Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, as I sat here to think about what could one say in 90 seconds, it occurs to me that each and every one of my colleagues ought to consider this. None of us, not one of us in this body wants to take ownership of every policy adopted by the D.C. City Council and its mayor, not one of us. It is theirs to take, theirs to do. But I suggest to my colleagues, to the extent that we include provision 1, 2, 3, and 4 and leave out 5, 6, and 7, one could clearly argue, well, apparently one is against 1 through 5, but one must be for 6, 7 and 8. That is not the case. It is not the case. I am not responsible for what the D.C. City Council does, the D.C. City Council is, and the voters of the District of Columbia are, any more than the D.C. Council is responsible for what I do on this floor. This is called a democracy amendment, because, in a democracy, we believe that the people can be wrong. The people can disagree. The people do not all need to be overseen by Big Brother. It seems to me that is a conservative concept. It seems to me that is something that people who want smaller government adopt as a premise, that Big Brother ought not to be overseeing the District of Columbia. Vote for this democracy amendment.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee who does such an outstanding job on behalf of health of all Americans on this subcommittee. I am also pleased to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) in cosponsoring this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I had the great honor 11\1/2\ years ago of getting involved with members of the disability community and Members of this House and, in particular, a Member of the Republican side of the aisle, Steve Bartlett from Texas, who worked on the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It took us approximately 2 years or perhaps a little longer from the initial introduction to its passage and to the signing by President George Bush on July 26, 1990. Because of the length of today's session, we have moved from the eve of that signing to the day of that signing. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That act has properly been called I think the most significant civil rights act passed since 1965. From 1965 to 1990, it was a long time, a quarter of a century in which we saw a significant segment of our population discriminated against based upon their disability. What the Americans with Disabilities Act said very loudly, clearly and powerfully was that what we need to do in America is look at people's ability, not their disability. Mr. Speaker, we need to look at what people can do, what they can contribute to a better America, and to a better life for themself. And what we said was as it is wrong in America to discriminate against people because of their race or their religion or national origin, it is also wrong to discriminate against Americans based upon a disability that we needed to look in a nondiscriminatorily way at what could be done by individuals, what contribution they could make in employment, in education, in transportation, in communication, in public accommodations, in every area of our society. That bill, as we look at its performance 10 years hence, has been a success. It has not been a total success. There still is a long way to go. Tony Coehlo, who was the principal sponsor before he left, and I really took over his responsibility. When he left in 1989, Tony Coehlo made the point today that we had come a long way, but we still had a long way to go. Another hero of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Justin Dart. I am sure that many of my colleagues know Justin Dart was there today, wheelchair bound and constricted by physical disability, but with a spirit that is unconstrained by any physical disability, a spirit that soars and impels all of us to understand the possibilities that life can present if one has the will to take those possibilities. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and others in supporting the passage of the Developmental Disabilities Act. Mr. Speaker, that act is a cornerstone of the disability policy and has been in place since 1963, as has been pointed out, and was a forerunner of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in many ways was the genesis of that act. It has not been substantially reauthorized since 1994, and it is in need of some updating. Just as our technology and science evolves everyday, so do the strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with developmental disabilities. Individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple evolving lifelong needs, Mr. Speaker, that require interaction with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance, as well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The Developmental Disability Act seeks to provide, as I said, a voice for those with disabilities as they negotiate the complicated system of public services policies and organizations that we currently have in place. The act seeks to provide families with the knowledge and tools they need to help individuals with developmental disabilities become integrated and included in their communities. It seeks to foster true independence for those with developmental disabilities, and it provides support to protect them from abuse and neglect, something clearly that all of us would want. This has been a long and arduous road for the act. The Senate worked tirelessly with the disability community on this bill to ensure that all voices were heard. They were, and as a result, the Senate passed its version with title 2 included, 99 to zero. The version of the act that we are considering tonight is somewhat different, as has been referenced. The act that my colleague from New York (Mr. Lazio) and myself introduced yesterday, along with the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) included three titles. Unfortunately, this one includes only two. While I rise in strong support of this bill, I would also like to reinforce my commitment to the segment of this bill that was struck by amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has already done so, and I look forward to working with him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in seeing passage of that title that is not in this bill at this point in time. Title II of the act would have authorized a funding to states for support of families that have individuals with developmental disabilities. That, unfortunately, was struck from the bill. I regret that we were unable to get agreement on including this section, which is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Workforce. Hopefully, hopefully, before we adjourn for the year, we will be able to pass a bill that includes that section. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for many of us to drop this section, as funding to states for family support was and is an important provision in this bill, but we did not want to risk losing the rest of the act as well. As my colleagues have already stated, we intend to work very hard to have family support placed back into the Developmental Disabilities Act during conference. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is especially appropriate that we pass it today on the anniversary of the 10th year since passing and signage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an act which said to every American, now 58 million of us who have a disability of some type or another, said to those 58 million people that the door of opportunity, the door to empowerment, is open to you. You have to take the steps, or roll the chair, or in some way get there, but we are going to make sure the door is open for you, and we are going to make sure that we take reasonable steps, we call them ``reasonable accommodations,'' that can be done within the framework of reasonable expenses to make sure that the American dream is yours as well, notwithstanding the fact that you may have a disability that some of the rest of us do not have. Passage of this bill tonight is another statement of this Congress to a commitment for empowerment and inclusion of all Americans, irrespective of some arbitrary and capricious distinction we might draw which might otherwise shut them out of enjoying the American dream. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had this opportunity to cosponsor and to speak in support of the passage of this bill tonight. Mr. Speaker, tonight we commemorate the enactment of the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ten years ago tomorrow--on July 26, 1990--President Bush signed the historic ``Americans With Disabilities Act'' into law. This bipartisan legislation prohibits discrimination against more than 50 million disabled Americans--in employment, in public services, in transportation, in public accommodations and in services operated by private entities. The ADA sent an unmistakable--and long overdue--message to all Americans: It is unacceptable to discriminate against the disabled--to relegate our brothers and sisters to the sideline of our society-- simply because they are disabled. It is unacceptable and, under the ADA, it is illegal. The disabled belong to the American family, and must share in all we have to offer: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. I will never forget the President's words on July 26, 1990--nor the setting. More than 2,000 advocates for the disabled--some in wheelchairs, some with interpreters, some with seeing-eye dogs--joined the President, Members of Congress and others in the hot summer sun on the South Lawn of the White House. Some worried that the heat would cause the disabled too many medical problems. But the disabled--who have suffered so many indignities, so many unjustified acts of discrimination over the years--insisted on a major outdoor ceremony. And they deserved it. Mr. Speaker, as the lead sponsor of the ADA in this House, that day stands out as one of my proudest--especially when President Bush told those gathered: ``Every man, woman and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.'' I would be remiss tonight if I did not mention the tireless efforts of our former colleague in this House and my dear friend, Tony Coelho, on behalf of the disabled and the ADA. As many of you know, Tony now chairs the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. You also may know that he has epilepsy. However, you may not be aware of the discrimination he has overcome. When Tony's epilepsy was discovered some years ago, he was expelled from the seminary where he was studying to become a priest, he had his driver's license revoked, and his insurance company canceled his health coverage. Simply because he had a disability. Today, because of the ADA, that type of unjustified and indefensible discrimination is outlawed in America--as it should be. I also want to thank and commend an organization in my District that now serves more than 2,000 people with developmental disabilities. Melwood, a non-profit organization based in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, has assisted the disabled for 35 years. Today, it is a national model in the areas of training, employment, housing and recreation. There's no doubt that the ADA has promoted progress. The signs are everywhere--ramps, curb cuts, braille signs, captioned TV programs, and bus lifts. So many disabled Americans have moved into the mainstream of American life, holding down good paying jobs in a New Economy where information and knowledge are key. But while we commemorate the ADA tonight, let's not kid ourselves: Tomorrow we must roll up our sleeves and continue to build the house of opportunity and equality that we began 10 years ago. While the unemployment rate in our country hovers around 4 percent, unemployment among disabled Americans remains unacceptably high. Just last week, the National Organization on Disability released the findings from a Harris Survey of Americans with and without disabilities, and those findings demonstrate how much work we have left to do. Only 32 percent of disabled people of working age work full or part time compared to 81 percent of non-disabled Americans; More than two-thirds (67 percent) of the disabled who are not employed say they would prefer to work; and People with disabilities are nearly three times as likely as those without disabilities to live in households with total incomes of $15,000 or less. The Harris Survey also found that large gaps exist between people with and without disabilities with regard to education, access to transportation, health care, socializing, attendance at religious services, political participation, and life satisfaction. Many of these measures, of course, are directly linked to employment. We know that a good job is the key to independence and self- sufficiency. Thus, I believe we should implement nothing short of a comprehensive national strategy to address this unemployment crisis and continued cycle of dependency. First, we must continue to make sure that government programs empower citizens and encourage them to seek employment in the private sector. For example, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Act, which extends Medicare coverage for disabled recipients who work, did just that. For too many, the fear of losing health insurance has proved to be a deterrent to work. We also must redouble our commitment to the public-private partnerships created during the last 10 years to expand employment opportunities. Further, in the New Economy, we must encourage disabled Americans to develop their technological skills. Information and knowledge--rather than brawn--are power and hold much promise for the disabled. Thus, we need to improve education, job training and rehabilitation programs. Additionally, we must address the criticisms and recommendations contained in a recent report by the National Council on Disability. That report found that the impact of the ADA has been diminished by the lack of a cohesive, pro-active enforcement strategy. One of the Council's principal recommendations is to direct the Department of Justice to develop a strategic vision and plan for ADA enforcement across federal agencies. Finally, we can take a big step in renewing our commitment to disabled Americans by passing the Development Disabilities Reauthorization Act this week before Congress breaks for its summer recess. This law is the cornerstone of disability policy, paving the way for the ADA 10 years ago and providing services, support, information and training for disabled Americans. These issues must be addressed if the ADA is going to fulfill its promise. So as we gather today to commemorate this historic law, let's recognize all that we've accomplished; let's renew our commitment to the principles and spirit of the ADA; and let's realize that our work is not done. The ADA allowed us to tear down the wall of exclusion and pour a strong foundation for the House of Equality. But that House--in which Americans are judged by their ability and not their disability--is still being built. The promise remains unfulfilled, but still is within reach. Let's not rest until we complete what we began 10 years ago.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in support of this legislation. I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), my friend, who serves with me on the Committee on House Administration, in bringing this bill to the floor. I am not only pleased but honored to support H.R. 4846, the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his hard work helping to get this legislation to the floor today, and of course, as I have already mentioned, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), my colleague who is also a member of the Committee on House Administration. Mr. Speaker, for over 120 years, more than half the life of our Nation, America's music, news and voice has been recorded. From ``Mary Had a Little Lamb,'' the first recorded words, through Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats, through today's legislative debates, the history of our great country has been broadcast and recorded through sound. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, every day, a piece of this history is lost. The sounds of our past, the statesman appealing to our ideals, the singer touching our emotions, the poet romancing our souls, are fading. Soon, they will merely be memories. And once those memories fade, so, too, will a large portion of our Nation's history. Today, we have a historic opportunity to protect our audio history. Modeled on the highly successful National Film Preservation Act, which Congress enacted in 1988, this bill will create and implement a comprehensive national strategy for protecting and preserving our sound-recorded heritage. It establishes a national recording registry in the Library of Congress to identify, maintain, and preserve sound recordings that are culturally and historically significant. It further creates a national recording preservation board to assist the librarian in implementing a comprehensive national recording preservation program. And it establishes lastly a National Recording Preservation Foundation, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has pointed out, to encourage private gifts to enhance our recording heritage. This foundation will create partnerships with the recording industry that will decrease the costs of preservation for the Government and increase the benefits for the people of our Nation. This bill will preserve our past and give a gift to our future. I am sure that my colleagues will join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and me who enthusiastically support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), for her leadership and support of this effort. She has been very much involved in bringing the bill to this point, and I certainly appreciate her support on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I remember being in the leadership of this House when in early August 1990 Saddam Hussein determined to go into Kuwait. I remember shortly thereafter President Bush called a meeting down at the Executive Office Building and there were literally probably 60 of us in the meeting room, at which time President Bush set before us what had happened, what the challenge was and his intent. I was proud then and remain proud today that, to a person, everybody, Democrat and Republican, went out of that room and said we are going to support the President in confronting this aggression. And, in fact, that is what occurred. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this particular resolution, because although it was easy for us to sit in that room and say yes, we will confront aggression, in the final analysis it is the individuals in uniform who take on that responsibility to confront aggression in the trenches, in the field, in the air and on the sea. It is those, young people for the most part, who show the courage and conviction to let aggressors of the world know that the United States is prepared to confront them. Operation Desert Storm was the largest United States military deployment since the Vietnam War. Our National Guard played a role that was very important to the success of that mission to end Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This resolution honors appropriately those who served in that conflict and the sacrifice they made for their country. The National Guard consists of ordinary citizens who are also volunteer soldiers devoted to defending America's freedom. Since the phaseout of the draft in 1973, our military forces have had to depend on a smaller volunteer force, one that has become more sophisticated, more educated, and more technologically advanced. Making up an increasing share of our military force is a group of well-trained, well-educated and technologically savvy citizens who are also some of our best soldiers. We know them as the National Guard. The Army National Guard has units in 2,700 communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Air National Guard has 88 flying units at more than 170 installations nationwide. Over 267,000 men and women were called to active duty during Operation Desert Storm, each playing a vital role in ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I join all of my colleagues in recognizing this 10th anniversary of this event to honor those who served and those 57 individuals who lost their lives. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing this measure and join him in honoring our National Guard.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for his leadership on this issue and his effective articulation of the equity of this act that we have taken. I appreciate working with him. He has been very effective, and his leadership has been very important.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. First, Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for not only his comments but, more importantly, for his chairmanship of this committee, which he chairs in a very responsible and fair manner. Unfortunately, I think too often, Mr. Chairman, the American public gets the impression that all we do is come here and yell and scream at one another and try to make political points. Clearly, while that happens, and it happens perhaps too frequently, we do have the opportunity of working together constructively, and it is a great privilege for me to work with the gentleman from Arizona, constructively on fashioning this bill. The chairman has had to make some tough decisions within the allocations for this year; and he has done, I think, a good job with insufficient funds. I would also like to mention the outstanding job that the Chairman's staff director Michelle Mrdeza does, along with her staff of Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Doug Burke, Kevin Messner and others on the committee. Mr. Chairman, the 302(b) allocation for this bill is $2.1 billion below the requested level. That is in a bill that has $14 billion of discretionary spending. So it is 17 percent below what the administration believed was necessary to carry out the functions of the agencies in this bill. By comparison, Mr. Chairman, last year at this time the 302(b) was less than $.5 billion below the President's request. The chairman has decided to fund law enforcement functions at the expense of other general government responsibilities this subcommittee has. Very frankly, I am not sure he had any alternative. For example, Treasury's law enforcement bureaus are funded at or near the administration's request. That is relevant because it was not a conclusion that the administration's requests were unreasonable, because we have essentially funded them in the law enforcement area. This law enforcement funding includes ATF agents, enough agents to enforce our gun laws; funding to begin development of the U.S. Customs Service Automated Commercial System, while maintaining their current system; and funding to continue the Secret Service workload balancing initiative. However, the allocation for this bill is not adequate to fund several priorities that are critical to the American people. The chairman knows this, reiterated it today, and reiterated it in our report. As a matter of fact, quoting the bill's report on pages 4 and 5, it says, ``The committee acknowledges that IRS, GSA, and the National Archives have borne the brunt of the restraint on spending found in the bill, requiring denial of requested increases for the upcoming year.'' This is not the only bill, Mr. Chairman, which is short. Several other appropriation bills are already facing veto threats from the President because of spending amounts that are inadequate to carry out the responsibilities assigned by this Congress. Republicans, very frankly, are using this strategy in order to push their tax cut agenda, from our perspective, one that will cost $175 billion over 5 years and a whopping $1 trillion over 10 years. It has been segmented, and we are considering those individually, but, nevertheless, their overall impact is the same as it would have been last year. It will put a hole in our ability to bring down the debt; put a hole in our ability to make sure that Medicare and Social Security are secure; put a hole in our ability to fund prescription drugs; and, obviously, as this bill reflects, puts a significant hole in our ability to invest in the responsibilities that we have to the American people. I might add that I, along with most of my colleagues on this side of the House, supported a tax relief plan for middle-income families that is fiscally responsible. As a matter of fact, I supported the Blue Dog's budget, which would have provided for 25 percent of the surplus for investments, 25 percent for tax cuts, and 50 percent of the surplus applied to budget deficit reduction. This bill does not do that, however. It underfunds the Internal Revenue Service by $466 million. This level would not even cover mandatory inflation, resulting in a loss of almost 5,000 FTEs all together and the resultant decline in taxpayer service. The bill jeopardizes implementation of the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act, for which all of us voted, and the report of which said that if we were for IRS reform we had to be at the time of budget writing and tax writing. It also puts at risk successful completion of the 2001 filing season. Customer service would be reduced. And one of the principal items we said in the restructuring act was that we wanted IRS to be customer friendly. Mr. Rossotti, the Director of the IRS, a nonpartisan director, a manager, and a businessman, has said that he cannot do the job we expect given the funds we are providing. Audit coverage, and this ought to be of concern to every one of us, would decline to all-time record low levels, reducing revenue to the government by up to $2 billion. It would provide for less than a quarter of a percent of audits being applied for returns filed. The modernization of IRS, its computer systems and business practices would be threatened. No funding, Mr. Chairman, is provided for construction projects requested by the administration. We have a serious crisis going on across the country in terms of our Federal Courthouses. We have spent billions of dollars over the last 10 or 15 years on the war against drugs and crime, resulting in a hefty increase to the judiciary's caseload. To handle these changes, we cannot ignore the need to provide adequate courthouses. The administration's request to continue the Food and Drug Administration's consolidation project is zeroed out, costing us dollars, time, and effectiveness. This project makes sense fiscally and was supported by the Reagan-Bush and Clinton administrations. The administration's request for a new Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms headquarters is zeroed out. Not funding this project will prolong the serious security risk for the 1,100 ATF employees working at the current location. All told, GSA estimates failure to fund the administration's request for construction projects under its jurisdiction will cost the taxpayers almost an additional $100 million. The administration's request to fund the renovation of our National Archives building is zeroed out. None of these things, I think, the chairman wanted to do. First and foremost, the threat of fire in the Archives building is high. Delaying this project will put the lives of visitors and staff at risk and endanger irreplaceable archival records. Delaying this project will also cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in added cost. Excluding funding for the drug czar's office, the requested increases by the President totaled $20.9 million, of which only $6.4 million is included in the bill, resulting in a 69 percent cut from the requested increase for the executive office accounts. Included in these cuts is $2.5 million for Puerto Rico to hold a referendum to determine the Island's status. Mr. Chairman, I have other concerns about this bill, including the denial of funding for Treasury's financial management services for computer security and accounting modernization; lack of funding for presidential transition, which is not included at all in this bill, and we know that is going to happen; a 32 percent cut in funding for repairs of Federal buildings. If we do not maintain our buildings, frankly, they will become more expensive. I am concerned as well about the denial of the President's critical infrastructure protection initiative in the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management; and the lack of additional funding necessary for the Merit Systems Protection Board to carry out its congressionally mandated requirements. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill as far as it goes. It does not go far enough and, therefore, in this form, I cannot support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say before the gentleman leaves the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) continues to be one of our ranks who I think is most focused on human rights throughout this world. He takes an extraordinary amount of his own time to visit, to learn and returns to the United States as one of the most powerful and effective voices on behalf of those who are being visited with atrocities and savagery on a regular basis. His voice is one of the strongest in the international community on behalf of protecting individuals and human rights. I congratulate him and am proud to be his colleague. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for her comments and say, as she knows, I support her. I think the HIDTA program is one of the best programs in our bill, and I look forward to working with her and the chairman and the administration to properly fund it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am not going to oppose the amendment for the same reason that the gentleman mentioned. I have discussed with the gentleman from Vermont, but not the gentleman from Ohio yet. But I would hope that the amendment is not necessary because I believe that the IRS is following the law. I understand that that is the purpose of the amendment, however, and we are not going to oppose it.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to all colleagues in the House, I do not think there is anybody in the House who has spent more time on making sure that the Internal Revenue Service is an effective agency efficiently collecting the revenues that are due to the government that can be used for the benefit of the American public and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the taxpayer and his focus on giving it the proper resources to do the job we expect of it I think has been untiring and unwavering, and I congratulate him for his efforts.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes and I rise in opposition to the amendment. I realize the amendment is going to be withdrawn. I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) raising this for purposes of discussing why we are doing this; that is appropriate. I am pleased to rise and explain why we are doing this. I think it will be less animated than I otherwise would have been because the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment. Let me say that, first of all, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman with respect to looking long term and looking to the future, ensuring that we manage the finances of America responsibly. I have been here for longer than the gentleman, serving here since 1981. I think we were incredibly fiscally irresponsible as a Nation. Everybody went into debt very deeply in America in the 1980s. When I say everybody, consumers went deeply into debt. Business went deeply into debt, and government went deeply into debt. First of all, in 1990, we adopted a budget which started us on the road of fiscal responsibility. It was very controversial. Then President Bush signed the legislation and was severely criticized for doing so, but most economists say that that was the first step in reaching where we are today. The second step, was 1993 when we thought about the future. Some called it a piece of legislation that was going to drive us deeply into recession, explode unemployment and explode the debt. Mr. Gingrich said that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said that, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said that, that numerous other leaders in this House said that. In point of fact, exactly the opposite happened. We have the best economy that any of us have seen in our adult lifetimes. In 1997, in furtherance of the effort to ensure that we were going to have a balanced budget and would not be deficit financing, we said to Federal employees you are going to pay an additional half point on your retirement. It is only for the purposes of solving our deficit problem; and, therefore, because the budget projections now show a deficit balance as of 2002, we will sunset it in 2002 and go back to what they were paying in 1997. We then thought that 2002 would be the time when we would balance the budget. Well, lo and behold not only because of the 1990 bill, the 1993 bill and the 1997 act, which was a bipartisan act, the economy, mostly because of a high-tech explosion that has occurred and the global success that we have had, we balanced the budget earlier than we thought; in 1999. As a result, we are now saying to those Federal employees, because we asked for the extra half percent and took it out of their paycheck to contribute to solving the deficit problem, we have now solved that deficit, operating deficit, on an annual basis and as a result what we are now saying is we are going to give it back. We are now going to return them to where they were, as we said we would in 1997. So I say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), we are doing exactly what we said we would do. We said when the budget was projected to be in balance we will roll back this temporary increase. All we are saying today is we have had good fortune and because we have met the premise of that act, we will now do what we said we would do, and do it early. That is all we are doing. Now, I tell my friend, I represent a lot of Federal employees, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) knows. If the policies that were in place in 1981 had not been changed, Federal employees in those 19 years would have received over a quarter of a trillion dollars more in pay and in benefits. A quarter of a trillion dollars Federal employees have contributed to getting this deficit down, by reduced pay and reduced benefits; a quarter of a trillion dollars. Now, I say further to my friend, who mentions those 800 corporations, no Federal employee gets a stock option. No Federal employee can cash in his stocks at the end of the day or at the end of his career. They do not get a windfall. He does not get a golden parachute. The fact of the matter is, the Federal employees, as my friend knows, under FEPCA, the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act, consistently is concluded by every analyst, and now it may differ as to the amount but by every analyst, to be paid less than his private-sector counterpart. Therefore, this is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and I am pleased that we are doing it. Again, I thank the gentleman for raising it, and I thank the gentleman for agreeing to withdraw it at the appropriate time. I think it was appropriate to have it aired, and I am pleased to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me use some time then. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment is argued passionately for by the gentleman from Virginia. The Clinton administration's proposed contractor responsibility reforms simply clarifies and reinforces the long-standing rule that requires government to do business only with responsible contractors. Now, Mr. Chairman, how often have we heard that a contractor was doing business for the Government, making a lot of money, and was a major polluter? How often have we heard that the contractor was a major violator of OSHA or other labor provisions? How often have we heard that and responded that, how do we do this? Why do we do this? Should we not do business with people who comply with the rules, regulations, and laws of our country? Should not we advantage those contractors who seek to comply? The regulations that have been promulgated here I suggest to my colleagues are reasonable regulations, and we ought to allow them to go forward and reject this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do.