Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for next week and the remainder of the day, if there is any schedule for the remainder of the day. So that Members who are gathered here will know, have we had the last vote of the day, Mr. Leader?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his comments and I know that the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Pelosi) office will cooperate fully in that objective, as will mine and others, and we look forward to participating in a very positive way but a very solemn and prayerful way as we remember that loss and the challenge that lies ahead.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information and the observation. Let me close. We talked about Thursday, September 11, when we will come together, controversies that we have discussed. The significant differences we have discussed with respect to how to solve the problems that confront this country will I think be put aside by all of us on September 11 as we come together, as we did on that September 11 evening when we stood together, you and I, shoulder to shoulder, and we sang God Bless America. At a time of tragedy we came together with resolve and without partisanship, resolve to confront the terrorists that afflict this world, this global community, and to make our country safer and more secure. Mr. Leader, on Thursday at what point in time do you expect us to end our session on Thursday and to participate in such both collective remembrances as we may have and individually to participate in remembrances? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for his observations on that. Two additional questions. The next one would be the Medicare prescription drug bill. Obviously this is a very contentious piece of legislation, with different perspectives on how we can provide seniors in particular with relief on the prescription drug costs. Can the gentleman tell us what you believe the status of that to be and when we might expect that bill, the conference report, on the floor of the House?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, respectfully the leader and I have a different perspective, as you know. We could move within a nanosecond to include those children today with unanimous consent. Frankly, as the leader well knows, we had a vote of 422 to 0 on much of the military tax relief in terms of moving expenses, capital gains expenses from selling homes and other expenses, the death benefit exclusion from taxes. So all of those items, there is agreement on my side, unanimously, as there was on your side. So the only issue is are we going to hold those two items hostage, the child tax credit and the military, for other items which are much more controversial, both within this body, Mr. Leader, as you well know, and between the two bodies. I think probably there is not much purpose in discussing this further, but we would hope that perhaps we could try to move those items on which we have agreement and continue to work on those that we do not forge agreement on. But we ought not to, in light of our disagreement on some things, damage those folks. Lastly, let me make an observation. I agree with you, Mr. Leader, that those families, those 6.5 million families, would not want to see a tax increase next year after the election; but if you ask them whether they wanted a $300 to $600 credit between now and the next election or simply stay at the same rate ad infinitum, I have a feeling there is little doubt they would say, well, we will take the help for a year, even if you do not give it to us permanently. Let us go on perhaps to the energy bill, Mr. Leader. You did not have that on your schedule. Obviously there was, as you know, a motion to instruct yesterday so that we could try to address the problem that all of us saw dramatically in the blackout that occurred on the 11th of August. Would the leader tell me what his perspective is on the energy bill?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's position. Of course, as the leader knows, the problem that we have on this side of the aisle with that position and your concern about having the tax credit expire shortly after the election next year, we have not given relief to the 200,000 service personnel who are covered and the 12 million children and 6.5 million families that would have been covered by the Senate amendment that was dropped in conference. So I understand your concern, and I share that concern. On this side of the aisle we do not want the tax credit to expire either. Having said that, however, we would hope that the 6.5 million families and 12 million children and 200,000 Armed Forces personnel would not be held hostage to our concern about making sure that it does not expire in an untimely way.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Leader, we have had a lot of concern and discussions about the child tax credit. It has been 85 days since the President urged us to pass it. Does the gentleman have any expectations that that might be on the agenda, either next week or in the near term? I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I will be very brief and not take 2 minutes, but I want to bring to the attention, particularly of the Members on my side, I will be voting for the previous question. This is a procedure we have followed in the past. It is an honest, in-the-daylight procedure. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) raises his point. He has raised it in the past. I would urge Members to vote for the previous question. Then I think on our side we are very concerned about the rule itself, and many of us will not be supporting the rule, but I would urge my Members on this side to vote for the previous question.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me, and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman's comments with respect to the Richmond courthouse. I might add, however, and I think the chairman hopefully shares this view, that the Los Angeles courthouse and others are on the priority list. As the gentleman knows, this committee has followed not a political agenda with respect to the funding of courthouses, but the court's determination of the most-needed facilities, of which Richmond, as the gentleman pointed out, comes very high. I would hope the gentleman would join in urging the administration and urging the Congress to again start funding courthouses. If we do not, we are going to see the administration of justice put at risk in many of the highest demand areas in the country. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments about Richmond, but it applies as well to many other jurisdictions.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will be to transfer $8.2 million from the construction fund for the transportation building which we have cleared cannot be spent this year in 2004. It will be spent in 2006, and we did not want to damage that building because we are very strong supporters of that building, and put $8.26 million for the general aviation airports into the Washington metropolitan area. I would like to speak about it and then have a little discussion with the chairman and then perhaps take some action and we can work on this later. In the aftermath, Mr. Chairman, of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its efforts to make commercial air travel safer. Unfortunately, while those restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the entire rest of the country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have continued to languish under binding restrictions of their operations. These are private sector. This is not public. These are private sector entrepreneurs, businessmen and -women who have invested their dollars in the operations of these general aviation airports. In fact, the only airports in the country that are closed or severely restricted to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National Airport and the three D.C. general aviation airports. I might say that I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and others and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is here. He can speak for himself. As a result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, Washington Executive, and National, National is not on the brink of financial collapse, obviously, because it is associated with a large public airport. The other three airports, however, are not in that situation. They survive or fail solely on the revenues from their general aviation, and they are in dire straits. These airports have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost longtime customers and almost all of their revenue. There is no doubt that we must stem the tide of economic decline for general aviation. This industry is a proven integral part of the Nation's economy, providing vital service and economic stability to individual families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small businesses and communities. Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry. My amendment is, therefore, very simple. It will reimburse these general aviation airports for the security costs incurred and revenue foregone because of government restriction. Let me say, I have had discussions with Sean O'Keefe, who is now the administrator of NASA, but who was the deputy administrator of OMB. He believes this is fair. Secretary Mineta testified before our subcommittee that this was their proposal that this be done, and there is legislation pending to accomplish that, but obviously it needs an appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who represents the District of Columbia and National Airport.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work and her cosponsorship of this amendment and her comments.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in this effort as well. He and I have worked very closely on this issue and he has been very focused on National and the other three airports. It is certainly ironic that we are making efforts, I think appropriate efforts, to fund infrastructure in Iraq; but we cannot compensate business people who were damaged by 9-11 and who are almost driven out of business at a very, as the chairman said, at a relatively nominal sum. So I hope with the chairman's leadership we will be able to do this in conference.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments and would remind my colleagues that we have given billions of dollars to the airlines, these are billion dollar corporations, as a result of 9-11. These three little airports, plus National Airport, are the only private business people so situated in the airline industry who have not received compensation. And they, unlike the airlines per se, are losing their entire investments because of their inability to operate these airlines. I appreciate the chairman's observations with respect to the equities of the claim here. I also appreciate the observation of the chairman and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that we may be subject to a lawsuit which we would lose because this is in fact an effective taking of their property without due process. None of these folks want to damage the security of this region or the White House or the Capitol. They understand our concern. But we certainly need to compensate them. In light of the fact the chairman has indicated his willingness to work with us to try to ensure the funding, I believe $8.2 million which we have in here is the approximate amount for National, a larger sum, and then a much smaller sum for the other three; and I believe that the sum from which we have taken it will not in any way adversely affect the Transportation Department's building going forward because of the scheduling of those expenditures; but because the chairman has made that representation, I will withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), first of all let me congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) on his taking the responsibilities of ranking member. He is doing an outstanding job in that capacity. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few general comments. I will have some possible amendments, which may be withdrawn, some of which may be pressed. But I want to thank the committee and I want to thank the chairman for pursuing what the Republican majority budget provided for with respect to pay parity. I think that was appropriate and consistent with our past policies. We have a lot of folks who are on the front lines who we will recognize. However, I want to raise some concerns. As the chairman knows, the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the present Bush administration, as I understand it, is for the project, although has not funded it. We have been pursuing the creation of a campus for the Food and Drug Administration which, of course, now has even more challenges dealing with the integrity of the food and drug supply in light of terrorist threats. But we have been trying to construct this campus, which will save the Federal Government money. The reason it will save the Federal Government money is now the FDA is located around the Washington metropolitan area in 19 different leased facilities, and, of course, they are for the most part very old facilities and they are expensive facilities. GSA tells us it would be cheaper to build at the site that has been agreed to, not in my district, but in the State of Maryland. We have done some of those. There is currently in the plan a project for $48 million. I have reason to believe the Senate might include that. Mr. Chairman, I am very hopeful that we will be able to include that in the conference report. I am not going to offer an amendment on that in the committee, but I really do believe that it is a very cost- conscious effort to continue this project to completion, because, as I say, it is not a partisan difference. As a matter of fact, the proposal was made, as the gentleman knows, by the Reagan administration and a Republican director of the FDA. But it is one that I think is very important. In addition, I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we have not included in this legislation not only some of the money that has been talked about in terms of Amtrak and transportation, but in particular the election reform legislation that we passed. It was one of the few pieces of legislation that we passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. The Speaker was very proud of that. On our side of the aisle we were proud of it. The President in signing the bill indicated it was a bipartisan success. We pledged to fund that effort, and we imposed deadlines on the States to accomplish certain things that were required to ensure access and accuracy of voting in elections. The deadline for the accomplishment of those objectives is 2006. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has been extraordinarily helpful and was a critical player in our initial funding. As the chairman knows, the bill would authorize $1.5 billion additional. We are $1 billion behind. There is $500 million in this bill. I appreciate the chairman's including that. I know he has been supportive of this effort. But I will be working with the administration again. There is going to be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I will speak on that. I am not sure that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will press that. The problem, of course, is where you take money from to get money for this objective. I think the chairman has a very real problem in that regard. I am pressing the administration, and I have talked to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) about this, to seek emergency funds from the administration so that this project can be accomplished by the 2006 deadline. I would hope we could work on that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. This organization received a 2003 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant for a project designed to enhance opportunities for visitors to explore the lands and stories of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 120 museums, state parks, wildlife refugees and other sites in five states and the District of Columbia, was created to enhance the experience of visitors to the Chesapeake Bay and its many roads, rivers and trails. Authorized by the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998, the Gateways Network is coordinated by the National Park Service in partnership with the Chesapeake Bay Program. During the past four years, Gateways Network Grants have funded new maps, improved signs, and expanded trails that have made visits to parks, wildlife refuges and water trails even more exciting and enjoyable than they had previously been. These grants help enhance the public's ability to learn and enjoy the Chesapeake's stories and significance, explore its natural and cultural resources, and become involved in helping conserve and restore the Bay and its watershed. Through these projects and other Gateways Network efforts more and more people recognize the Chesapeake as a true national treasure. In 2003, the National Park Service is awarding $1,387,309 in grant funding, matched by over $2 million in partner contributions. Thirty- two grants are being made to Gateways throughout the Bay watershed in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum is receiving a grant of $41,400 and $62,563 in partner contributions. The project proposed by the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum will extend the Shoreline Loop Trail to 3.75 miles, adding to 50 percent to its length, and resulting in the longest publicly accessible shoreline in Calvert County, Maryland. Greater public access to the Patuxent River will help people enjoy this scenic Chesapeake Bay tributary. A trail map and guide will be prepared and a series of wayside exhibit panels will also be added along the trail to interpret the environment and the diverse cultures that have influenced this site over time. The park will also develop an overall interpretive plan for the park to guide both this project and all future interpretive efforts. Mr. Speaker, it is with the assistance and vision of organizations such as the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum that the Chesapeake Bay and the entire region has become the treasure that we know it to be today. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum on receiving this grant and wishing them the best of luck in completing their project.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned that the proposed funding for the EITC compliance activities will create an undue burden on our most vulnerable citizens. The bill includes $100 billion to make it more difficult for hardworking families with low incomes to apply for the credit. That does not sound to me like the opportunity of society which the majority party talks so long and often about. If we must spend that much on EITC compliance, and all of us want to ensure that there is not fraud in the system, we agree on that. However, it would be better spent on hiring more customer service and assistant personnel to make sure that those who President Reagan thought ought to be helped were helped in a positive way by giving them a tax credit as opposed to a handout. Statistics illustrate that the focus on low-income filers rather than higher-income filers may be unwarranted. Audit rates are not consistent for different income levels. On 4-27 the New York Times said 1 of every 175 individual tax returns was audited in 2002; 1 of every 64 EITC claimants was audited; but 1 of every 120 taxpayers with annual incomes over $100,000 was audited. In other words, we are doing one sixty- fourth in terms of poorer people, and we are doing half of that for wealthier people. One in about every 400 partnerships were audited. Under the EITC precertification proposal, which is essentially a preaudit, between 1 out of every 4 to 8 EITC claimants would be audited. That is a big expenditure for very small returns. Approximately 70 percent of all EITC claimants receive tax return assistance from commercial tax preparers. Among taxpayers with incomes above $100,000, the chance of being audited fell 26 percent last year to an all-time low, yet this group is most likely to have income that is easiest to hide. The overwhelming majority of Americans, whether rich or poor, cooperate and are honest in filing their taxes; but clearly the people with the most income have the most incentive not to disclose income because they have the much greater savings, and in fact they have ways and means to hide it better. Since 1996, the number of revenue agents has dropped by 14,949 to 11,752 in 2002. The number of collection revenue officers has dropped from 5,537 in 1996 to approximately 3,500 today. What is the point of all this? The point is if we are going to put resources in, as the chairman has suggested, and I might say the chairman has had a focus on EITC since becoming the chairman, but it is ironic in my opinion that a party that talked about opportunity for hardworking Americans is being so hard on those hard- working Americans. If there is fraud, we need to ferret it out; but we need to ferret it out whether you are making $10,000 or $100,000 or $1 million. And we ought to do it fairly, across the board, and not target the least among us.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her amendment. I believe the amendment is not at all harmful to the objective of putting in place an election system that works for every American and is accurate and accessible and trustworthy. Her suggestion that the money not lapse, that it moves forward, I think is an excellent suggestion. I strongly support her amendment and thank her for her work in this effort.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue. I just came in a little bit late, but I heard his comments. Eighty-four days since the President of the United States, through his press secretary, said we ought to pass this legislation, 84 days that we have been fiddling while, figuratively speaking, those who would be entitled to this child tax credit, 6\1/2\ million families, 12 million children, have been burned while we fiddle around here in Washington. The majority is proud of the fact that it can move legislation when it wants to. They have demonstrated that ability. There is therefore no doubt, that the words of the President's press secretary 84 days ago saying that we ought to take care of these families, we ought to take care of these children, we ought to give this tax credit to those families who are the neediest families in America. This is not unique. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) brought an amendment to the floor dealing with the earned income tax credit, some of the lowest wage earners in America. And guess what? We are going to get them. That is what happened in the ITC amendment. Now, here with the child tax credit in the dead of night, the conferees, indeed the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to be more specific, removed this provision from the conference report included by the Senate, which, Mr. Speaker, then resulted in the President's press secretary saying the President wants us to pass this legislation just as soon as possible. That was 11 or 12 weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that we have not acted because in the interim we have talked about giving very large tax breaks to wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this instruction will pass, but much more importantly than that, I am hopeful, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) has indicated, that the conference will meet, the conference will act. I talked about 200,000 military families that are affected by this failure of the Republican majority to act. But let me say the military is being disadvantaged on many tax measures whether it deals with their $6,000 that they get for a death benefit, $3,000 of which is now taxable which we all want to exempt, 100 percent of us want to exempt that. It lies languishing, it lies languishing, I tell my friend from Pennsylvania, for failure of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance to act. Moving costs for our military personnel, our National Guard, our Reserves when we have asked them to move, when they have to sell their home, moving expenses, capital gains consequences, it languishes, I tell my friend from Pennsylvania, distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. It languishes because the majority has failed to act. How sad it is that 12 million children did not get the assistance that others got just so recently. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for his leadership in this effort. I thank him for yielding me this time. And I am hopeful that the House and the majority will finally act to give the relief that the President of the United States was so adamantly urging us to pass 84 days ago.