to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson that our words are not the only thing that we are prepared to raise on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for this action.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would point out that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, when he made his initial presentation, did, in fact, speak directly of Heroes and the wonderful work they had done, not only with respect to their immediate response for these two officers, but the work that they had done for so many other officers, and indicated as well that the Hero scholarship is probably the most generous scholarship that is given in America and will ensure that the children of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut will not need to worry about their educational expenses. But I thank the gentleman for his very appropriate remarks.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, obviously I am in strong support, as I know every Member of this House is, of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation for just a minute, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and of course I will not object, but under my reservation, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Congressional Fire Service Institute I rise today to echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues in expressing my thanks and appreciation for all the firefighters who have worked so hard in battling the wildland fires in Florida. The magnitude of the fires and the destruction they have caused is almost incomprehensible. In the last two months more than 500,000 acres in 67 counties have been burned by 200 separate fires. At least 367 homes and more than 33 businesses have been destroyed. Estimates are that it may take over 100 years for some of the burned acreage to return to normal. In short, Mr. Speaker, it has been a devastating disaster. Thankfully, no lives have been lost. However, 95 people, mostly firefighters, have been injured. Many of the firefighters who are on the front lines are not even from Florida. Approximately 7000 first responders from 46 states have volunteered their time, effort and talent to help the people of Florida. From Maryland alone, over 200 firefighters left their homes and loved ones to battle fires that were threatening land they did not own and to protect people they have never met. For anyone not familiar with the fire service it may sound amazing that firefighters from across the country would drop everything to help the people of Florida. However, it does not surprise me at all. In fire companies across the country firefighters do just that, day in and day out. They do not do it for money and they do not do it for fame. They do it because, Mr. Speaker, they are committed to bettering their community and serving their fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, in acknowledging their service, I would like to include in the Record a complete listing of all the Maryland firefighters who volunteered to battle the Florida wildfires. Anne Arundel County: John Devine, William Evans, Tom Frankhow, David Owen; Baltimore County: Adam Bosely, Bob Bury, Andy Caladerge, Matt Fox, Charles Janney, Dawn Kaszek, Robert Lepin, William McCabe, Richard Muth, Randy Perky, Ron Sheldon, Claude Melcher; Calvert County: Ted Allen, Mike Cox, Joe Deltacame, John Gott, Gary Harrison, Rob Helms, Jean Miller, Seth Randelma, Rob Schultbur, Walter Taylor, Donnell Wallace, Kevin Whittington; Caroline County: Richard Baker, Steven Chaall, Donald Hill, Wayne Winchester, Heath Wroten; Carrol County: Robert Schoenber; Cecil County: Kevin Bell, Jim Bennett, Shawn Buckanian, Robert Caffrey, Adam Dommenic, Josh Eller, Mike Fifona, John Graham, Mike Lipka Jr., Mike Lipka Sr., Ron Miller, Aaron Neely, Tom Scott, John Smith, John Upp; Charles County: Tim Allen, Michael Carroll, Paul Donaldson, Trevor Forrestor, Christi Grey, Brian Harrison, Jimmy Herbert, Wayne Higdon, Justin Hutchinson, Scott Hutchinson, Dick Irby, Jimmy Jackson, David Jenkins, Tom Jenkins, Tom Kellom, Chris Maddox, Tim Massey, Chris Mattingly, Brent O'Neil, Billy Pirner, Duane Rice Jr., Tony Rose, Billie Stevens, Chris Thompson; Dorchester County: Thomas Coghlan, Brad Dickerson; Frederick County: Paul Cullen, Claude Droneberg, Paul Hackey, Mike Hayter, Jeremy Hutton, Chris Scneel, Brandyn Thomas; Harford County: Chris Rach; Howard County: Jeff Hooasis, Tom Norman, Robert Freeman, David Moynihan, George Pearman; Kent County: Randy Barr, Matt Burge, Chris Carter, Bobby Helmer, Jimmy Kirby, Antonio Leonardi; Maryland Department of Natural Resources: Kenneth Jolly; MEMA: Warren Campbell; Montgomery County: Jeff Bennett, Mark Brown, Paul Brubaker, Jay Bureau, John Collins, Seth Condon, Tim Dowd, Wayne Drapean, Bill Dunn, Jack Ferguson, Sarah Fields, Pam Foltz, Robert Golian, Mark Hopkins, Ken Knopp, Larry Lease, Drew Lermond, Bill Lucas, Mike McAdam, William McLaghtin, Peggy Miller, Joseph Mills, Rick Morrisey, Jim Roy, Barry Smith, Rick Tatum, Justin Thorew, Gina Young; Prince George's County: Ernie Alsop, Robert Bramhall, William Corrigan, Bill Edwards, Patrick Feehley, Shannon Foster, Scott Glazer, William Hinton, Abree Johnson, Gary Kirchbaum, Thomas Maddox, Angela Moore, Chris Ranson, Floyd Richerson, Larry Robey, Fred Sheckles, Jack Spencer, Ed Torrence, Michael Warhurst, Shannon Welch; Queen Anne County: Eric Arcane, Robbie Dixon, Sarah Holloman, Greg Johnston, Andy Robertson, David Steel; Somerset County: David Barnett, Brian Barnette, Grover Chatham, Chris Holland, Steve Mitchell, Scott Sturgis; St. Mary's County: Kevin Bannagan, Gerard Campbell, Andy Cather, Jim Foster, Boots Garner, George Gatton, Steve Gobson, Billy Hill, Bill Houle, Michael Huseman, Billy Long, C.J. Mattingly, George McKay, LeRoy Owen, and Francis Raley.