Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with this estate tax bill, the Republican leadership would light the fuse of a fiscal time bomb that would go off in 2011. As The Washington Post said this morning, the slow fuse makes the proposal seem affordable; nearly cost-free, in fact, because only the cost of the first 10 years of any legislation is estimated. But we all know the real costs of this bill do not start showing up until 2011. There is no need for us to jeopardize our fiscal future, Mr. Speaker. A great majority of Members on both sides of the aisle support a reduction in the estate tax. Bill Clinton would have signed a compromise estate tax bill covering 99.5 percent of all the estates in America. The tone may have changed but the substance has not. ``Do it my way or no way.'' The Democratic alternative would give us relief now. It immediately would raise the estate tax exclusion to $4 million for couples and would gradually raise that to $5 million. In 1999, that would have exempted more than three-quarters of all the estates that incurred any tax liability. I am not talking about all the estates. Of any estate that incurred a tax liability. And it would cost a fiscally responsible $40 billion. But the Republican leadership has rejected bipartisan compromise once again. It is at least consistent. Instead, the GOP's great tax gurus have proposed a bill that would cost $193 billion over the next decade while concealing its true cost. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that if complete repeal took effect today, the real cost of this legislation would be $660 billion over the next 10 years. The majority will not admit that, of course. It would be an explicit admission that the President's $1.6 trillion tax plan actually will cost closer to $3 trillion. The real danger to our country and to our people is that the cost of the legislation will be borne at the worst possible time, just as the baby boomers begin to retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. With our uncertain projected budget surpluses, is that fiscally responsible to do? I think not. Let us provide immediate relief for small business owners, for farmers, and let us defuse the fiscal time bomb before it threatens to blow a hole in our budget. Mr. Speaker, we can do something real for 99.5 percent of the taxpayers. Yes, their bill will continue the old song, ``The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but in the meantime don't we Congressmen and Congresswomen have fun?''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise a little bit in seriousness and say how proud we are, those of us who were in the ACC, of Duke's magnificent victory, not in derogation of Arizona, a great team itself, but my, my, my, how Duke plays, how Coach Krzyzewski coaches, and the fire that they showed. I said during the ditty that I was forced to go through, that they were down by 22, and it is because of the character, the heart, the courage and, yes, the extraordinary ability of the Duke players that they came back and prevailed in that game on Saturday night. I know the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) joins me in congratulating the Duke players, the Duke coach, and Duke itself for a magnificent and winning effort.

Mr. HOYER. I will put the jacket back on. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my friend, is helping me with my jacket, who is a graduate of Duke. All the Dukes are pretty gracious tonight. They were not very gracious last Saturday night I noticed. Mr. Speaker, I humbly rise to deliver an ode to the Duke Blue Devils, college basketball 2001 national champions. Only one team during the course of the season beat Duke by more than 10 points, the mighty Maryland Terrapins. Unfortunately, it was not Saturday night. The Duke Blue Devils are champions worthy of the name. They proved it again and again in game after game. But before they could play for the title last night, the Dukies had to get through a Saturday night fright. The Maryland Terrapins, new to the Final Four, came out of the blocks like they wanted much more. Determined not to fall short to the Blue Devils again, my Terps were as ferocious as a lion guarding her den. Duke was down 22 points and flat on their backs, 11 at the half, but lo and behold, a comeback was hatched. As the game wore on, the Blue Devils would not quit, and for Maryland's Cinderella season, the slipper no longer fit. But the Blue Devils were not finished; they had not cleared the field.

Mr. HOYER. Here, here.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be expunged from the record as soon as they are made. Mr. Speaker, but for the fact that the rules prohibit it, I would wear this jersey during the course of my remarks; but our Parliamentarian would have a heart attack and think that I had stepped egregiously on the rules. So only because the parliamentarian wants me to take off the Duke shirt do I do so. But I will hold it up.

Mr. HOYER. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will put my jacket back on. I cannot be totally inoffensive.

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I use ``gentleman'' and ``gentlewoman'' as a term of endearment that we use to speak of one another, but no one ought to misread that phrase. She is strong, she is courageous, she is tough, she is focused, and she is effective. She has added to this institution, as so many of the women in this book have. Mr. Speaker, she is the dean, the senior, not the oldest, he stresses, but the dean of the Democratic women in the House of Representatives. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her remarks. She does credit to this Congress, credit to Ohio, credit to her district, and certainly credit to her gender. It is a privilege to be her colleague in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Womens' Issues, who herself does an extraordinary job.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this concurrent resolution introduced during Women's History Month by my distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The gentlewoman has consistently led this House on issues related to women. I want to thank her for introducing this resolution, highlighting the need to revise and reprint this important volume to which the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has already referred. I also want to thank the chairman for his strong support and for bringing the measure to the floor so quickly. Since the publication of ``Women in Congress,'' the number of women who have served has risen by more than 61 percent, from 129 in 1990 to 208 today. That is a remarkable rise in just 11 years. It demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, the profound contribution that American women are now able to make to the public life of our great country, and indeed that they have made throughout the history of this Nation. We must remember that it was not always so. There is an extraordinary woman whose name is Margaret Brent. Margaret Brent was one of the first women lawyers in the colony, one of the first women landholders. She comes from Maryland, St. Mary's County, and she was the adviser to our governor back in the 17th century. She was made a member of the Governor's Council; added to the legislature, but they would not give her a vote. They would not give her a vote, of course, because she was a woman. She is not in this book; but if she lived today, she clearly would be. We must remember that for too long we discriminated against women in this Nation. It is almost hard to believe that it was not until the third decade of the last century that women were given the vote in America by constitutional amendment. Although the 107th Congress includes a record 74 women, Mr. Speaker, there were no women, not one, in the 1st Congress or the 14th or the 24th, or the 44th, or even the 64th Congress, 128 years into the history of the Congress of the United States. Not until, Mr. Speaker, the 65th Congress, that met in 1917, during the 129th year, did a woman, Jeanette Rankin of Montana, take the oath of office as a Representative. It was not until 1922, during the 67th Congress, that a woman, Rebecca Felton of Georgia, took the oath as a Senator. Of the more than 11,600 individuals who have served in the two Houses since 1789, fewer than 2 percent have been women. Ironically, when Representative Rankin first took her seat in this House, women had not yet secured the right to vote nationwide. This most cherished right of citizenship was not guaranteed for all American women until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. How stark a fact, Mr. Speaker, that is. We quote, and I do as well, Jefferson's historic observation that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. What a lesson it is for us that even in stirring rhetoric, our vision can be limited. Even at a time when we think we are reaching out to all, our rhetoric may exclude many. It is a lesson for us, because clearly Thomas Jefferson was one of the great democrats with a small ``D'' in the history of the world. But even Jefferson was blind to the discrimination that existed, not only against women, but against African Americans, most of whom when he intoned those words were still perceived as chattels, not human beings. How sad, but how instructive, that is. Mr. Speaker, during the first 128 years under our present Constitution, no woman's voice could be heard in debate here. The experiences, perspectives, hopes and dreams of America's women were not voiced in this body by a woman. However, hopefully, and I believe they were expressed by men, but imperfectly so, because it is very difficult for us to walk in one another's shoes if we have a gender difference or a color difference, or even a religious or national difference. It is impossible to know how the absence of women may have affected the deliberations of the first 64 Congresses of the United States. Common sense, however, suggests the effect was not beneficial. Fortunately, today, women not only can, but do, contribute in a direct, vital and historic way to the deliberations of this Congress and other policymaking bodies throughout the Federal, State and local governments. This is as it should be and as it should have been from the beginning. As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, more women will have the opportunity to serve in Congress and other public offices throughout the land, strengthening and enriching our democracy. This, too, is as it should be. If I know anything about women in Congress, it is that there are not enough. Mr. Speaker, a new edition of ``Women in Congress'' will gather in one updated volume useful, historical information for teachers, students and others, chronicling the careers of the 208 women who have served in either House to date. I am proud to support this resolution which is cosponsored by all of the women of this House. As we enter the 21st Century, we must continue to mark the progress and substantial contribution that women are making in this, the most democratic legislative body on Earth, but, I might observe, not the body that has the highest percentage of women. I am confident the new volume will quickly become, like the previous edition, a tremendous historical resource, inspiring young women across America to seek careers in public service that may one day bring them all, or many of them, to this hallowed hall. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the House to support this concurrent resolution unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am a long way away. That means that apparently our distinguished acting chair intends to serve at least another 12 years.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, last week we passed a resolution which would update the book which includes African Americans; or actually, 2 weeks ago. This week we will appropriately recognize the women who have served. As the father of three daughters, all adults, and a grandfather of two young women as well as two young men, those who have said that the women who serve are role models I think are absolutely correct, not only for young women who may want to go into public service, but for young women who aspire to reach the heights that their talents will allow them to. It is important that we nurture in these extraordinary American women the ability to succeed; the ability to make a very significant contribution; the ability to be equal, as Jefferson surely would have said today. So I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution. It is appropriate, it is timely, and it is important for all Americans.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it looks to me like the young Ms. Lehtinen is probably 10, 11, 12 years old?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago I was here in jest and in honoring the Duke team. I want to speak on a very serious subject at this point in time. It is just days after the end of Women's History Month and just weeks before millions of Americans will collectively honor their mothers on Mother's Day. Both events are borne out of the great respect and admiration we have for the women who have so strengthened our Nation, our society, and our families. Yet even today, Mr. Speaker, we must face up to this reality: American women earned only 72 cents for every dollar that men earned in 1999 for equal and comparable work, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a drop of 1 cent from 1998. Put another way, that 72-cent figure means that today, Tuesday, April 3, is the day on which women's wages catch up to men's wages from the previous week. It takes women 7 working days to earn what men earn in 5. This gender wage gap exists even when men and women have the same occupation, race, and experience; are employed in the same industry, in the same region, and are working for firms of equal size. But here, Mr. Speaker, is what it means in real terms. Each week it means that women, on average, have $28 less to spend on groceries, housing, child care, and other expenses for every $100 of work they do. Each month it means that women, on average, work 1 week for free. And over the course of a lifetime, it means that the average 25-year-old woman will lose more than $.5 million due to the wage gap. Let me repeat that: During their working lives, women will, on average, lose $.5 million because of the unfair wage gap. The wage gap is even larger for women of color. African American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and Hispanic women make only 52 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Yes, our Nation has made great strides in gender equality. In 1979, for example, women earned only 63 cents for every dollar men earned. But the wage disparity that exists in our society continues, and it is simply unacceptable. It is wrong. I speak not only as a legislator, but as the father of three daughters and the grandfather of two granddaughters. Bella Abzug, a leader in the fight for women's equality and a former Member of this House, once remarked, and I quote, ``The test for whether or not you can hold a job should not be the arrangement of your chromosomes.'' We must apply that same test with equal vigor on the issue of fair pay. If you can do your job, there must be no question that you will receive fair pay for your labor. This issue, after all, is not strictly a woman's issue. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of family finances and fairness. Unequal pay robs entire families of economic security. More women than ever are in the work force today, and their wages are essential in supporting their families. Sixty-four percent of working women provide half or more of their family's income, according to a 1997 study by the AFL-CIO. And the wage gap costs the average American family approximately $4,000 each year. Mr. Speaker, we talked about giving their money back to them, the taxpayers. That is an appropriate subject for us to discuss. But it is also clear that paying equal wages to our women workers would be a better benefit for them. So despite the fact that equal pay has been the law since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we still have a long way to go. That is why I have cosponsored, Mr. Speaker, and urge my colleagues to support, H.R. 781, the bipartisan Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation would toughen the Equal Pay Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I participated recently in a Congressional delegation to Russia, led by my friend Curt Weldon, where we met with government officials and others to assess the economic and political situation in that country and the state of U.S.-Russian relations. As Co-Chairman of the Duma-Congress Study Group on which I serve with Mr. Weldon, and as former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, I have traveled to Russia and the former Soviet Union frequently since the early 1980s. We are encouraged by Russia's continued progress, however tentative it may appear at times, towards becoming a democratic state that guarantees the inalienable rights, including religious freedom and respect for human rights and the rule of law, of all its citizens. That is why it is disturbing to see an important tenet of democracy--freedom of the media--being threatened by federal government actions and by local officials as well. The seriousness of this problem has been addressed by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations and has received widespread attention in the Western press, including recent editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. In Moscow, we were briefed by Ambassador Jim Collins, who told us about the threats to the media, particularly NTV and its holding company, Media Most, and we also met with Evgeny Kiselev, head of NTV--the only independently operated television station in Russia--who described incidents of harassment and intimidation directed against himself and other NTV personnel. Moreover, as we have seen in the past, journalists in Russia are under threat of physical attacks, even murder, at the hands of unknown assailants if they offend the wrong people with their reporting. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices-2000, just sent to the Congress by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, as required by law. It is a valuable document that assesses human rights conditions, country by country, around the world and has proven a reliable source of information for Members to better understand how individual governments treat their own citizens. The section on Russia, which covers 45 pages, states that the government ``generally respected the human rights of its citizens in many areas,'' but that ``serious problems remain, including independence and freedom of the media. . . .'' The report goes on to state ``Federal, regional, and local governments continued to exert pressure on journalists by: initiating investigations by the federal tax police, FSB, and MVD of media companies such as independent Media- Most. . . .'' The report also provides an account of the government harassment of and threats to Mr. Vladimir Goussinsky, founder and chairman of Media- Most, which owns NTV, and his arrest and detention in a Moscow prison. Today, Mr. Goussinsky is confined in Spain, awaiting the disposition of a Russian prosecutor's request for extradition, as Kremlin authorities have been engaged in a series of actions to shut down the country's only privately owned television station, or have it taken over by a government-controlled company. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, these efforts have come to fruition today. Press reports indicate that, in an apparent boardroom coup, the current NTV board, including Mr. Goussinsky, was ousted by the Russian gas firm Gazprom, which says it owns a controlling stake of the station. Mr. Kiselev has been replaced by an associate of the Gazprom directors. Russia's only two other nationwide television stations, ORT and RTR, are already controlled by the government. Mr. Speaker, I urge the government of the Russian Federation to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law by guaranteeing and supporting media pluralism and independence in Russia. Clearly, the foundation of a free and democratic society is a well informed citizenry. That foundation crumbles when freedom of speech and freedom of the media are suppressed. I also urge my colleagues to review the State Department's report on human rights conditions, particularly the section on Russia.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan would not bet on that happening a second time, would he?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the value of a bushel of crabs is so much greater than a bushel of apples that it is really not a fair bet. But Maryland's talent puts me at no risk, so I will be glad to accept that wager.

Mr. HOYER. Michigan State wants his time back.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was not to my feet quickly enough to enter directly in the discussion about Michigan State and Arizona and some team from North Carolina that is playing. But one ought to fear the turtle. I want everybody to understand that the Terrapins are coming to play, Gary Williams and his 10 starters. This is on scheduling for Saturday night, Mr. Speaker, so I presume it is, therefore, relevant that everybody be aware that, at 8:20 p.m. on Saturday evening, they certainly ought to be watching when Maryland, who of course beat Duke worse than any other team this year at their place, will again have the opportunity of doing that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this body has been diminished by the loss of two very similar Americans, one early in this year, Julian Dixon. Julian was an African American. He was an American. We have now, this morning, lost Norman Sisisky, a Jewish American. He was an American. Both were similar in their approach. They were not partisan nor small. They were focused on the best interests of their communities, of their State, of their Nation. They were focused on their constituents and the people who served this great land. They were examples of what has made this country great. I was here when Norm Sisisky came to the Congress of the United States, and because Maryland and Virginia are in the same region we did a lot of work together. Norm Sisisky became my dear and close friend. Norm Sisisky was an extraordinary individual, with a sometimes perverse sense of humor. He would berate us one time and say, oh, you cannot do that, that is the worst thing in the world, and you knew if you just waited a little bit he was going to say, but I am with you. He loved to do that. You could go to him for advice and counsel and know that you would get the wisdom of a man who had seen life, who had seen both advantage and adversity, and who accommodated both. Norm Sisisky, Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, had a bout with cancer a few years ago. He faced that challenge with the same kind of courage that he faced life. We believed and he believed that he had overcome that challenge, and he returned to this body to, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and his Virginia colleagues have so aptly stated, to contribute mightily to the security of this Nation and to international security. Norm Sisisky was one of the experts in this House on national security. He was one, as I said before and others have said, who was respected on both sides of the aisle for working in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way to ensure the strength of our armed services. In addition to the Maryland-Virginia connection, I have two major Naval facilities in my district, Patuxent Naval Air Station and the Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station. As we have heard, Norm Sisisky had one of the great Naval installations in the world, if not the greatest, in his district. We worked very closely together. He was a giant as an advocate for the strength of the U.S. Navy. The Navy and all its personnel have lost one of their strongest advocates and closest friends. Norm Sisisky was not the Member who spoke most frequently on this floor. Nor was he the Member, as some have said, who tried to take the most credit for objectives accomplished. But, Mr. Speaker, there was no more effective, no more respected Member of this House, than our friend Norman Sisisky. This body is a lesser place for the loss of Norman Sisisky. This country is a little less secure today because we have lost such a strong voice for national defense. The strength of our country is that his voice will be succeeded by others, his example will be followed by others, and his legacy will be long remembered by those who elected him time after time after time to serve them in this body, by those of us who had the honor to serve with him and by a grateful Nation. God blesses America, Mr. Speaker. God blesses America, in my opinion, through His children. Norm Sisisky was a blessing to his family, to his State and to our Nation. May God extend His blessing to his wife, to his children, to his extended family and, yes, to that staff whom I visited just a few minutes ago, that they will be soothed in their grief, as will the family. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for yielding the time and join in substantial sadness at the passing of a good and great friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, a little less than a month ago, the House overwhelmingly passed a bankruptcy reform measure that while not perfect sent an unmistakable message to every household in America: Do not spend money that you do not have because if you do you will be held responsible for your choices. We are not going to give you a pass on personal responsibility just because you could not say no to all the enticing credit card offers you received in the mail. Thus, today, I have to stand here and shake my head in amazement. Here we are, scarcely a month later, debating a Republican budget resolution that is an abdication of fiscal responsibility. The tax cuts outlined in this GOP budget document would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade; and as a result, they would squander projected surpluses. Note the emphasis on projected. They are not in hand. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the American public showing their wisdom do not think they will ever be in hand. Maybe our friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, ought to trust the common sense and intuition and wisdom of their constituents. Instead, they insist on pushing ahead with this budget blueprint for the fortunate few. The top 1 percent get 45 percent of this tax cut. This bill, the Democratic bill, cuts three-quarters of a trillion dollars in taxes and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) gets up and says we are against tax cuts. Baloney. What we are for is responsibly helping working Americans, but not adding, as we did in the 1980s under President Reagan and a Republican Senate, $4 trillion to the debt of whom? Of the American public. That is whose debt we added to. It is their money that is being put at risk. But at what cost? Their plan would do nothing to stimulate our economy now. It threatens to invade the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and it would cut vital services, such as after-school lunch programs that improve learning and help make schools safer. The diversified Democratic plan, on the other hand, would provide a responsible tax cut for all Americans. It would extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. It will allow us to invest in crucial national priorities. I am for investing in our defense and have supported every defense bill that has been signed by the Presidents, Republican and Democratic. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today. Vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote for a diversified budget plan that meets our Nation's needs. Vote for this Democratic alternative. I was here in 1981 when we passed Gramm-Latta I and Gramm-Latta II. I voted against them. I was here when we passed Conable-Hance, the tax cut bill. And I was here when bright young people like the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) got up here with their charts and said it will all work. I was here when that bill was sent from this House, from this Senate, to the White House. And I was here in August of 1981 when President Reagan signed the bill and, like the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) said, guess what, we are going to balance the budget by October 1, 1983. In that time frame, we added almost a billion extra dollars to America's debt; $3 trillion was yet to come of additional debt that we added on the heads of Americans. Let us be responsible. Vote for the Democratic alternative. It is good for America. It is good for our country and it is good policy.

Mr. HOYER

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