Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Do you believe there is a procedure that is more humane or more acceptable than partial birth for the termination of a pregnancy?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I ask this because I believe it is the nub of the debate. Does the gentleman from Georgia believe there is a procedure to terminate a pregnancy that is more humane or more appropriate than the partial- birth abortion?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first, let us stipulate, I hope, that no one on this floor is pro-abortion any more than George Bush is pro-war. I supported President Bush, and I am not pro-war. There are times, though, when the health of the mother, her life, and, yes, her psychological health require and dictate, and the Supreme Court has upheld her right to seek, the termination of a pregnancy. I do not believe that anyone here truly believes in his or her heart that abortion is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy. And I think, Mr. Speaker, without question, that this belief is even stronger when an abortion is obtained in the late stages of pregnancy. Yet the authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act cannot escape the indisputable fact that their legislation would not prevent one late- term abortion or, I suggest, any other abortion at any other time, period. Not simply because the legislation they offer is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but also because there are alternative ways to terminate a pregnancy. If my colleagues' interpretation of their legislation is that it precludes all types of termination of pregnancy, then they ought to state it as such. If, however, as they state, it is simply the elimination of a procedure, with admittedly alternative procedures available, then it does not prevent any abortion. Mr. Speaker, on an issue of this magnitude, an issue that is fraught with emotion, that is susceptible to demagoguery and that requires us to balance a woman's right to personal autonomy with the rights of an unborn fetus, this House should seize what common ground exists. Common ground, we do not find common ground in this House very often. We ought to find it on this issue. That is precisely what this bipartisan substitute, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act would do. In short, this substitute addresses the very heart of the matter in this contentious debate, the termination of viable fetuses in the late stages of pregnancy. Unlike the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, this bill focuses on when abortions are performed rather than how they are performed. It would ban all late-term abortions. Hear me: It would ban all late-term abortions constitutionally. That is to say, the Supreme Court has articulated exceptions that must be in legislation; specifically, protection of the life of the mother and the health of the mother. Thus, this substitute comports with the constitutional requirements articulated in Stenberg v. Carhart. Recall that the Court in Stenberg struck down a Nebraska law prescribing partial-birth abortions because it, one, lacked the requisite exceptions, and two, impermissibly placed an undue burden upon a woman's right to choose. It is evident that where the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act is constitutional, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which deliberately excludes an exception for the health of the mother, is not. The authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act recognize the constitutional infirmity of their bill and thus seek to alter the facts upon which Stenberg was decided. Specifically, they reject the court's findings that partial-birth abortion may in some circumstances be the safest abortion procedure, and they state that partial-birth abortion is never necessary. But let me read to my distinguished friend a justice that I do not usually support the opinion of. In this case I think he is absolutely correct. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a different context, says if Congress ``could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' It is not an elaborate farce and, therefore, we cannot simply state that this is constitutional or this is not necessary. That will be subject to proof and the Court's determination. I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute, which resembles the law in 41 States of the Nation, including the chairman's State and my own. Let us not be driven further apart by our differences, but seize what common ground exists in this daunting debate. I would tell my friend that our statute is not a criminal statute. If my friend will read it, it is a civil statute, a civil penalty, and, therefore, the burden of proof would be much less. And I say that in this context: If the doctor is a charlatan, if the doctor is not going to follow the law, no matter what we pass will make no difference. However, it will make a difference in the final analysis because the court, the jury, the finder of fact and the finder of the law will in fact be able to make a determination that there was not the risk of serious adverse health consequences to the mother and, therefore, in that instance, a late-term abortion was not appropriate. I am not for late-term abortion except in an instance where the life of the mother must be saved or serious health care consequences must be avoided. But let me say this. Not all of my colleagues, some are, I think, intellectually consistent, but some give credence to an exception for abortion if it results from rape or incest. That, of course, is a psychological exception not a physical exception. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for bringing this important resolution to the floor today. Like all Members, I will strongly support this resolution; but let none of us forget, while the battle of Baghdad has been won, the peace that all of us hope for in Iraq is yet to be achieved and our brave men and women in uniform and our allies are still in harm's way. Today, The Washington Post reports that another American soldier died on Tuesday after being attacked by a small arms fire and rocket- propelled grenade at an Army checkpoint 50 miles north of Baghdad. May God bless his soul and provide comfort to his family. Our grateful Nation will forever be indebted to his service and sacrifice, as it is to the service and sacrifice of those comrades mentioned by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who also lost their lives and were injured in the defense of freedom. Mr. Speaker, having witnessed Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, there can be little doubt that the United States of America has the finest, best-led, best- equipped and best-educated fighting force in the history of the world. Our military is smarter, faster, and more lethal than it was 12 years ago during Desert Storm, and it was very good then. It took 250,000 troops to topple Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people. Twelve years ago, it took 500,000 troops to oust him from Kuwait. About 90 percent of our bombs and missiles were precision-guided in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In Desert Storm, that figure was 10 percent. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter); I want to congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all the members of the Committee on Armed Services for giving our troops the tools to become better, better equipped, better able to defend freedom and protect themselves. It is evident, therefore, that assertions regarding the American military being in decline, hollowed out, are not ready, are and always were patently wrong. Moreover, only an uninformed person, I think, would deny that our Commander in Chief led a fighting force which was bequeathed to him by his predecessor President Clinton and bequeathed to him by his predecessor George Bush and also by President Reagan. As Vice President Cheney remarked at the Air Force Academy 2 years ago, ``No President ever deploys the force he builds. There is nothing quick about preparation.'' That is a message that we must always remain ready, that we must always support the strength of our military and the safety of our personnel. As the Taliban or the Hussein regime could attest, the myth of a hollowed-out American military is nothing more than that, a myth. I rise with my colleagues to thank, to support and commend our brave men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, President Bush stated in his weekly radio address, ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce the tax rates of everyone who pays income tax,'' ``everyone who pays income tax.'' On May 29, after the GOP tax bill, which included the provision of the President's plan, in full or in part, had been passed by Congress, now, one ought to understand that it was delivered at 8:45 p.m., a very large tax bill, all sorts of provisions that had never been seen in full by any Member of this House reported out at 8:45. We were called back at approximately 10:30. It was passed at 1:55 a.m. in the morning, in the dark of night because in my opinion the majority wanted to hide this bill. They wanted to take credit for the tax cut, but they wanted to hide the specifics of the bill. It was signed by the President. The White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, stated, ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.'' Now, my friend, the gentleman from Texas, not the gentleman who just came on the floor but who previously spoke, a new Member of the House, reiterated that mantra, that everyone who paid taxes was going to get a reduction. Let there be no mistake, these statements are blatantly and unabashedly wrong. As the Tax Policy Center has reported, more than 8 million lower- and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions of dollars in taxes a year will receive absolutely no tax reduction under the GOP tax bill. That figure, Mr. Speaker, includes 1.8 million taxpayers who pay more than $1,000 in income tax. They will receive no relief. In the unkindest cut of all, 6.5 million minimum-wage families with nearly 12 million children will not receive the $400 per child increase in the child tax credit in the GOP bill. Why did that happen? It happened because they said that they were going to leave their bill at a $350 billion cut. Why? Because they needed to get some Republican members of the Senate to vote for it, and they could not get them to vote for any number larger than that. So who do they look to to cut out? Did they look at Warren Buffett? Frankly, did they look at the gentleman from Maryland (Steny Hoyer)? I could have afforded it. No, they did not look at us. They did not look at the wealthy; they looked at the poorest Americans and cut them out of this bill. As a matter of fact, most of us probably did not know that, and the President has now said he is going to fix it. But frankly, he did not offer it in his tax bill. The Republicans did not offer it in their tax bill that passed the House. It was a Democratic amendment offered by Senator Lincoln, adopted, and was in the conference. We all thought it was going to stay in the conference, but it was dropped in the dead of night without any Democrats in the room and unbeknownst to most Members. Mr. Speaker, we could have extended the child tax credit to all families, as we sought, simply by limiting the reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate to 35.3 percent rather than 35 percent. We needed to pay for it, and we could have done it. Now, that same gentleman from Texas observed that we needed to reduce the taxes because we needed to get the economy moving. We had a plan. It was fast-acting, fair to all Americans, and fiscally responsible. It did not harm us in the long term. That plan was not allowed to be offered. The plan that was offered, however, was not fair, was not fast-acting, and is not fiscally responsible. In fact, we have gone from $5.6 trillion purported surpluses that the President told us we had to a, now, almost $3 trillion deficit, and we are going to be facing what they say is a $44 trillion deficit in the future. That will be a substantial tax increase for many children in America and many children unborn who will have to pay the interest on that incredible debt that we are incurring. But lo and behold, in the clearest possible demonstration of the majority's values and priorities, the GOP has shown once again that when push comes to shove, it will fight for the Bush class over the working class every single time. The GOP's mantra really ought to be, leave no millionaire behind. Mr. Speaker, on April 26th, President Bush stated in his weekly radio address: ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce the tax rates of everyone who pays income tax.'' And on May 29th, after the GOP tax bill--which included the provisions of the President's plan in full or in part--had been passed by Congress and signed by the President, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated: ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.'' Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake: These statements are brazenly, blatantly and unabashedly false. As the Tax Policy Center has reported, more than 8 million lower and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes will receive absolutely no tax reduction under this GOP tax bill. That figure includes 1.8 million taxpayers who pay more than $1,000 in income tax. What do they receive? No tax relief whatsoever. Nothing. Not a thing. And the unkindest cut of all, 6.5 million minimum-wage families, with nearly 12 million children, will not receive the $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit in the GOP bill. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: We could have extended the child tax credit to all families--as Democrats sought--simply by limiting the reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate to 35.3 percent rather than 35 percent. But lo and behold, in the clearest possible demonstration of Republican values and priorities, the GOP has shown once again that when push comes to shove it will fight for the ``Bush class'' over the working class every single time. The GOP's mantra really ought to be-- Leave no millionaire behind! While minimum wage workers and their children get left out in the cold under the Republicans' tax bill, the Grand Old Party ensured that 184,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $93,500. Ladies and gentlemen, in the Republican vision for America, apparently that's what passes for compassion. And if you don't agree, well the GOP vilify you, charging that you're practicing class warfare. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. Class warfare is precisely what the Republican Party has been practicing on working men and women in this country on issue after issue after issue. The failure to provide the Child Tax Credit to minimum wage workers while fattening the bank accounts of millionaires is only the tip of the iceberg. In this report session of the 108th Congress, the Republican majority passed a budget resolution that betrays our values and fails to meet our needs. It would take hot lunches out of the mouths of poor children; force the elderly out of nursing homes as the result of Medicaid cuts; and slash veterans' health care. This Republican majority had to be dragged kicking and screaming not once but twice to extend unemployment insurance benefits--even as we face the highest unemployment rate in nine years and the loss of nearly 3 million private-sector jobs since George W. Bush took office. This majority passed a Welfare Reform bill that would force mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number of hours they must work every week. It passed a medical malpractice bill that would compound the pain of patients with the worst injuries while failing to reduce physicians' insurance premiums. And it loaded up legislation such as the Defense Authorization bill-- legislation that traditionally is overwhelmingly bipartisan--with extraneous, partisan measures that would harm the environment and strip Federal workers of their rights. And of course, this majority has refused to close tax loopholes for offshore corporate tax havens. It has refused to consider Democratic legislation to raise the minimum wage, which has not been increased since 1997. And it even has refused to give the Members of this House the opportunity to vote on a Democratic amendment to increase funding for Homeland Security by $2.5 billion--a pittance compared to the costs of the GOP's unaffordable and unfair tax bill. Meanwhile, this Republican majority refuses to address the most pressing unmet needs in America today: The 41 million Americans who have no health insurance; The millions of children who are eligible for Head Start but have no seat at the table; and The millions of seniors who need and deserve a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. On issue after issue after issue, this Republican majority has sided with powerful special interests over the interests of working Americans. Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the Democratic Party's vision for America. And we will never stop fighting for a positive agenda that meets the needs of all our citizens.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said before and will be said again that everyone who speaks on this amendment loves this flag that hangs behind me as a symbol of the greatest democracy on the face of the earth, as a symbol of the country that has demonstrated throughout history the greatest countenance in the principles for which that flag stands. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to oppose this proposed constitutional amendment providing the physical desecration of our flag. I believe people ought not to engage in that kind of activity, but our flag is more than mere cloth. It is a universal symbol for freedom, democracy and liberty, and it will continue to be so for so long as the symbols for which it stands flies high in the hearts of every American. That is where it needs to fly high, in our hearts and in our intellect. Those who would desecrate it only seek to grab attention for themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without doubt, they deserve both our contempt and our pity for their stupidity, but while I appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer and support this amendment, I will oppose it for the reasons so eloquently articulated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and Senator McConnell of Kentucky. In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, Senator McConnell stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution at its very center, the first amendment.'' That was Senator McConnell. He added, ``Our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.'' The question before us today is how we, the United States of America, the greatest democracy the world has ever known, the greatest bastion of freedom the world has ever known, a bastion of freedom that remains free because of the efforts of the Duke Cunninghams and the Sam Johnsons and so many others who risked their lives to maintain that freedom, the question before us is how to deal with those individuals who dishonor our Nation in this manner. Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment, in my opinion, is neither the appropriate nor the best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the late Justice Brennan wrote in the Supreme Court of Texas v. Johnson, ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.'' That is what Thomas Jefferson talked about, that the best response to wrong speech was right speech, not prohibiting speech. Our traditions, our values, our democratic principles, all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should not be overridden to prohibit this particularly offensive manner of speech, no matter how much we may disagree with it or how much contempt we may have for those who would express themselves in such an inappropriate and negative way. The inflammatory actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish, it must not extinguish, our ideals. We can only do that ourselves, and I submit that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech, even speech as this, is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions. ``America'' is one of the great songs, and one of the lines from that song is ``Long may thy land be bright with freedom's holy light.'' Freedom is not allowing those with whom we agree to express their opinion; it is allowing those with whom we deeply disagree to express theirs. Long may this land be bright with freedom's holy light. That is our responsibility. That is our oath.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. You do recall that he got more votes, however, than Mr. Nixon. Unlike Mr. Bush, who got less votes than Mr. Gore.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee has talked about us talking about class warfare. Warren Buffett talked about it just a couple of years ago, America's second richest person, and he said that his class was winning. It wins again tonight, not average Americans. One of the Republicans came, as they so often do, to quote John Kennedy. I voted for John Kennedy for President, the first President I ever had the opportunity to vote for. Republicans almost to a person opposed him. He said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' That was a call to contribute to the welfare of our society. It was a call not to the greedy, but to the great. It was a call to those who understood the value as the President said of lifting up all people when he said if we cannot save the many who are poor, we will never save the few who are rich. The gentleman spoke the truth. This is a trillion dollar bill. Some Members of the other body said they would not vote for a bill over $350 billion, and so the other side of the aisle has constructed a sham, a ruse, a trick. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, the sadness is that our children will pay that bill because you will not cut spending, you will not cut spending to comply with this tax bill, and you know it. In 1981 I was on this floor, and Republicans claimed if they passed their economic program, we would balance the budget by October 1, 1983. And I was on this floor in 1990 when you railed against your own President, President Bush, who contributed to creating the surplus that was to come some 6 years later. And I was on this floor in 1993 when Dick Armey and John Kasich, the predecessor to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), claimed that if we enacted the 1993 bill, the economy would go to the Dumpster, unemployment would rise, and the deficit would go through the ceiling. He was wrong on every count. And I was on this floor in 2001, just 2 years ago, when so many of you stood on this floor and said if we pass this bill, we will create jobs. And you have said it today, and you are wrong. In 1981, in 1990, in 1993, and in 2001, not any one of those times were you correct in your predictions. And you cost my three daughters a lot of money and my five grandchildren a lot of money because the tax you are putting on them is the debt tax that they will have to pay and they will not get a nickel of defense, not a nickel of education, not a nickel of health care while they are paying the interest that you put upon their heads.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. I did appreciate the opportunity to come and testify, notwithstanding the fact that the committee did not follow my advice. My point is that the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle are not on your committee or the Committee on Armed Services, and I think it would have been appropriate for us to debate these items. If the proposals are as good as the gentleman says they are, presumably they would have been supported by the majority of this House.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I tell my friend, and he and I work very closely on issues dealing with Federal employees, there is a tendency to undervalue our Federal employees, as the gentleman knows. But the concern we have is if the other side is so concerned that the propositions it puts before us are correct, then it is a shame that we do not allow this body to fully debate them. I understand there were votes in committee. However, I am not on the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The gentleman and I served in this body when this bill had 5 full days of debate, discussion and open amendments in which we had very extensive discussions on not only weapons systems but other proposals contained in the bill. I am probably going to end up voting for this bill. As the gentleman knows, I have consistently supported authorization bills and appropriation bills. I believe this Nation needs a strong defense, and I respect the Secretary of Defense. But I would say to the gentleman that it would have been nice if the Secretary had respected the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle and presented this at the beginning of the year and not just a few weeks ago so we could have had more extensive discussions, as we have had on some of those weapons systems heretofore. None of them were offered just recently. They were offered early in the year or in years past; but I recognize what the gentleman said. Obviously, we do not have unlimited time for unlimited debate. I would suggest in this instance this proposal, a very substantive one, came very late; and although the gentleman spent some time in committee on it, appropriately, and I thank the gentleman for that, it would have been nice if we would have had more extensive debate and substantive amendments on this floor.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I understand his assertion. His assertion essentially is that these provisions that will affect our Federal employees are positive provisions. If that is the case, on our side we are very concerned that we are not being allowed to debate these fully. As the gentleman knows, 30 amendments are allowed with 10 minutes per amendment. The gentleman will admit, I think, that these are very substantial changes that we are making in the law; am I correct on that?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I understand that. I did not mean the gentleman personally.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a good point, and he says work with us. The gentleman recalls that you would not allow us amendments to that bill so that many Democrats would have felt very comfortable voting for that bill. So you did not work with us.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt, however, that George W. Bush has the worst job creation or, better put, the worst job loss record of any President. I would tell the gentleman from Oregon I do not recall his statement, but I recall the statements of many of his colleagues that stood on this floor in 2001 and said, if we vote for this $1 trillion package, we are going to create jobs, the economy is going to boom, and, guess what, we can do it within the framework of this $5.6 trillion surplus which is now, of course, as the gentleman knows well, a $2.7 trillion deficit, an $8 trillion turnaround which is going to dampen the economy of Oregon and our entire country. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. I ask the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to listen to this. Last week, my colleagues may recall, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), House majority leader, last week said in on this floor in regard to the much-needed extension of unemployment insurance benefits, what they bring here under great pressure from Democrats, and that is the only reason it is here, and I am going to vote for it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this: ``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point, that we have to move quickly and not deliberatively on this issue.'' I am sure the people in eastern Oregon thought we had better move quickly, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) agrees with that. Our Republicans friends finally have recognized that last week's noncrisis, which is what their leader said, is this week's emergency for millions of American families; and I share the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Walden) view on the need of those unemployed. The Republicans have finally peeked out from under their tax-cut blinders just long enough to see the harsh reality on Main Street America today, that our Nation has the highest unemployment rate in 9 years, that there are nearly 9 million unemployed Americans, that our economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush was inaugurated, and that 4 million jobless Americans will have their temporary unemployment benefits completely cut off on May 31 unless this Congress acts immediately. We asked that they act last week. We asked that they act the week before that. They have not done so. But their political analysts have told them, do not go home without at least positively affecting some of these people. Even as they prepare to shower the most affluent citizens in America with enormous budget-busting, debt-exploding tax cuts, the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives demonstrate again that they only have so much compassion in their hearts, two-thirds to be exact tonight, because 1 million people are going to be left on the cutting room floor. This GOP bill is most notable for its half measures. It will provide only 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their State benefits, rather than 26 weeks that we sought. And for the 1 million unemployed Americans who have already exhausted both their State and Federal unemployment benefits, this bill would provide zero; nada; nothing; sorry, we cannot help. I challenge my Republican colleagues to go home and tell the jobless constituents in eastern Oregon or anyplace else who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits that they refuse to extend them when they have the opportunity tonight now. Do it. Do the right thing.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I understand the maximum extent practical. Is the gentleman for the 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia if he is for the budget provision in the Republican budget for 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?