Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to tell the gentleman from New York, and I want to tell the Members, that I know the gentleman is worried that he may not be on the floor when it comes up. I will protect the gentleman from New York on this and we will have a vote on it, because I will protect him if, per chance, he is not on the floor to make the point of order at that time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation. I would simply inform him, obviously, I will not object, but will inform him that if we can have discussions about after title II, subsequent to title II, starting with title II, if we can have a different procedure.

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) has an amendment on page 23, line 22, title I. Under my reservation, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) simply to explain the consequences of his request.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with the death of Louis Goldstein on July 3, Maryland, as well as the entire country, lost a great patriot, dutiful public servant, and loving individual. Louis Lazarus Goldstein died at the age of 85, having spent all of his adult life in the service of his fellow citizens. He was in some ways a simple, unassuming man, and in other ways, an extremely complicated one. He loved people, his family, history, the United States marines, the state of Maryland, the Democratic Party, and America. He served all of them in turn, and served them with enthusiasm and faithfulness. Louis was larger than life when he lived, and he will become even larger in a his death. The Louis stories that are legend now will geometrically multiply in years to come. Hopefully, however, we will not lose the reality along the way: his genuine, heartfelt prayer that God would bless each of us real good; his observation that our gift to God was service to others, and his shining example of such service; his brilliance in the administration of his office; and his fidelity to Maryland's citizens and the stewardship of their money. He was, Mr. Speaker, an unforgettable character who made everyone feel that they were his close friend and objects of his genuine concern, as, indeed, they were. Some thought him hokey, but they saw only the facade. To know Louis was to know how deeply he cared about democracy and individual freedom and civil liberties, and how committed he was to ensuring that every American young person had an opportunity to excel to the limit of his or her talent, and their willingness to expend effort and energy in the pursuit of their goals; how much of his own time and extraordinary political skills he spent ensuring that Washington College and the University of Maryland were places where excellence was encouraged and facilitated; how much he valued the principles of his party, and how strongly he fought for its candidates. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Members have ever met Louis Goldstein, how many of our colleagues have met him. I suspect many. He lit up a room and a podium, a campaign trail and another candidate's events, or certainly his own. He brought common sense and uncommon intellect and integrity to the business of politics. God granted to Louis and to us 85 vigorous years which Louis used to the utmost. God indeed blessed us real good through the force of nature we knew for the past 40 years as our comptroller; arguably, the most popular tax collector in the history of the world. Louis Goldstein was a wonderful servant to Maryland and America, and his death is a tragic loss for all. But the happy note is that his life was not a tragedy at all. It was a victory, a celebration, a joy. Louis Goldstein loved life and he gave it his all. He served as a public official for 51 out of his 85 years, not out of a need for power or money or even attention, but out of his earnest desire to help those less fortunate and make a difference in the lives of others. His legacy will no doubt live on, and serve as a much needed model for future leaders of our State, for future leaders of our country. All of us would do well to emulate his charity towards all and malice towards none. Louis Lazarus Goldstein will be missed. Louis Lazarus Goldstein first came into my life in 1962, 36 years ago. He was my friend, he was my mentor, he was an adviser and counselor. He was an extraordinary human being. He ended every speech, as I have alluded to, with, ``May God bless you all real good.'' God blessed us through Louis Goldstein.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), am I correct that our committee has made no finding that such funds have been used?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply comment and thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her comments. Unfortunately, as she knows and we all know, the problem with the rule is that any one of 435 people can, under the rule, object and strike any matter in the bill that is not authorized, or is so-called legislation on an appropriation bill, which in many instances is absolutely essential to carry out objectives that are generally agreed upon. The problem with doing that, of course, is that acting reasonably is sometimes in the eye of the actor, and one of our 435 colleagues may well think they are acting very reasonably and responsibly by striking a matter that 434 of us do not. But under this rule, any one of us that sees something as a reasonable action to strike probably a majority of this bill can do so. That was and is the problem with this rule. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been such a hard worker on the Federal Election Commission and such an assistance to our committee in working on this issue.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) for the purposes of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise to say that in ending this general debate, we ought to, again, lament the fact that a large part of the work of this committee is, in my opinion, supported by the majority on both sides. It is unfortunate that we have gotten ourselves involved in a lot of political gamesmanship and that this rule will plunge us into seeing much of this bill stricken because, as I said, one person can do that. Furthermore, we will not really focus, I predict, during the course of the consideration of this bill, on the substance of this bill, which is funding critical law enforcement, critical tax collection and tax reform issues, critical building of facilities to confront the crime problem in America, critical programs to make sure that our elections are fair, that people who are running for election follow the rules and that we adequately fund those who we are assigned the purpose of overseeing those elections. It is unfortunate that as we consider this bill we will focus on the elimination of programs because they have not been authorized, through no fault of the Committee on Appropriations and perhaps even through no fault of the authorization committees, but the fact is they have not been authorized. So many of the programs that the gentlewoman from Connecticut referenced, which all of us know ultimately will be adopted, will be stricken from this bill. That is unfortunate, but the rule allows that. In closing, I want to again congratulate the chairman and thank the chairman, thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, thank the members, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) on my side, and the members on the other side for working together to try to adequately and appropriately fund agencies that are critical to the continued success of this country. We are fortunately experiencing one of the longest, most successful economic periods in the history of America. We clearly have not been the sole persons who have brought that about. In fact, what government has done has been only a portion and not the majority portion of that success. It has been the private sector, their innovation, their enterprise, their investment that have brought about this growth. But clearly, as I said in relationship to the Y2K problem, the agencies in this bill are critical partners in that success. This bill has a long way to go before it becomes law. We will work together with the chairman and with the Members of this committee in a bipartisan way to try to bring it to fruition successfully. I want to regret that and hope that the provision that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) included in this bill and the Committee on Appropriations adopted providing for women in the Federal service to have access to contraceptive services to preclude unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions, which everybody wants to do, will not be struck on a point of order and that at the very least we can consider that by majority vote in this House, which is not precluded by the rule, probably will not happen but is not precluded by the rule. I thank, again, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his leadership, his openness, and his positive attitude and actions as we consider this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from South Florida (Mrs. Meek), the former State Senator and now a distinguished Member of our body.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona is, in my opinion, one of the most decent, hard-working Members of the House, and he is continually. Because this is a difficult bill to handle, plays in very difficult situations, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his bipartisanship in handling this bill. I also want to join him in congratulating the staff at the beginning of my remarks. He mentioned, and I will mention them again because that deserves such: the Chief Clerk of our committee, Michele Mrdeza, with whom I have had the opportunity to work for 7 years now, Bob Schmidt, Jeff Ashford, Tammy Hughes, Frank Larkin and Jason Isaac who is, although not on the committee staff like Cory Alexander of my personal staff, of my leadership staff, a critical component of the consideration of this bill, and Pat Schlueter and Kim Weaver, who work respectively for the committee and for the Committee on Appropriations' associate staff. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying that this bill in many respects is a very good bill given the fiscal constraints that confront the Committee on Appropriations. This subcommittee's commitment of over $4 billion to the Treasury's very important law enforcement activity is present in this bill. Almost one-third of the $13.2 billion in discretionary budget authority in this bill is targeted at law enforcement. I am pleased that the bill fully funds the President's request for the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. The $27 million program is an important part of the administration's overall strategy to curb youth violence. This administration has been successful in presenting to the American public in its first term a program to reduce crime in America. The good news is they have been successful. This bill will continue that progress. This bill funds antidrug activities totaling over $1.8 billion. Over $400 million is provided to the drug czar for a variety of drug-fighting efforts, including $162 million for the very successful high-intensity drug trafficking areas. I am pleased that we are able to maintain IRS funding at a level that will enable Commissioner Rossotti to continue progress with reform. I want to speak briefly of the changes that had been effected in IRS. Secretary Rubin and Deputy Secretary Sommer should be given great credit for rescuing the failing tax system's modernization program. They provided the needed high-level oversight for IRS to make a sharp turn in this computer systems area. They appointed a new chief computer systems officer who, after months of intense work, released a blueprint for technology modernization. This multibillion dollar program is now on the right track and it has been put on the right track by a bipartisan effort of this Congress and by the leadership and through the leadership of Secretary Rubin and Secretary Sommer and members of the IRS staff. The appointment of Commissioner Rossotti was another clear change, Mr. Chairman, for IRS. Commissioner Rossotti is a tough-minded business manager. During his brief tenure, together with Secretary Rubin, IRS has improved customer service in a number of ways. Telephone access has been increased from 69 percent to 90 percent. Problem-solving days were instituted in all 33 IRS districts, allowing taxpayers to cut through the red tape and resolve difficult problems. National and local taxpayer advocates were established. In addition to Treasury, this bill, Mr. Chairman, funds many smaller agencies, including Archives, OPM, GSA, the Federal Elections Commission and the Executive Office of the President. We will be talking about those agencies as we proceed through the markup of this bill. They are critically important agencies of our government; and, for the most part, we have tried to fund them so that they can perform their responsibilities as appointed by this Congress through legislation and as is expected by the American public. For GSA, I am pleased that we are able to include money for absolutely essential courthouse construction projects. One of the reasons crime has gone down is because prosecutions are up, and we are processing criminals and letting them know that prosecution will be swift and sure. It is obvious that we need facilities to accomplish that objective. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) because he disciplined our committee to taking the priorities of the Judicial Conference and the General Services Administration. These are not political choices. These are choices by the experts who know the needs and the abilities of the GSA to perform the responsibilities assigned to them by this Congress. I remain concerned, however, about authorizing language for the FEC that would essentially establish term limits for the staff director and general counsel. I presume that will be struck, and I expect it to be struck. Finally, I am pleased that this bill contains special emphasis in funding for solving the century date change problems with computers government-wide. We talked about that in the consideration of the rule. I hope that it stays in this bill. The chairman has pointed out it is a critical need, and our committee has responded to that need, not just on behalf of the agencies in our bill but the agencies throughout government. As I pointed out in my opposition to the rule, which did not protect this, that was absolutely essential as we confront, as the chairman said, January 1 of the year 2000, because if we fail to solve this problem, not only will government shut down, not only will Medicare and Social Security be put at risk, not only will veterans benefits be put at risk, not only will the FAA, who controls our airplanes and our flight patterns and safety in the skies be at risk, but private commerce, which relies on the operations of government, will also be put at risk. I would hope, but do not expect, that we will protect that item. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the chairman and the staff for their work on this bill. We will see how it proceeds, and we will see what is left of the bill after the Members in this House or this House works its will on it within the framework of this unfortunate rule. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his clarification.

Mr. HOYER. So, Mr. Chairman, the Members should know that they have no need to be here if they wanted to object or make any other suggestions in the body of the bill itself?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that anybody has made an announcement, but am I correct that the only thing we will be doing for the balance of the evening will be general debate? There will be no votes?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain what procedure we are going to pursue. I believe it is very important to have every Member understand what we are going to ask for. We are going to ask that the previous question be defeated. That will then allow us to offer an alternative rule. I want to represent to every Member in this Chamber and listening in their offices what that rule will be comprised of. First of all, we will continue the provision reported out of subcommittee, reported out of full committee, that will preclude Members' pay from going into effect. Secondly, we will provide for the consideration of the Lowey amendment, which was democratically adopted in the committee and reported to this floor, but is unprotected. Not only would it be not subjected to a vote, yea or nay, but one Member under the rules that were proposed will be able to exclude that or any other item. Thirdly, we will protect in our rule the Y2K funding, which everybody in this House and in this Nation knows is an emergency, and which the Committee on Appropriations, with the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), designated an emergency, to his credit, and frankly, to the credit of the Republican leadership that initially agreed with that procedure. So to remind Members, if they vote no on the previous question, they will then be able to vote yes on a rule which will preclude a pay raise, which will take it out of a political demagoguery situation; that will allow a democratic vote in the people's House on whether or not we ought to allow for access to contraception so we can preclude more abortions; and thirdly, if Members vote no on the previous question, they will be able to protect the provision which provides for funding of the solution to the Y2K problem, and ensure the effective operations of our computers and our governmental programs, as well as commerce in this country in the next century. I urge Members to vote no on the previous question to accomplish these three objectives.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. At the outset, let me say that it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. The chairman of the Treasury Postal Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), as I said in the committee markup, has forged a fair bill as it came out of subcommittee. It was a bill that sought to address the problems that confront the agencies that are our responsibility. It was a bill as well that sought to fund a critical situation that confronts not just our agencies but almost every agency of government other than defense, and that critical crisis was, as we refer to it, the Y2K problem, ensuring that computers would be compatible with the change of century. Because if they are not, we will not be able to fly airplanes. Indeed, we will not be able to collect revenues. We will not be able to pay Social Security. We will not be able to pay Medicare. The fact of the matter is, government will come to a screeching halt, and commerce will come to a screeching halt. That is not an acceptable alternative. As a result, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), and it is my understanding the Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, and the Committee on Appropriations, all agreed that we would confront this issue forthrightly and designate it for what it is, an emergency, one that cannot be delayed, one that must be solved on behalf of every American, young and old. We did not do that. I tell my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, that his rule does not protect that issue. It does not allow us to proceed as we should. And the ranking member of the Committee on Rules is absolutely correct, on this floor, on the debate, when this rule was last considered 3 weeks ago on the 25th of June, it was represented that by the time we got back, we will know how to solve this problem. We will know where to get the $2.3 billion. That was represented to us on this floor by the leadership on the other side of the aisle. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has correctly pointed out, that has not happened. Substantively, this was a good bill, as I said, as it came out of subcommittee. It was not a perfect bill as it came out of the full Committee on Appropriations from my perspective. There were matters in it that I had concerns about, but they would not have led me to oppose the rule. But as it came out of the Committee on Rules last time, it was not acceptable. Now, I say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, this is not about a pay raise. Like the chairman, I am for a pay raise, because it is effectively simply a cost of living adjustment, less half a point that every other Federal employee gets, less a half a point. So we get a half a point less, because we did not want to take a full pay raise. We wanted to respect the American public's concern on that issue. I say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, our committee reported out, as he well knows, the preclusion of the acceptance of that pay raise, and that is the only matter the gentleman has protected in his rule.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am talking about the Members. The gentleman brought up the Members' pay raise. The gentleman said this was about a Members' pay raise. My representation to the gentleman is that, in fact, the committee included the preclusion, the prohibition on the receipt by Members of a pay raise. There is nothing in this bill about employees' pay raises, as the gentleman knows, so that what I am saying to the gentleman is whether this rule fails or whether this rule passes, Members will not get pay raises, the reason being because, if we have to go back to the drawing board, we will come back with the same provision. The gentleman knows that, and Members ought to know that. Mr. Speaker, if I might therefore conclude, I say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, his representation about a Members' pay raise vote is, frankly, political tactics, not substance. It is political tactics to try to scare Members into voting for or against this rule. What this is about is the failure of the Committee on Rules to protect what are democratically adopted in the Committee on Appropriations provisions, some of which I like, some of which I did not like. Now I will tell my friend, he says if he protects the Lowey amendment, for instance, which provides for access to contraception, which I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is good policy and good family practice, the overwhelming majority of Americans in my opinion believe that, he says that people will vote against the rule to prohibit a vote in the people's House on that issue. It does not make sure that it happens. What it says is that the representatives of the American public will be able to vote on that issue. The gentleman has provided for a procedure, as the Chair well knows, where one Member can come and strike out what the Committee on Appropriations adopted in a democratic process.