Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I think there was a unanimous agreement that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) would go next. We have the chairman here who wants to participate and others, if that is okay. I think it is okay with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). We increased his time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. This is an amendment which sets the dollars at an appropriate level. There is an ad on TV that says the watch cost $150, the trip to Jamaica cost $1,500, the confidence of a child is priceless. The confidence that a citizen has in its country is priceless; the confidence that a citizen has when they do the ultimate act of democracy, which is to participate as a Nation, as a people, as a society, in making decisions, in choosing leaders, in choosing options and priorities for their country. The tragedy of the last election was that there are many Americans who know that they have the right to vote, but are not ensured that they will be able to vote, and, that if they do so, their vote will count. Part of that problem is a technological problem, and we need to solve it; and it will take money to solve that technological problem. The other problem is for this great democracy to ensure that every citizen not only has the right, but is guaranteed by our society to have access to whatever their disability may be, whatever their status in life may be, access to the polling place and, yes, the ability to vote, whatever their disability may be, whatever their condition may be, and have the integrity of that vote being ensured and counted correctly. I am thankful that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has offered this amendment. I am thankful for the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who has introduced a bill; for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has traveled throughout this country with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and myself and others; for all those, not just from Florida, because this is not a Florida problem. The gentleman from Florida made that point. He is absolutely correct. This is a national problem, a national challenge, to ensure that our elections are as good as the rest of the world thought they were, and their confidence in that was put at risk this last election. We need to solve it; we will solve it. I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his statement and his continuing willingness to work with all of us for a mission that he thinks is very important and we share and we know is going to require money. He is going to be a critical player in that effort. We very much appreciate his role. I rise, however, to pass along a paragraph that would have been in the statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) had he been able to stay. Unfortunately, he had an engagement he could not get out of. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were here, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, he would have said this: ``These programs will cost money.'' ``These programs'' being the election reforms which are being discussed on the floor today. ``I want to assure the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that I am fully committed to ensuring that the necessary funds are authorized and appropriated.'' I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has talked to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I know that they are working together, that we are working together. This is a critical issue. I will have a few words to say on it later. But I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), although he could not be here, wanted me to make these remarks so that his commitment and his view of the importance of this issue was clearly on the record during the consideration of the Hastings amendment. I might say at this point in time that the Hastings amendment's sum of $600 million is very close to the sums that are in most of the Senate bills and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have been discussing will be necessary to effect the ends that I think all of us seek. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I will say that we have discussed this unanimous consent request and the minority agrees. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, thank the gentleman for this amendment. As the gentleman may know, there have been similar amendments that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I offered to this bill all throughout the 1980s. This is a good amendment. Clearly, the United States needs to be on the side of ensuring that this kind of abuse does not occur to children, women, and workers generally. This is a very good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have had some discussion about demeaning the House. The lack of intellectual integrity demeans the House. The bipartisan treatment of what the gentleman from Massachusetts refers to very clearly as institutional matters in a partisan way demeans the House. Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue not just for the United States Senate but for the Congress of the United States and for the House of Representatives, which, under the Constitution of the United States, has primary responsibility for appropriating dollars. It is not the Senate. The Senate cannot initiate appropriation bills or tax bills, as the chairman-to-be of the Committee on Ways and Means knows. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, and I would hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would take note of this debate, this provision has been in this bill for half a century. When I was chairman of the Committee, the Clinton administration sought to delete this language in 1993 and 1994. I rejected that request and carried it in this bill. Why? Because what this amendment says is that an administration cannot appoint somebody who has already been rejected under the Constitution of the United States, which, yes, gives to the Senate the power to advise and consent, and if they have failed to consent to an appointment, the Congress of the United States has consistently held that we can then, whatever administration we are, Democrat or Republican, turn around and in effect thumb our nose at not just the Senate but at the Congress, and spend money that we have appropriated on an appointment that has been rejected by one arm of the Congress. For 50 years the Congress, both sides of the aisle, both houses, have stood for that. Now, I said intellectual integrity, which I think also implies consistency. We demean the House when we, from an institutional standpoint, treat an administration differently because they are of the other party. I told the Members how I treated the Clinton administration on this very issue, which I thought was not a partisan issue between the Clinton administration and the Republicans in this House that we Democrats had to protect, but was an institutional issue, where we had to protect the jurisdiction and integrity and equal stature of the Congress of the United States. I would hope my Republican colleagues would sustain this amendment and would continue in place language which says that money that we have appropriated cannot be spent on an appointee that has been rejected by the Senate. That is of interest to us both. Why? Because it is of interest that a co-equal branch of government remains co-equal, and that no administration, once the process has been pursued of presenting a nominee, having hearings on that nominee, having votes in committee and on the floor, and it is the judgment under the Constitution that that nominee should not take office, that any administration could not then turn around in an interim, after the Congress has gone home, and say, ``I do not care what you said. I am putting this person in this position and we are going to pay him.'' If there were not a 50-year practice, one could possibly say, oh, well, they are just going after the Bush administration. Lastly, let me say this. Is there any doubt by anybody on the Republican side of the aisle, any doubt, that they would have rejected this proposal out of hand if it had been made by the Clinton administration? They would not have given it 5 seconds worth of thought, and they would have stood on this floor and railed against the arrogance of the administration to think that they could place in office somebody rejected under the Constitution pursuant to law for the position that they sought and were then placed in, notwithstanding the actions of the United States Senate. I would hope on this issue that we would come together from an institutional equal-branch perspective and accept this amendment, and reinstate this language that we have carried for 50 years.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say that the gentleman has offered this to previous bills, and we have accepted this on previous bills, and I would presume, although I have not talked to the chairman about it, that he will accept it on this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. In closing, I also want to make the comment that although he takes this money out of an account that is a large account, it is a large account that has huge obligations in terms of the objects to which it is dedicated: that is, the maintenance and repair of Federal buildings all over this country. So although it seems to be a big pot out of which he is taking this money, it is, nevertheless, a pot which does not have enough money in it at this point in time to accomplish what GSA says is necessary in terms of repairs and alterations.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia talked to me about this amendment just a little while ago, I do not know exactly how long ago it was; and very frankly, I have not had the opportunity to review it, I have not really discussed it with the chairman, and am not going to ask for a vote on this. But it is my understanding, I want to tell the gentleman from Georgia, first of all, there is a question about whether or not this money can be obligated this year. I do not know the answer to that question, but I will tell the gentleman I want to find that out from the National Archives, whether or not it is able to be obligated this year. If it is not able to be obligated this year, obviously it will push out an expenditure that could be obligated this year. There is a tremendous backlog, as the gentleman knows, for capital improvements in every area of this country. Secondly, we have not considered this in the subcommittee or full committee, so I do not know the full merits of this project. The gentleman tells me, and I understand what he is saying, first of all, it is not going to be in his district, so this is not a district concern. I am a big supporter of the National Archives and its work, and they need facilities that are adequate and protective of the materials that they store. But I am in the unfortunate position of not knowing enough about the amendment, frankly, to support it. I would tell the gentleman I will not oppose it at this point in time because the chairman wants to accept it, but I will be looking at this and I will discuss it with the gentleman and the conference committee to determine what we are going to do.

Mr. HOYER. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me respond to what I perceive to be the unfortunate assertion of the gentleman from California with reference to corruption. He uses that word awfully lightly. No such things were ever frankly as I recall asserted even. They may have asserted that there was an overuse, but the word corruption I cannot recall being used. I think it was unfortunate that the gentleman from California used it. There is no such proof of any of that allegation. The gentleman from Illinois talked about demeaning the House. I did not really get into it, but let me tell you, for the last 6 years we have heard rhetoric like that. The chances of this provision being included in this bill if it were Vice President Gore, the Vice President of the United States, are zero. I do not say that because I speculate or that is my opinion. It is because I served on this committee for the last 6 years. I saw the attention to detail and the objections that were raised repeatedly by this committee's majority on expenditures and fine-tooth- comb analysis of those expenditures. This is not about corruption. This is about policy. Now, I am not going to get deeply into this debate, but I do want to respond as forcefully as I know how to the assertion that somehow these amendments are different than amendments that have been offered in the past by the majority when the other party, my party, was in control of the White House and the Vice Presidency. Very frankly, we can debate these on policy grounds; I think that is appropriate. There is no assertion here that the Vice President has done something wrong because they suggest that consumables be donated to the Navy for use at the Vice President's residency. What is asserted by the gentleman from New York is that this, again, takes out of our purview, first of all, the oversight on the expenditures, and, secondly, opens up the Vice President's residency to substantial private sector donations. Not to the Vice President's residency, but to the Navy, and puts the Secretary of the Navy in the position of accepting these donations. That is the issue before us, as to whether or not that is appropriate.

Mr. HOYER. As I started to say, I have a great affection and respect for my friend from Illinois, and we are friends; but I have served a long time in this body. He has been here a long time as well. I do not believe I have ever tried to demean this House, and I hope he thinks I never would. Now, this is not my amendment; but as I started to say to him, this is an amount which speaks to a legitimate legislative perspective, that is to say whether or not an expenditure should be in one section of the bill or another. This is a substantive issue. This is whether or not we should pay the utility bills of the Vice President's residence out of the Vice President's office account or we ought to pay it out of the Navy's account. Nobody on this floor, nobody, has demeaned the Vice President. I have not heard one adverse word about the Vice President on this floor. This is a legitimate objective of legislators. You may disagree with the amendment, but it is not a demeaning amendment.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the gentleman is correct that money could be shifted from the NSC account to other accounts, the Vice President's account or any other account. Obviously, that would have to be done, however, with the approval of the committee, because they would need a request to shift from one program to the other. However, I raised similar concern that this would facilitate that happening. Because at times we do not give as careful attention to the shifting of funds from one account to another as we do to the initial appropriations to that account, I think the gentleman's concern is well placed. I expressed it as well in committee. We will see how comfortable we can become with the ultimate agreement that we might reach. I thank the gentleman for his input.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, leaves, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) correctly points out that this is a placeholder. As I told the gentleman from California, I opposed the original amendment that was offered. It was defeated in committee. But I believe this is a subject worthy of discussion between now and conference, and I want to assure the gentleman that I will be talking with him as well to get his thoughts on this proposal that OMB has made. Clearly they believe it is a proposal which will encourage greater efficiencies and effectiveness of management. Whether that is the case or not, we will see. I assure the gentleman that I will discuss it further with him.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for raising this issue. There is obviously a desire to privatize Social Security by some. We, on this side, think that is a bad, bad mistake. There can be no more dramatic showing of why that is a mistake than to look at the stock market into which presumably those private investments would go over the last 60 days. If one was retiring now and taking out their assets, they would lose. Obviously, if they had retired a year ago they may have won. But that is not a very secure Social Security. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) raises an excellent point. This issue will be one of the most critical issues that we confront in this Congress. It will be debated not only in the Halls of Congress but throughout this country. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for raising this issue in his usual dramatic, pointed, and effective way.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to the gentleman from Georgia, he is absolutely correct, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, located in Glynco, in his district, is not only a law enforcement agency that trains Treasury law enforcement, but, as the gentleman knows, trains a broad array of law enforcement officers, including non- Federal officers. It is a very, very important facility. They are one of the experts in the field. We are very pleased to work with the gentleman and with them to carry out the very, very important job of not only training initially our law enforcement officers but from time to time giving them training that keeps them both technically, physically, mentally on top of their game. I am also pleased, as the gentleman knows, that we are going to provide some local law enforcement training for all the law enforcement officers that are located here so they can keep up to speed on a week- to-week and month-to-month basis. But there is no doubt that FLETC's job and its location at Glynco, which we have fought to keep centralized, so we do not putting training centers all over the country and can marshall and focus our expertise at that site, is a very important effort. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a very outstanding member of the subcommittee and of the Committee on Appropriations, someone who represents her district extraordinarily well in south Florida, in the Miami area, and someone who I count as a very dear friend. She has an amendment that has been included, which is a very, very important one. I think she wants to talk about that.