Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. She does an extraordinary job. We are pleased with her help on this bill. I appreciate the gentlewoman commenting on this, and her very important intervention.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has been so focused on the needs of Federal employees, and their pay and benefits; he has been extraordinarily helpful in years past and this year in fashioning a bill to ensure that Federal civilian employees are treated fairly and that we have the ability to not only retain our excellent public employees, but also to recruit, to fill the vacancies that will occur in increasing numbers in the years ahead.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. This is a reasonable bill, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the staff for working closely with our staff and with me and with our Members on bringing this bill to the floor. As I said, I believe it is a reasonable bill, a bill that is higher than fiscal year 2001 and about one-third higher than the President's request. The bill provides strong support for our law enforcement agencies. Forty percent of law enforcement is covered by this bill, which surprises some, but it is a critically important component of our law enforcement efforts at the Federal level. We support our law enforcement agencies by including $170 million above the President's request for the Customs Service to modernize their systems for the assessment and collection of taxes and fees, which total over $20 billion annually. That is important for all of our exporters and importers. It is important for every consumer in America, and the increase is an appropriate step for us to take to ensure that the information technology capability of Customs is at the level it needs to be. It includes $15 million above the request for Customs Service to hire additional inspectors, a very important objective; $33 million more for Customs inspection technology; and $45 million in additional funding for the Secret Service to hire additional agents to reduce staggering overtime levels. The chairman mentioned that, but let me call to the attention of some who may not know these figures that some of our Secret Service agents have been asked to work 90 hours per month. Obviously, the job of a secret service agent is extraordinarily stressful. They need to be alert at all times; obviously, sometimes tense times as they guard the President, the Vice President and other dignitaries, and asking them to work 90 hours overtime is simply not safe for them or safe for those whom they protect. In addition, we add an additional $25 million for the high intensity drug trafficking areas, the HIDTA program, and the chairman referred to those. They are an extraordinarily important asset of our law enforcement in this country, and a complement to local law enforcement in their fight against drugs and the trafficking of drugs. Their major contribution, in my opinion, is that they bring together Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to coordinate with one another to confront, to arrest, and to incarcerate those who would undermine the health of our communities by selling drugs on our streets, in our schools, and in our communities. Mr. Chairman, for the IRS, this bill provides the Internal Revenue Service with a funding level above the President's request, including $325 million to modernize their computer systems and $86 million to complete the hiring of over 3800 employees necessary to establish a strong balance between compliance and customer service at the IRS. Mr. Chairman, some years ago, we passed the Reform and Restructuring Act which asked the IRS to become more efficient and more customer- friendly. We also, at the same time, at the insistence of Secretary Rubin, then Secretary of the Treasury, hired a new Commissioner, Charles Rossotti. Mr. Rossotti is doing an excellent job and I think that perception is shared across the aisle and across ideologists. He is a business manager of the first stripe. He has brought his business management skills to IRS; and, because of that, I think we are seeing an improved IRS, a more efficient IRS, but there are still problems. Mr. Chairman, significant improvements were made to the bill during the committee consideration. We were able to add back $10 million for the First Accounts program. We acted on that in the manager's amendment. There has been an agreement that the money appropriated for the First Account system will be subject to authorization. We also provided a provision which carries out existing law of pay parity for our Federal employees with our military employees. Federal employees will continue to have, as the chairman has pointed out, the option, their choice, of contraceptive coverage under the Federal employee health benefit program. Obviously, no bill comes to the floor that is a perfect one; and I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, some of my continuing concerns. First, I am concerned about the decline in compliance activities at the IRS. I make the analogy to setting a speed limit at 55 or 60, and then having no enforcement of that speed limit. Clearly, what will happen not only in the short term, but over the long term, will be that drivers will drive faster and faster because of the lack of enforcement, and safety will be at risk. Frankly, what happens in the IRS, with less and less enforcement, we have, unfortunately some, who will not comply with their obligations. What that does is it places higher obligations on those who voluntarily and legally comply. Mr. Chairman, in-person audits have decreased from 2 million in 1976 to 247,000 in 2000, an 88 percent decline. Now, that is an 88 percent decline from 2 million down to 247,000, but when we consider it in the context of the fact that we have millions of more taxpayers 25 years later, that decline in percentages of tax returns audited is even more dramatically reduced. The additional FTEs included in this bill will go to help this problem, but I will continue to monitor, and I know the committee will as well, this situation closely to determine that the IRS is able to do the job that the Congress and the American public want them to do. Another concern I have is the funding for courthouse construction. Although this bill includes funding above the President's request, the committee has fallen short of the judiciary's 5-year courthouse project plans. In fact, we have funded only half of what they say is needed over these last 5 years for courthouses. As we have seen an increase in prosecutions, an increase in incarcerations to make our streets safer, the good news is the crime statistics throughout our country have gone down. That is what we wanted them to do. At the same time, the demands on our courthouses have gone up. In order to accommodate that, we need to invest to make sure that those courthouses are up to the job. I would hope that the committee would continue to focus on this issue very carefully. The longer we underfund the judiciary's request, the higher the cost and the more pressing the need becomes. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned with several provisions in this bill that reduce legislative oversight responsibilities of the Executive Office of the President. We are going to be talking about those. There is a certain sensitivity that is particularly important as Congress reviews the budget request for the Executive Office of the President. In my opinion, the President of the United States deserves the appropriate respect and deference. However, it is also important that Congress not relinquish its oversight responsibilities. We will hear about these issues today as other Members of the body have similar concerns, and amendments will be offered. I am encouraged, however, that this bill contains a placeholder for an issue important to all Americans, and that is election reform. We are going to be discussing that when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) offers an amendment to add substantial dollars to this bill. I will not debate it further at this time, but it is a very significant concern which we will have to deal with either today or in a supplemental some weeks ahead. Many Members of the body, Mr. Chairman, are rightfully concerned that neither the administration nor Congress has acted on election reform. I truly believe, as I have said in the past, that election reform is the civil rights issue of the 107th Congress. There is no more basic right for an American or anyone who resides in a democracy but to have the right to vote, but as importantly, to have that vote easy to cast and properly counted. Mr. Chairman, I have had several conversations with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who has shown a great willingness to consider and support election reform and election reform funding. I appreciate his efforts, and I hope we can make some positive progress on this issue for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that this is a good bill. It funds properly the priorities that are the responsibility of this bill, and I would urge Members to support it when it comes time for final passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman did not allow me to finish. The fact of the matter is, though, that it is a proposal in the budget to switch presently identified spending in one account to another account.

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

Mr. HOYER. I do not know if he was speaking about me, I did not offer this amendment; but I will tell my friend, A, this is an amendment that was offered by the administration in its budget to shift the objective of spending from one account to the other.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and he is my friend, and I respect him because he cares about this institution.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman for the addition to the remarks that I made and that he is making. I would reiterate what the gentleman just said. This is an issue about us focusing on what it costs from an emergency standpoint to run the residency of the Vice President and the residency of the White House, the President; it is not to embarrass either one of them. I do not think Vice President Cheney is frankly using more or less energy than Vice President Gore. What I think we ought to have is a focus of this Congress on those costs so that it shows us very clearly what it costs to heat, to air condition homes. I think in that respect, it is a good educational amendment and gives us a better budget focus, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to my friend from the Northwest, from Washington State, who has offered this amendment, to cogently raise this issue for all of America, not for the Vice President.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are now closed through title VI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. So am I correct that through title VI now is closed?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, consistent with the work of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), is included in the rule as self-executing, and I thank the Committee on Rules for doing that. I rise first to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida for working on this issue. It is a critically important issue to millions of what the gentlewoman referred to as the ``unbanked,'' those who are not in the banking system. They do not have checks or ATM cards. They get ripped off every week when they try to cash their check or when they need a little money to bide them over. It is a significant problem. I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) have reached an agreement on this; and I hope the Committee on Financial Services will, in the very near future, authorize this program so this money, which is now fenced, subject to authorization, can move forward and the Treasury Department can implement a program which is critically necessary.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Maryland will certainly vote for the previous question, and I urge the Members to vote for the previous question.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida will yield to me for a response.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the situation. We have historically, on this bill, on the previous question, had a vote. We have had a vote because we think the public is entitled to that. If the previous question were not passed, an amendment may be in order to preclude the cost of living adjustment for Members. Long ago we decided, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, that that was the fair and proper thing to do. Everybody in the leadership on both sides has agreed that cost-of- living adjustments that go to everybody in the Federal service are justified. This is not in that sense a pay raise. It is what most Federal Government employees receive, and we will receive less than, by about 1.2 percent, than Federal employees do.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in support of the rule. I think the rule is a fair rule that gives opportunity to debate this bill and protects some of the more controversial items that are within the bill for full debate. I also want to say that I agree with the member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has observed that this is a good bill and deserves passage. He is correct on that. I will be speaking more to that in the course of general debate. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to comment on the amendment that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will offer at the time of the bill's consideration. He will offer an amendment that will provide $600 million, as I understand it, to the FEC, for the purposes of effecting reforms in our election process throughout the United States. It is clear that we need to invest in democracy. We invest a lot of dollars in national defense. We invest a lot of dollars in health care, education, and domestic spending. We invest a lot of dollars in entitlement programs. All of those dollars, in my opinion, are well invested, for the most part. But the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, has never invested dollars in Federal elections. Never. We have always allowed that to be a burden that we place on the States and local subdivisions. We assumed, correctly in most instances, incorrectly in some, that those elections would be held in a manner that would serve our democracy well. But, Mr. Speaker, our democracy is not served well when some Americans go to the polls, having registered to vote, and show up at the polls and, in the first instance, may find that their name is not on the list and, therefore, they are not allowed to vote, but are told that someone will try to get on the telephone and see if it can be straightened out, but find that in this high-tech age in which we find ourselves happily that lo and behold they cannot get through to the central office and cannot find out whether that individual is able to vote. Too many jurisdictions do not have the ability to provide a provisional ballot to say, here, go ahead and vote, and then when tomorrow comes we will have some time and we will check to see whether or not this individual is a valid voter; and if they are, because they are entitled to vote, they will also ensure that that person's vote is counted. Every American that goes to the poll assumes that they go to the poll for the purposes of expressing their opinion in this, the greatest democracy on the face of the earth. They expect to play a role in the decision-making process of their country. And if their vote is not counted, they are discriminated against, they are precluded from participating fully in our democracy. Happily, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and myself and many others, including the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), have sponsored legislation which will do what the gentleman from Florida seeks to do, and that is, A, provide resources; provide resources for technology that will ensure at least that technology does not undermine the voter's intent and constitutional right. In addition, it will say to States who take any Federal dollars that they need to comply with certain requirements; that they need to have a registration system that works; that they need not disqualify, they must not disqualify otherwise totally qualified Americans from voting by some inadvertent or mistaken or perhaps conscious effort to undermine the ability to vote of some Americans. In addition, we are going to provide for provisional ballots, good registration, purging that is not unfair, and a system that has technology that works for every American. That is the minimal that we ought to do as a Nation. We are proposing the investment this year, for which we are budgeting fiscal year 2002, of $550,000 million. That sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But spread across the 50 States, it is not. And I would hope that we will have full debate on the gentleman's amendment. I am not sure what the disposition will be today, but in the final analysis we ought to adopt the gentleman's proposal. It is a proposal for democracy for our Nation's ideals and for our objectives.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this resolution. And because to some it may seem contradictory to my stand on behalf of permanent normal trading relations, I rise not so much to convince others to follow me as to explain why I take this position. In my view, the human rights performance in China is abominable, whether we are considering NTR or PNTR. However, I believe this provision of NTR is a one-way street. That is to say, I believe this is America giving to China, sanctioning, in effect, China's performance. I believed PNTR was a two-way street, in which we required China to accede to WTO, to agree to a commerce of law, to agree to an opening of markets; and, therefore, I supported it. Because like the previous speaker, I believe our relationship with China is a complex one. I believe China, perhaps, can be one of the most dangerous nations on the face of the earth or one of the most economically positive nations on the face of the earth. But this vote is about simply the United States giving a benefit to China. I think we ought not to do that. I think we ought to require, as I hope will happen in November, for them to take unto themselves certain responsibilities that manifest an intent to become an equal and performing partner in the family of nations. Therefore, I will vote for this resolution, but will continue to hope that China does in fact accede to the WTO and that we do pursue permanent normal trading relations with China, which I believe will have positive effects. I do not believe that simply annually pretending that China is not performing in a way with which we should not deal in a normal way is justified. I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth, and in part it is because of the inspiration that our Founding Fathers had in the drafting of the Constitution and the promulgation of the first 10 amendments: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' The gentlewoman says this is not a jobs bill, and she is correct. This is a bill about doing what our faiths tell us to do: lifting people up, reaching out to them, helping them. My party believes in that. I think the other party does as well. I was a Jaycee. The Jaycee creed starts with these lines, that faith in God gives meaning and purpose to life. I am a Baptist. There are many faiths represented in this body. I am also from Maryland. In April of 1649, Maryland passed an act on religion, now known as the Act on Toleration. It was one of the first statutes in these colonies that said we were going to make sure that the State did not infringe upon religion. Why? Because the Calvert family was Catholic, and the majority of the colony was Protestant, and they wanted to make sure that the Government did not infringe upon the right to practice their religion, which is, of course, why they came to these colonies. This is a fundamental issue. That is why this substitute is so good, because among those principles that we hold dear in America and the reason we are so great is because we do not believe in discrimination, knowing full well that some practice it, but that discrimination is not one of those truths that we hold self-evident. In the fifties and sixties and throughout our history, men and women have died for that principle. Let us have the courage to vote for that principle. Vote for this substitute and vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to Erich Seehafer for his 23 years of service to the United States House of Representatives. Hired by the Doorkeeper's Office in April 1978, Erich began as a Congressional liaison for the House Publications Distribution Service. In addition to orienting new members and their staffers to available services, he was responsible for allotment and distribution of various books and publications to all House Members. In 1991 he was selected to be part of the new mail list processing office. This role was an ideal opportunity for a detailed-oriented person like Erich to serve the House Members by processing and expediting their mass mailing requests. Erich has processed over 6,000 mailing lists totaling over 350 million addresses without error. Born at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, DC on July 23, 1951, Erich is the son of Erich Seehafer Sr. and Charlotte Hennessy Seehafer. He has three sisters, a wife of sixteen years, one stepson and two grandsons. He and his wife have resided in Waldorf, Maryland since 1985. A motorcycle accident in 1970 resulted in a spinal cord injury that left Erich a paraplegic. Erich's determination and cheerful outlook have endeared him to many in the Hill community. His sense of humor has always been a welcome asset to all who have worked with him. A musician of thirty-five years, Erich has played music in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. He is looking forward to traveling around playing music again with the extra time he will endure during his retirement. We wish him well and a long happy retirement. I submit the following for the Record. Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Washington, DC, June 29, 2001. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hoyer: Thank you for taking the time to include this in your extension of remarks to recognize Erich Seehafer for his 23 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Erich plans to retire on July 30, 2001. Listed below is some background information on Erich that describes his dedicated working experience for the United States House of Representatives as well as his personal background. Hired by the Doorkeeper's office in April 1978, Erich began as Congressional Liaison for the House Publications Distribution Service. In addition to orienting new Members and their Staffs to available services, he was responsible for allotment and distribution of various books and publications to all House Members. Job Consolidation in 1986 added responsibilities associated with the newly implemented computer based inventory system. In 1991 he was selected to be part of the new Mail List Processing Office. This role was an ideal opportunity for a detailed-oriented person like Erich to serve the House Members by processing and expediting their mass mailing requests. Erich has processed over 6,000 mailing lists totaling over 350 million addresses without error. Born at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, DC on July 23, 1951, Erich is the son of Erich Seehafer, Sr. and Charlotte Hennessy Seehafer. He has three sisters, a wife of 16 years, one stepson and two grandsons. He and his wife have resided in Waldorf Maryland since 1985. A motorcycle accident in 1970 resulted in a spinal cord injury that left Erich a Paraplegic. Erich's determination and cheerful outlook have endeared him to many in the Hill community. His sense of humor has always been a welcome asset to all who have worked with him. A musician of thirty-five years, Erich has played music in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. He is looking forward to traveling around playing music again with the extra time he will endure during his retirement. He also plans to work with his brother-in-law repairing guitars. Erich says that he is most looking forward to enjoying his role as full time Granddad when he retires. We all will miss Erich and wish him a long, happy, retirement. Sincerely, Postal Operations Staff, The Staff of Postal Operations, Mail List Processing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. I am the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. As such, I participated in the markup of these two pieces of legislation, the Shays-Meehan legislation, which has in the past had 252 votes each time it was offered for passage on the floor of this House, and the Ney-Wynn bill, which is a new bill. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). At the markup, which was held on June 28, it was my understanding, and I believe the understanding of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) would have the opportunity, between June 28 and yesterday, to perfect their legislation, to present that perfected legislation to the Committee on Rules, and to have those pieces of legislation presented to the floor for consideration with such further amendments as others might have. Mr. Speaker, I believe that was our understanding. I tell my friend, the gentleman from Texas, as a result, I did not offer any amendment. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) nor any other Member offered any amendments. Why? Because it was the understanding of all 10 of us, in my opinion, that the bills would be perfected in the 10 days between June 28 and July 8 or 9 or 10. That was not done. What the gentleman suggests is a fair process is to divide up into 14 different sections the perfections of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) sought, and therefore try to fight each one of those 14 different times. I frankly think that is not fair. Why is it not fair? Because, as the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, has put forward, it is a rule which does not comport with what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to offer as their base bill. Mr. Speaker, on the substance of this, the American public in my opinion is very concerned about the amount of money in politics. Rightly or wrongly, and I cast aspersions on no one in this House, rightly or wrongly, the American public believes that the gargantuan amounts of money that flow into Washington, into State Capitals, into local county seats as political contributions, hard or soft money, and that is a somewhat esoteric distinction that the public does not make, but it is an important one, because one is limited and one is not, they believe this is an important issue. They want to see it considered on its merits, not by procedural dissection, which is essentially what has occurred here.

Mr. HOYER. I do not believe the gentleman had the floor. He did not have the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I thank her for her comments and her hard work on this committee and on so many other areas. She has touched on a critically important issue to our country. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to provide half a billion dollars in emergency spending on biodiesel, ethanol and biomass research and development. Mr. Chairman, since 1999, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which is located in my district, has been conducting a pilot project using biodiesel. At BARC they use 80 percent diesel and 20 percent soybean oil mix. Their test results found that using biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions 16 percent; particulate matter, which is a major component of smog, 22 percent; and sulfur emissions, 20 percent. Equally important to the environmental benefits of these fuels is the fact that their use, as has been so well articulated by the gentlewoman from Ohio, lessens our dependence on foreign oil and opens up new markets for our farmers. So, from every perspective, this is a very positive direction for our country to move, and I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.