Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's position on this but not his passion. A, not only should the President of the United States not be embarrassed, every American ought to thank the President of the United States for standing up to make our streets safer, for taking on some very powerful interest groups to try to save children, save police officers, save our fellow neighbors. That is what the President of the United States is trying to do, and he ought not to be embarrassed, and is not embarrassed for one second, in his efforts to try to do that. I supported that ban. I supported the assault weapons ban when we passed it in the House and sent it over to the Senate, and I support it today. The administration not only ought not to be embarrassed but ought to be congratulated because they are bending over backwards to be fair. Some think they are bending over too far. I do not agree with my friends who think that. Because what the administration is really saying is our effort is to make streets safe, not to hurt American businessmen, even when they tried to beat the ban. That is what the gentleman from New York was pointing out; that the ads were, ``Get in before you can't get in; before they stop this, because there is a time frame.'' So I say to my friends on both sides of this issue, both sides are right. They were doing something legal and, therefore, I disagree with my friend from New York. They knew, however, as both of my friends from New York indicate, that it was not going to be able to be done pretty soon and that they needed to get in before the deadline. So, yes, there was a little bit of wrongdoing on their part trying to beat the ban. The fact of the matter, however, and what the administration has said, and why I oppose the amendment and support the chairman's position, is that, look, we understand that the import was legal and we understand when it got here we stopped it. And by the way, it is in the importer's warehouse at this point in time, at their expense. But there are some who wanted to let those guns go on the street. That was the alternative, the amendment that was going to be offered. Let them go. Let 1700 AK-47s and assault weapons on the street. The administration said we are not for that. We are not going to support that. We will fight that. So we made an accommodation. But the administration said, on the other hand, we understand these have been paid for, so we will purchase these guns and we are going to melt them down so they will never be used to assault anybody. Now, I want to reiterate, however, for my friends from New York, the chairman's point. It is ``up to $2 million''. And, in fact, the administration, as I understand it, believes that we are going to be talking about, perhaps, for 1900 rifles and 100 receivers, $237,432. I do not know that, and they do not know that. So this sum that was put in here is a sum that is ``up to'' available for this purchase. So, in closing, I want to make a number of points. One, the administration stood up courageously on behalf of the safety of our streets and communities and said this is not the kind of weapon we want imported into the United States and we are going to stop it. And they have. Secondly, they have now said, but those who were caught in the transition, for whatever reason, we are not going to make that judgment, but if they were caught in the transition, we will not penalize them financially. And so we will agree to, reluctantly, this was not their initiative, this was not their action, reluctantly agreed to by the administration, to provide for funds to purchase these weapons and, frankly, to destroy these weapons. So I, frankly, think that under those circumstances, while I certainly appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), there has been nobody in this Congress who has been any more committed, focused, and hard working on the issue of making America's streets safer than the gentleman from New York, and we can all applaud and thank him for that effort, on the other hand, the administration is saying we are not against businessmen, we are against guns. We are for the safety of our streets. I will, therefore, oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and would rise in support of this amendment. I thank the gentlewoman from New York, who has been such a tenacious spokesperson on behalf of monitoring and ensuring fair elections in America. Her leadership on this issue has been outstanding, and all of America owes her a debt of gratitude. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we ought to clarify what this amendment does. The chairman of the committee indicated it took it from the General Accounting Office. That was incorrect. The chairman made a mistake. It is out of the General Services Administration. I am not for reducing those accounts, but this particular account that is being reduced is over, I think, $2.3 billion, and this takes $2 million out of it. So it is a minor nick at best on the particular accounting question. Having said that, the gentleman from Kansas, who is the cosponsor of this amendment, observes that we obviously feel in this country there are substantial problems with elections. Over $1 million was spent, not just by the committee, but by the parties involved, on one congressional election during this Congress, $1 million, \1/34\th of the dollars in this bill for FEC. That did not include the President or any of the other Federal races, United States Senate or House Members, other than that one race. This Congress has spent, and you can get all sorts of estimates and I will not say which one is precise or not, but anywhere between $10 million and $40 million, a pretty broad spectrum, looking at the Presidential race alone. Just one race. We ask the FEC to look at essentially thousands of candidates to ensure that they are complying with the laws this Congress adopted to ensure that Americans have fair elections. Now, the gentlewoman's amendment and the gentleman from Kansas's amendment takes the FEC from the $34 million-plus that we have incorporated in this bill to the $36 million-plus that was the request of the administration. Some would argue pretty strenuously that that was insufficient in and of itself. Why? Because the dollars involved in campaigns has escalated geometrically. We all know that. Just taking House races alone, where the average expenditures have gone in the last 20 years from probably less than $300,000 to, for the most part, close to $1 million, that is three-and-a-half times in 20 years. The number of candidates is rising. I am not sure that is true this year on House races off the top of my head, but we know over the last 6 years, the number of candidates has escalated very substantially. The FEC has had to dismiss cases. They have had to dismiss cases because they did not have the resources to handle them. So unless they are very serious cases, they have not been able to deal with them. The proposition raised by the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Kansas is that ought not to be, because, if that happens, we cannot ensure fair elections. Now, I understand the chairman of the committee feels strongly that the FEC does not do its job properly. I understand his premise. I also understand his premise when he talks about the length of service by some Commissioners. I think he makes a good point. I am not for term limits, as the chairman is not for term limits, but we did not raise a whole lot of stuff about his provision last year. But I would hope that every Member of the House on either side of the aisle would look at this amendment in the context of what we are trying to do in America to ensure that funds are raised properly, spent properly, and administered properly. I hear in one-minutes, in special orders and in debate on this bill and other bills many, many members of the majority party getting up and saying how awful it is that we do not know exactly what happened in the elections in terms of raising money from foreigners, from domestic people, soft money, hard money, whatever. Well, my friends, if you really want to get at it, this is where we have set up in law to do it. And to say on the one hand you want to get at fair elections and on the other hand undercut the resources of the agencies that Congress has established to accomplish that objective I think is problematic at best. So I would urge my friends to adopt this amendment, and congratulate my colleagues for offering it, and hope that the House will adopt it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we confuse salary and Federal employee benefits, health benefits and retirement benefits. Let me bring this back to what this debate, from my perspective, is all about. First of all, I will tell my friend from Kansas that I presume he means that our employees are self-employed. He references that they work for the taxpayers, apparently not conceiving that they themselves are taxpayers. To that extent, I suppose they work for themselves. My point being that they are taxpayers, they are citizens of this country, and they are due equal consideration, as every other working American is due. It so happens, yes, they are our employees, but they deserve no less respect, no less integrity in their decisions, than any other employee. Now, let me tell my friend, every employee in America essentially has a compensation package. They may not refer to it as fancifully as that, but they have a compensation package. Most employees, not all, most have at least two components of that compensation package, salary and health benefits. We know there are a large number of employees that only have one; that is, the salary component. Other employees have, in addition to the salary and the health benefits, a retirement benefit, making it a three-component compensation package. But the fact of the matter is it is all their money, not the employer's, whether the employer be a public sector or private sector employer. For instance, General Motors. General Motors makes a contract with their employees, and they go and negotiate back and forth. Some employers used to want to have more health benefits in their package and less salary because they pay FICA tax on salary, and it was cheaper to do health costs. As health costs have escalated, they have gone to salary. Because health benefits are too expensive and they are going to HMOs, we are causing the problem we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that compensation package is the employee's. They made a deal, and they said, ``I will spend X number of hours using my talent and effort to accomplish the objectives you, the employer, want to accomplish, and in consideration for my talent and effort, you will compensate me with X number of dollars. Part of those dollars will be paid in salary. I get my check.'' Now, if the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from New Jersey perceive those as Federal dollars, if those are Federal dollars, those salaries, because they are paid out of exactly the same pot that compensation and retirement are paid out, exactly, there is no distinction, if you perceive that to be Federal dollars, then the Federal employee, unlike every other employee, can only spend their dollars when they go home that they earn in salary as we tell them, as Big Brother, as dictator employer tells them to spend it. But you make an interesting distinction and say oh, well, they can spend their salary money, which, of course, comes out of the taxpayers' pocket, the way they want; but the part of their compensation package that we pay directly to the insurance, because we have a joint system in which we directly pay the insurer, which makes it cheaper for the employee and cheaper for the employer, so the taxpayer gets a benefit because we put it together, as opposed to giving it directly to the employee and having them purchase it discretely, individually, which would be a lot less efficient and therefore a lot more costly. I do not know why we look at Federal employees as some second-rate employees in America.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a point of order is pending before the Chair. That point of order was made by me, and that point of order relates to line 2, starting with ``Provided'' and ending on line 11, concluding with ``Residence.''

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the money is authorized. The point of order does not lie against the first sentence. In fact, I have raised the point of order as to the proviso that is added, starting with page 28, line 2 through line 11. I would oppose the point of order as it relates to the first part of that provision because a point of order does not lie against it.

Mr. HOYER. Again I would reiterate I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw his point of order. This is, as the gentleman from Virginia said, an important effort that ought to be there for conference so that we can discuss it further.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, too, that the gentleman would withdraw his point of order, not because, as he knows, his point of order is not well taken, because the Committee on Rules failed, as it did on so many other instances amenably to protect items that were important but were technically not consistent with existing the rules.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for offering this amendment. My experience has been, in the some 30- plus years that I have been in public office, that the constituents with whom I deal hate most hypocrisy. They can disagree with me from time to time, and they do, but it is when they know, and hopefully it does not happen very often, hopefully never, that I am saying something that I do not believe, that I am voting a way I do not act. In 1989, this body, in a bipartisan way, with the leadership of the present Speaker, the then Speaker Tom Foley, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), many others, Mr. Michael in particular, I think even the presiding officer presently came together and said that we need to have a system that we believe is fair and the public will believe is fair. We, at that point in time, for those Members who are new and do not recall, could take 30 percent of our salary from private-sector interests to enhance our salary. It was called honoraria. I did not think that was right. This body did not think it was right and good policy. And we changed that. And in changing that, we said, we are going to set in place a system that will attempt to fairly reflect a salary that will, in effect, stay level. Because that is what cost of living is, of course, staying level, staying even. So that costs increase and salaries increase across the board, we escalate Social Security by a cost-of-living adjustment so that the value of the receipt of Social Security is approximately the same. And so we did that. But as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has correctly pointed out, we said that we are going to take the economic cost index, ECI, the private-sector wage information, determine what that average salary increase is, and we will then deduct half a point from that so that we will be getting less than that average in the private sector and adjust our salaries by that number. Now, is it a raise? Yes, of course it is an increase. But is it a real raise? No, it is not. It is a staying even with the economy. That was, in my opinion, an honest, rational, common-sense approach. Members voted on that reform on this floor in public on the record at 4 in the afternoon, full light of day. And we did it before an election. And we said that that would not go into effect until we were reelected. In other words, we did not take it at that point in time. And, in fact, I believe that every Member who sought re-election that was reelected, or even defeated, was not done so because of that provision. That is to say, citizens understood that. They thought it was fair. In fact, they thought it was reform and common cause, and many other citizens organizations endorsed it. Now, for a number of years after passing that, we did in fact follow without debates; and if Federal employees and if private sector got a cost-of-living adjustment, we got a cost-of-living adjustment. It was not a controversial item among the citizens in America. They understand that that is what, for the most part, they would like in their jobs and, for the most part, they get in their jobs. We have, however, always been inclined to demagogue the institution and demagogue one another on institutional issues. That is a shame. It is a shame because it brings disrespect on this institution and disrespect on the individual Members. Now, is that bad for the individuals? Of course. But, much worse, it is bad for America to lose faith and trust in its Members, who somehow give the impression that they are taking something that is either undeserved or unearned. I would hope that every Member on the majority side, as I will tell my colleagues on my side, will tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), this is not good policy. It may be good politics. It may adopt the premise of the Speaker that politics is war. But it is lousy public policy. It is demagoguery of the worst type.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's perspective, but my point is, no other employees have that prescription on the purchase of their health insurance. Now, employers, the gentleman is correct, may choose a limited policy, I understand that, and the employee may have the choice of only one policy; I understand that. That is the compensation package available to them. Fortunately, in my opinion, for Federal employees, their compensation package is broader as it relates to Federal employee health benefits. The gentleman is making a distinction between all other employees and Federal employees and, inevitably, because of the gentleman's premise that the premium is being paid by taxpayer dollars as opposed to Federal employee dollars.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The gentleman from California is very fair. I would join the chairman of the committee in lamenting the fact that the gentleman from Oklahoma is technically correct, notwithstanding the fact I think he is substantively wrong.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The Chair is correct. I was simply responding to the rhetoric of the point of order that was made.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this rule, which I opposed precisely because it did not, as it does in most instances, protect provisions that are absolutely essential, the gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point about our kids' debts. Very frankly, the chairman took all of these as priorities from the Judicial Conference and GSA. These are not political priorities. These are the judgments of those around the country in the justice system who know the facilities that are needed to carry out justice in this country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would join my friend the gentleman from Arizona, the chairman, in saying that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) raises correctly a point that can be raised against about 70 percent of the bill that remains.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the objection. My staff advises me that the Chair is correct, and I will withdraw.

Mr. HOYER. Which one?

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object or state a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I have been following pretty closely. I do not know what paragraph was inadvertently not read. And perhaps, we have the Record here, and I am sure we can review it again paragraph by paragraph.

Mr. HOYER. No, sir. The Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' The Clerk read, and I will ask the Record be read back if necessary, but the Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' We have passed the paragraph to which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) seeks to address.

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order as it relates to the first sentence.

Mr. HOYER. Well, there is obviously unanimous agreement on that issue, I suppose.