Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. A citizen.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe that that gentleman intends to vote on this campaign reform bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me read again the New York Times editorial: ``Newt Gingrich has selected today as the moment to line up his firing squad and kill campaign finance reform.'' It concludes by saying, ``It is a cynical maneuver.'' Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is another one of those cynical maneuvers. Let me tell the Members why. The gentleman from Florida got up and talked about all those campaign contributions. They were, in fact, illegal, should not have been accepted. They were returned. The Republican party has returned over $1 million, as well. They should not have been received. This bill will not affect any of those contributions. They were illegal at that time and are now. What is this bill about? It was introduced some time ago. Then it was changed. Let me tell the Members what it was changed to. It added one line. It added the title: Illegal Foreign Contributions Act of 1998. This is a 30-second ad. That is all it is. It is a 30-second cynical ad to pretend that this bill affects that poster. It does not, I say to the gentleman from Florida, because they were illegal from the beginning and should not have been accepted. Soft money is made illegal by this bill. There is much support for that. Not for this bill, but much support for that objective. But the fact of the matter is, this bill is for one purpose only: For a press release that the Republicans can say they were against illegal foreign contributions, which of course they accepted and it was wrong. It was wrong. We did the same. It was wrong. But this bill is simply a PR effort. It has no substance to it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is a 52-page bill. We got it at 4 o'clock this afternoon. Debate started shortly after 6:00. This is a sham. Now, I could hopefully try to follow the introduction of my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, of being eloquent, but let me read from the New York Times. I tell my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, the bills that the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Gingrich) are sponsoring are either anemic, irrelevant, or tied to an antiunion provision repugnant to most Democrats. With a two-thirds approval requirement, they cannot pass. Of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) does not care if his own fraudulent legislation wins or loses. All he seeks is the chance to say the House considered campaign finance reform and was unable to pass a bill. They end their editorial with this, ``It is a cynical maneuver that will come back to haunt Mr. Gingrich and any House Member who supports it.'' I tell my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, for whom I have great respect, he intones that this is the last opportunity. Why, my friend, is this the last opportunity? Why would the power of the majority that has been exercised so effectively to push through what it wants, why I ask my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, can the Speaker of the House not say to the American public I am going to allow a bill on this floor to be fully debated, to be amended, and to be discussed in the presence of the American public, perhaps I might even suggest for 2 hours. A significant, most significant issue such as this surely deserves at least that much time. But, no, my colleagues, this bill has been brought to the floor, as the New York times said, as a cynical maneuver to claim that they are doing something to reform campaign finance when they most assuredly know it will inevitably fail. My friends, campaign finance reform is a critically important issue. We have twiddled our thumbs for the first 3 months of this session, largely at home, not here doing the people's business. But in the last minute, this legislation is brought to us. Let us reject it and demand that real reform be brought to this floor for full and honest debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, even in the perpetration of a sham, a little light comes through. There is nothing wrong with this bill. It is the right thing to do. I would hope everybody would support this bill, even in their disappointment about this process, even in their disappointment that this bill is a sliver of what we ought to be doing, even though this bill, introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), does not cover soft money. There is no disclosure of soft money in the bill offered by the gentleman; and, furthermore, there is no disclosure of independent expenditures: who come into your districts and spend all sorts of money. Both candidates, both the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lois Capps) and her opponent, said that that kind of expenditure undermined the integrity of their election. So even though the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) goes only a little bit, it is a proper bill, so it would be foolish to oppose this bill. I suggest to my colleagues that this bill was put last in this group of four because, number one, it is such a small facet, a correct one but a small facet, that it would perhaps clean up what has been an otherwise desultory representation of campaign finance reform. Let me again repeat to all the editorial referencing this process, Newt Gingrich has selected today as the moment to line up his firing squad and kill campaign finance reform in this Congress. Just how desperate Mr. Gingrich is to thwart reform is clear from the parliamentary tactics he is preparing and is using this night. It is a cynical maneuver that will come back to haunt Mr. Gingrich and any House Member who supports it. Yes, this facet is an acceptable small but appropriate facet. But the package that has been presented is a sham and a shame.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, obviously I have not had an opportunity to review the precedents, but I have been here for many years, and rarely, if ever, have I seen a Speaker determined that the unanimous consent for 1 minute, while the schedule was being discussed, and the substance of that schedule being discussed----

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, under what precedents or practices does the Speaker make such a ruling, and on what does the Speaker rely in terms of what a reasonable time for such inquiry is?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on House Oversight. It was said that this legislation was brought to the committee. Let me disabuse any of my colleagues on the theory that this got any kind of thoughtful consideration in committee. It certainly will not receive any thoughtful consideration on the floor under the procedures that have been devised by the majority. A bill was noticed to the members of the committee less than 24 hours before we marked it up in committee. We met, we offered some substantive amendments; they were rejected on a straight party line vote, and without further discussion, this bill was adopted. It was supposed to come to the floor this Thursday. We thought it was going to come to the floor with a motion to recommit so we could have offered McCain-Feingold. However, the Republican majority was even afraid of that procedure, limited though it was, so they have now devised a procedure which will allow not one single suggestion other than that which has been written in the back room by the Republican majority. What a travesty. Not only will we not get campaign finance reform, but we will have a procedure that will further denigrate the democratic process that this House likes to pride itself on. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that cooler, more rational heads would prevail, and that the Republican majority would reconsider this shameful process that they are foisting on the American public.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3246, a bill the Republican Leadership has seen fit to name the ``Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act'' but should more appropriately be called a ``Bill to Restrict Workers from Organizing''. This bill should not have been brought to the House floor for a vote. The only reason we are debating this bill today is because the Republican Leadership has, as part of their agenda, set a goal of removing the right of American workers to organize. The current law protects American workers. An employee who holds a job for the purpose of organizing a particular workplace is an official employee of the company that hired that person. If this worker performs their employment duties satisfactorily, they are protected against discrimination for union activity and affiliation. If H.R. 3246 passes, it will overturn a 1995 unanimous Supreme Court decision that upheld the current law. This bill will give employers the ability to discriminate against workers who exercise the right to organize. The NLRB will be unable to protect workers against unfair employer discrimination. This anti-labor bill also gives employers the ability to frustrate and delay their employees' choice of union representation. The NLRB, through years of experience, has determined that in most situations, it is appropriate for workers to organize in a single location of a multi- facility business rather than organizing at all locations at once. This bill requires the NLRB to apply a subjective test to determine the appropriate unit to organize. This will allow employers to have control over their workers' right to organize. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 is unfair to our workers and unfair to America. One of the foundations of this Nation is the right for workers to organize. This bill is at odds with basic principles of American labor law and jeopardizes fundamental worker rights. The bill is a direct and specific attack by the Republican Leadership on American workers and unions and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know on this side of the aisle, we join all of our colleagues on that side of the aisle. All of us, in losing a colleague, share the sadness and share the concern for our colleague's family. Mr. Speaker, another one of our colleagues is grieving this day as well, as many probably know. The family of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) lost their son, 30 years of age, last night and buried him this afternoon. So as we pray for our colleague and for the Schiff family, if we could remember the Cardin family as well, I know they would appreciate it. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) for yielding.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation, in strong support of the McCollum amendment, and in opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment. The Sensenbrenner amendment is nothing short for a ``takings'' provision. I have heard a lot about taking. This is about taking, whether to or not to. It would force songwriters to provide their music for free to restaurants and others. These restaurants then, in turn, use this music to enhance their business. How is this fair? For the thousands of songwriters, composers and music publishers, this amendment is a two-fold insult. First, it says to them, ``Your hard work and creative talent aren't worth protecting.'' Then it says, ``And by the way, it's not worth a dime either.'' My colleague, Stephen Foster died a pauper. Why did Stephen Foster die a pauper? Because the product he created was not popular, was not wanted, was not used? No. Because Stephen Foster put his product on the table, it was eaten--if you will--listened to, more appropriately, but not paid for. And so Stephen Foster, one of the great songwriters of America, and indeed the world, died a pauper because the world enjoyed his music but did not compensate him for his music. The McCollum amendment tries in a reasonable way to get at what is a problem that is by some perceived as cataclysmic and by others perceived as procedural. It is a reasonable alternative. It is one that I will support. But if it does not pass, I will as strongly as I know how oppose this legislation, even though I believe its underlying 20- year extension of the copyright protecting one's property is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I have been and always will be opposed to any legislation that infringes upon the property rights of anyone. I cannot digest ``taking'' someone else's hard work from them for free. This amendment is an affront to the tens of thousands of individuals who spend a lifetime trying to sell their work in a competitive and sparsely rewarded field--especially after considering the cost benefit analysis. It is estimated that the restaurant business is a $289.7 billion industry, while thousands of songwriters draw an income that is minuscule in comparison and subsist largely off of royalties. Music licensing fees account for less than one percent of expenses for a full service restaurant, and the average cost for a restaurant business that uses music is $1.58 a day--equivalent to one draft beer. Mr. Chairman, let me make it plain: we are considering stripping individuals of their intellectual property rights over what boils down to a mug of beer. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues who in fact have some property that we put in the public sphere, not expecting remuneration, at least not in money, the remuneration we expect is votes when we put our property, our ideas, our thoughts, our opinions in the public wheel. But when a songwriter sits down to create art, that songwriter does so for their own personal enjoyment, but they also do so with the expectation that if someone wants to use their product, they will do in a capitalistic society what we expect, and that is to compensate them fairly for that. The previous speaker spoke about the problem with small business. Government does not require a small business in America to turn on the radio in their place of business or to turn on the television in their place of business, not one. They do so because they think to some degree it enhances the ambiance of their establishment, and I agree with them. And if they thought curtains did or tablecloths did or pretty windows did, they would have to pay for all of those increases to the ambiance of their establishment. If the restaurant pays for the hamburger, it should also face the music and pay for the licensing. I have a lot of restaurants in my district and in my State. I understand some of them are concerned, and I believe that the McCollum amendment tries to reach out to them and say yes, we understand there is a problem, let us try to solve it and let us try to solve it where there is a meeting of the minds. And in fact, I understand there was a meeting of the minds until one party thought perhaps they could win without agreement. I do not know that; I have heard that. But let us, as we vote on the Sensenbrenner amendment, remember Stephen Foster, remember that Stephen Foster gave us so much, this Nation and this world, enriched our lives, enriched our culture, enriched our enjoyment, and let us not say to the Stephen Fosters of the world what they do is not worth us compensating them for it. Let me share with you part of a concise perspective offered by former Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: ``If music did not pay, it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public's pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit, and that is enough.'' I would hope that we would defeat the Sensenbrenner amendment, pass the McCollum amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation, in strong support of the McCollum amendment, and in opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment. This amendment is nothing short, referring to the Sensenbrenner amendment, of a taking. I have heard a lot about taking. This is about taking, whether to or not to. It would force songwriters to provide their music for free to restaurants and others. My colleagues, Stephen Foster died a pauper. Why did Stephen Foster die a pauper? Because the product he created was not popular, was not wanted, was not used? No. Because Stephen Foster put his product on the table, it was eaten, if my colleagues will, listened to, more appropriately, but not paid for. And so Stephen Foster, one of the great songwriters of America, and indeed the world, died a pauper because the world enjoyed his music but did not compensate him for his music. The McCollum amendment tries in a reasonable way to get at what is a problem that is by some perceived as cataclysmic and by others perceived as procedural. It is a reasonable alternative. It is one that I will support. But if it does not pass, I will as strongly as I know how oppose this legislation, even though I believe its underlying 20- year extension of the copyright protecting one's property is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues who in fact have some property that we put in the public sphere, not expecting remuneration, at least not in money, the remuneration we expect is votes when we put our property, our ideas, our thoughts, our opinions in the public wheel. But when a songwriter sits down to create art, that songwriter does so for their own personal enjoyment, but they also do so with the expectation that if someone wants to use their product, they will do in a capitalistic society what we expect, and that is to compensate them fairly for that. The previous speaker spoke about the problem with small business. Government does not require a small business in America to turn on the radio in their place of business or to turn on the television in their place of business, not one. They do so because they think to some degree it enhances the ambiance of their establishment, and I agree with them. And if they thought curtains did or tablecloths did or pretty windows did, they would have to pay for all of those increases to the ambiance of their establishment. I have a lot of restaurants in my district and in my State. I understand some of them are concerned, and I believe that the McCollum amendment tries to reach out to them and say yes, we understand there is a problem, let us try to solve it and let us try to solve it where there is a meeting of the minds. And in fact, I understand there was a meeting of the minds until one party thought perhaps they could win without agreement. I do not know that; I have heard that. But let us, as we vote on the Sensenbrenner amendment, remember Stephen Foster, remember that Stephen Foster gave us so much, this Nation and this world, enriched our lives, enriched our culture, enriched our enjoyment, and let us not say to the Stephen Fosters of the world what they do is not worth us compensating them for it. I would hope that we would defeat the Sensenbrenner amendment, pass the McCollum amendment, and pass the bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I believe that it is legally incorrect. I believe it is strategically a mistake, and I believe morally it ought to be rejected. I, of course, was one of those who believed strongly that the United States and its allies ought to act decisively in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia. I urged, as my colleagues will recall, the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo so that peoples under siege could defend themselves. I believe that was the morally correct and legally correct position. This resolution I believe is legally wrong because, contrary to the arguments of my friend from California (Mr. Campbell), who maintains that we are in the midst of hostilities, I would suggest that any person deployed anyplace in the world is subject to hostilities. We have tragically lost men and women in uniform as the result of terrorist acts or some other act in places of the world that clearly hostilities did not exist, Japan being an example, West Germany being another. I believe that, strategically, the adoption of this resolution would be a significant and unfortunate mistake. The deployment of U.S. troops and allied troops in Bosnia was pursuant to an agreement, the Dayton Accords, in which all parties to the conflict agreed to accept United States and allied troops for the purposes of peacekeeping, not for the purposes of projecting themselves into hostilities. So that even if one adopts the argument that 5(c) of the War Powers Act is sustainable, one should reject the presumption that it applies in this instance. I urge my colleagues to reject this unfortunate resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last year House Republicans created a $7.9 million reserve fund for unanticipated committee expenses. They always anticipated, of course, spending the money. What they could not anticipate was which partisan witch-hunts they would use it for. This cash stash is nothing but a slush fund for GOP priorities. Committees cook up schemes; if the Speaker approves, the Committee on House Oversight rubber stamps, and money flows. There is no floor debate, no vote, and no accountability. Millions have been disbursed this way, and Republicans are now scheming how to spend the $4 million left in the fund. I have introduced legislation, Mr. Speaker, requiring a House vote on future payouts from the slush fund. If Republicans want to waste public money on partisan witch-hunts, they should have to debate and vote in public. The majority loves to talk about accountability. Let us see if they can put the slush fund where their mouth is.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue. I regret that the gentleman from California has left the floor. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that made me nervous, very frankly, during the Cold War, was some well-meaning Members used to get up and draw parallelisms between Soviet actions and perceived problems in the United States. There was no parallelism or comparison to be drawn. And the gentleman from California that tries to draw a parallelism between the Muslims and Mr. Izetbegovic and the Croats and the Serbs, I would, with all due respect to the gentleman from California, strongly disagree. President Reagan saw evil, and he called it evil. That was what it should have been, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Milosevic is evil. I do not come to this floor for a brief on Mr. Tudjman or Mr. Izetbegovic, but I see no parallel between the war crimes sanctioned by, led by and committed by Mr. Milosevic and the other two. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is once again the butcher of Belgrade has struck, and the victims are his own citizens. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised. This is a conflict that has been simmering for a long, long time; some would say centuries. The new Chairman of the OSCE, Foreign Minister Bronislav Geremek of Poland, in mid-February, just 30 days ago, referred to the situation in Kosovo as, and I quote, a conflict in preparation. As many of my colleagues know, Kosovo has been overshadowed for some years by the conflict in Bosnia. Preoccupation with Bosnia, in fact, contributed to the maintenance of the status quo in Kosovo, especially since there was a strong chance early on for the Bosnian conflict to have a spillover effect on nearby regions. Like a number of my colleagues, I have been to Pristina, the capital of Kosovo. I have talked to Kosovars, but, more importantly, I have talked to Milosevic's hand-picked representative in Pristina. And I asked that representative, ``Is there one person, just one, one Kosovar, out of the 90 percent Albanian population in Kosovo, just one that you think is reasonable enough to sit down at the table with and discuss the resolution of the conflicts that exist in Kosovo?'' That representative of Mr. Milosevic could not think of one name in all of Kosovo that would be an appropriate interlocutor for peaceful discussions of the resolution of conflicts. Is it any wonder, therefore, that conflict has not been resolved, if one side could not find one person with whom to discuss reasonable resolution? The recent violence has shattered this status quo, and we are now faced with a possibility of further violence in Kosovo which could spill over into neighboring Macedonia and, indeed, Albania itself. Clearly, Slobodon Milosevic has fomented hatred between the people of the former Yugoslavia as a means to maintain power and ward off democratic development in Serbia itself. In 1989, as has been said by my friend from New York, whose leadership has been so outstanding on this issue, Milosevic unilaterally and illegally revoked Kosovo's previous autonomy. He made discrimination against ethnic Albanians, who constitute 90 percent of the population of Kosovo, official policy. Discrimination was and is now official policy of the government in Belgrade. He has repressed freedom of speech, and his police force has arbitrarily harassed, detained, tortured and, yes, even murdered innocent Albanians on a regular basis. The recent massive attacks by Serbian police and paramilitary units are said to be in response to the formation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which seeks to fight repression with terrorism. Mr. Speaker, terrorism in any form must be condemned loudly and unequivocally. Violence by either sides will only beget more violence. That said, however, the magnitude of the response by the Serbian authorities is reprehensible. The attacks on several Albanian villages, which left dozens dead, including women and children, and many others injured or displaced, is an absolute and undeniable contravention of the standard for the behavior of governments, as stated in Helsinki Final Act and numerous United Nations documents. They are to be condemned, and those responsible must face consequences. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for the maintenance of sanctions against the Government of Serbia, the reestablishment of the OSCE mission, and the immediate implementation of the agreement on education. I also support the contact group's call for the prosecution of war criminals, war criminals present in Yugoslavia, not just by definition of us on the floor, but of our own State Department under the Bush administration and under this administration. Mr. Speaker, I believe what has happened in Kosovo constitutes crimes against humanity, and the Hague-based tribunal should have authority to prosecute. Finally, I agree with the contact group's recommendation of an adaption of the mandate for UNPREDEP, the U.N. peacekeeping force in neighboring Macedonia, which has, as we know, a U.S. contingent. If Kosovo explodes, its potential for direct spillover into neighboring countries is actually greater than it was for Bosnia, and we must be prepared for that threat. Mr. Speaker, given our witness to the horrors which took place in Bosnia, we should be aware of the dangers in Kosovo, and we must not fail to act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have seen a seemingly new conflict begin to emerge in the Balkans with fighting in Kosovo. I say seemingly because it is really a conflict that has been around for quite some time. As the co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission in the mid-1980s, human rights violations were the first issue regarding the former Yugoslavia with which I and the Commission was confronted. In April 1990, 2 years before Bosnia would enter our foreign policy debates, I and other Members of the commission traveled to Kosovo and witnessed firsthand the repression which was building in Kosovo as the basis for Slobodan Milosevic's rise to power. During the Croatian and Bosnian conflicts, Kosovo no longer became a leading concern, as the Serbian regime directed its nationalist ambitions toward the north, and the Kosovar Albanians attempted to avoid bloodshed through a highly commendable passive resistance to Serbian rule. Even at that time, the Commission had focused on Kosovo in hearings and briefings as a potential site for spillover of the conflict. Finally, in the post-Dayton period the Commission has seen that Kosovo remains explosive, as indicated in a Commission visit and report in the summer of 1996. So for me and for other Members, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Kosovo is not new. Despite the complexities of the Balkans, the simple fact is that the regime of Slobodan Milosevic has fermented hatred between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia as a means to maintain power and ward off democratic development in Serbia itself. In 1989, Milosevic unilaterally revoked Kosovo's previous autonomy. He made discrimination against ethnic Albanians, who constitute 90 percent of the population of Kosovo, official policy, especially in terms of employment. His police force in Kosovo, which is, in effect, more of an army, has arbitrarily harassed, detained, tortured, and yes, even murdered innocent Albanians on a regular basis. The front page of the Washington Post shows an Albanian mother and her small child, victims of this Serbian onslaught. On a regular basis, when students protest the lack of a university education, they announce it in advance and make clear their desire is to do so peacefully. The response to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression? They are beaten. The recent fighting in central Kosovo can be traced to a few Kosovar Albanians who have formed a Kosovo liberation army and seek to fight repression with terrorism. They are wrong and their actions should be condemned. That said, and I say it strongly, the presence of these individuals cannot and must not be the pretext to justify further human rights violations by the Milosevic regime. The attacks on several Albanian villages which left dozens dead and many others injured or displaced is absolute and undeniable contravention of the standards for the behavior of governments as stated in the Helsinki Final Act and other documents of the OSCE. They are to be condemned by this country and all freedom- loving peoples. At a high-level meeting of the contact group yesterday, at which Secretary of State Albright represented the United States, there was agreement to take action, as we must. In particular, I would like to focus on three of them which I, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), raised with the Secretary beforehand. First, the contact group supports a new OSCE mission led by former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez and the return of the mission to Kosovo, the Sandzak and Vojvodina. Getting an international presence on the ground which can deter human rights violations and report objectively on the situation is absolutely critical. Frankly, I believe there has not been a sufficient effort to get a mission back on the ground. Milosevic kicked out the mission and opposed its return because of Yugoslavia's suspension of the OSCE, yet he invited the OSCE to come to Serbia during and after elections in 1996 and 1997, when he found it convenient. Whatever else we do, Mr. Speaker, we must create this international presence on the ground as a first step. Second, the contact group urged the prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to gather information related to the violence in Kosovo which may fall within its jurisdiction. Third, the contact group recommended adoption of the mandate for UNPREDEP, the U.N. peacekeeping force in neighboring Macedonia, which has a U.S. contingent. Mr. Speaker, this House, the Senate and this Nation must speak out for the safety of those in Kosovo. If Kosovo explodes, its potential for direct spillover into neighboring countries is actually greater than it was for Bosnia, and we must be prepared for that threat. As far as political and economic sanctions on Belgrade, Russia has indicated opposition at this time. I hope Moscow reconsiders this position. While it calls for sanctions on Latvia resulting from a demonstration in which no injuries were reported, the Russian Government opposed sanctions against a regime which brutally attacked whole villages and caused more than 75 fatalities, including women and children. Finally, I want to make clear that my opposition to Slobodan Milosevic is not opposition to the Serbian people. They, too, are victims in all of this. They are denied their basic human rights through limits on a free media, rigged elections and harassment by the authorities. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we need to focus more squarely not just on ethnic conflict in the Balkans, but on democratization in Serbia. Ultimately, we cannot rely on Slobodan Milosevic to maintain stability in the Balkans, a democratic Serbia is essential to that end, in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Given our witness to the horrors which took place in Bosnia, we should be aware of the dangers of Kosovo. As Polish foreign minister, and OSCE chairman, Bronislav Gerememek said in February, ``In Kosovo we are witnessing a conflict in preparation * * * it would be inexcusable for the OSCE to remain passive regarding Kosovo.'' I fully agree, and hope my colleagues will support strong action to prevent a new and potentially more dangerous conflict in the Balkans.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Florida. I want to, first of all, say that I have the highest respect for the gentlemen from Michigan and Florida and congratulate them on this effort. I will support this bill. I toyed with frankly opposing the bill, but after discussing it with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and knowing of the concerns of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), I am going to support this bill. I think it is a reasonable, rational thing probably to do. I think that we are sincere in doing this, and we are trying to do something that will not harm children while at the same time continuing incentives in place. Madam Chairman, the States have had 10 years to get their computer systems together. Yet here they are asking Congress not only for an extension, but while we are at it, could we throw in reduced penalties, too. In talking to my very distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who sits on this committee, I think we are correct in reducing these penalties. My own State very frankly, Madam Chairman, is concerned about this bill and perhaps would not like to see it passed, and do not want any penalties. I do not share the view of my State on this issue. I have practiced law for over a quarter of a century. I practiced in the courts of Prince George's County in Maryland. I handled a lot of domestic cases in that process and sat in the courtroom not only with my own clients, but watched other nonsupport cases come before the courts. I saw time after time after time a wink and a nod at parents who did not meet their responsibilities, who did not support their children, who had children, thought it was a spectator sport and thought they would pass the cost on to the rest of us. That was despicable and is despicable. God gives us a great blessing when he gives us children and we ought to take the responsibility to ensure that they are fed and housed and clothed properly. There are too many Americans who do not do that. This ought to be a priority item for every State and for every administrator to make sure that child support is collected. Far too little of it is collected now. It is not that I resent sharing in the costs to help those children in need. None of us begrudge them the help. But all of us, I think, ought to be and are angry at those parents who can but do not support their children. In an age of computers and information technology, we ought to be capable of identifying and going after those who owe their children, not just society but their children the responsibility that parenthood places upon them. Again, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for their leadership on this issue. It is obvious that we have a practical problem, it is obvious that we want to go ahead, and it is obvious that we continue to keep in effect incentives to get on line so that we will get at deadbeat parents. I thank the Chair for her not tapping the gavel as soon as she might otherwise have done. This is an important issue, not just this bill, but we need to as a Congress and as a Nation focus on enforcing and expecting responsibility of parents towards their children.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I thank him for his work. I agree that all of us together need to heighten expectations. I frankly think what happened in the 1970s, in the 1960s in particular was that we lowered expectations of performance of ourselves and of others and somehow society did not feel it incumbent upon them to hold others accountable for that which they ought to be responsible for. I think this is one example, but it is a broader example than that. I frankly think under the gentleman's leadership, frankly I think under President Clinton's leadership in terms of talking about responsibility which he talked about in 1992 and which we followed through in this Congress, I think we are seeing much better performance, but we need to do much more. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and his leadership.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of this legislation. I rise in strong support for the substitute that will be put forth to the Solomon amendment, and in opposition to the Solomon amendment. Since 1985 I have served on the Helsinki Commission, which was charged since 1976 to oversee the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. Within that act it said that the international community ought to respect the self-determination of peoples. It is one of the most troubling issues that confronts the international community and the emerging democracies around the world. It is difficult because we need to determine what group, what size, how many do you need for self-determination. Does it need to be an identifiable, geographic area? If so, how large? It is an issue that we deal with in Yugoslavia. Always, always, always the United States is on the side of those who aspire to make their own decisions. On this floor we have heard some very articulate expressions on both sides of this issue, from people who know the politics of Puerto Rico far more than I. But I know that those articulate people will debate this issue vigorously, and it will be the people of Puerto Rico who make this decision, as it should be. But it is important that this Congress express at home, within our own Nation, that same conviction on behalf of self-determination that we express around the world. I would hope that we would overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, pass this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and indeed, the delegate from Puerto Rico, and all of those who participate in this debate.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment and in strong support of the substitute language. Mr. Chairman, English is fast becoming the language of the world. It is not we English speakers who need to fear the integrity of our language; it is, indeed, others who have concerns. We, as I said earlier in this debate, who support so strongly the principles of the Helsinki Act, have advocated in country after country after country that they give to people within their country respect of their cultural and their national identities. Of course, language is a critical component of that. The Soviet Union, my friends will recall, tried to have everybody speak Russian on the concept that if everybody spoke Russian, there would be a sense of unity within the Soviet Union. But that unity was at the point of a sword. It will not get you what you want. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the substitute, and opposition to the Solomon amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 927, the National Sea Grant College Program Authorization. We have needed to re- authorize the Sea Grant Program since 1995 and I want to applaud Representatives Saxton, Young, Abercrombie and Farr for their leadership on this increasingly important issue: Mr. Speaker, the Sea Grant Program was established in 1966 to improve the conservation, management, and utilization of marine resources. Modeled after the highly successful Land Grant College Program, Sea Grant has become a National leader in conducting marine research. This research is conducted at 29 designated Sea Grant colleges but the program disseminates their findings to over 300 hundred colleges and universities across the country. One of these Sea Grant designees is the University of Maryland which is located in my District. Maryland is a leader in living marine and estuarine resources research and I can attest to quality of the research conducted through the program. As a Member from a coastal district, I am acutely aware of the problems confronting our marine environment. This spring and summer we saw how critically important research is with the outbreak of Pfiesteria in the upper Chesapeake Bay. At the time of the outbreak, we were not certain about the most basic facts about the organism, exactly what conditions triggered it to become lethal, how it attacked fish, and the potential danger this organism posed to humans. The Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Speaker, is not only a National ecological treasure but is one of the most abundant and productive places to conduct research. In addition to Pfiesteria, the Bay has seen the oyster population, which is so vital ecologically and economically, threatened by Dermo and MSX viruses. Sea Grant has been the leader in the Oyster Disease Research Program and fully six million dollars per year is specifically earmarked in the re-authorization for oyster and Pfiesteria study. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation to reauthorize this critically important environmental program.