Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this piece of legislation. On Monday, I met with a constituent of mine, Sharyl Asbra of Waldorf, Maryland. She went to the hospital in June complaining of severe abdominal pains. After diagnosing her condition, the doctors recommended she have a hysterectomy, but her insurance company denied the procedure. After weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks of pain, only after Dr. Scott Kelso repeatedly called the insurer on Sharyl's behalf did the insurer relent and let Sharyl get the necessary treatment. This was after she had to be off work, could not care for her children, her mother had to do so, and after she experienced a long period of pain. This bill is about real people who have a real problem. It is about people who need medical care, as determined by their doctors and by themselves. It is about ensuring that they have access to the medical care that they need, and that that decision will be made by doctors who are trained to make those decisions and who have sworn an oath of personal responsibility to those patients to ensure that they get the kind of quality health care that is available in this country if it will be paid for. I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill to help Sharyl and millions and millions of others like her in America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise as someone who had the great honor and privilege of serving with Congressman Pickle. He served with great distinction, with great commitment to this country, obviously outstanding service to the State of Texas. But he was a national legislator and brought credit to himself and to our country and to this House as a Member. I am privileged and honored to be among his friends, his former colleagues, and supporters of this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act. On September 21, the bill passed the House on suspension and I inadvertently voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act is an important step forward toward addressing the health care needs of our Nation's veterans. For far too long the call for long-term care has gone unanswered. The bill establishes a long-term care benefit for any veteran with a 50-percent or greater disability. It allows the Veterans Administration (VA) greater flexibility to adjust copayments for services like eyeglasses and pharmaceuticals. The legislation enables the VA to cover the emergency care of uninsured veterans and directs them to realign inefficient facilities provided the savings are reinvested locally in the community to improve veterans' care. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2116 has the strong support of the veterans community and I am proud to support it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today we face, as too often we have, an emergency. That emergency is that we have not done our work; and, therefore, we must pass a continuing resolution to make sure that the Government stays in operation. This is not the first time that has happened. It has happened under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans. However, we are in a unique situation. And the emergency of which I speak is not a concocted emergency, as some would call the national census. Nor do we face an ``emergency,'' as some like in dealing with LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. One does not have to be a Member of Congress or a meteorologist to understand that, come winter, it is going to get cold outside and in some places it is hot and we need to fund LIHEAP. These are not, however, the real emergencies facing America today. They are the contrived kind of gimmicks designed to do nothing more than to try to help the majority make its budget add up. The real emergency we are facing here today is this body's inability to get its work done on time. Under our Constitution, there is only one major legislative task required of Congress, and that is to pass the spending bills that fund the basic operations of Government. We will fail to accomplish that constitutional duty when the current fiscal year ends at midnight on Thursday and the new year begins at 12:01 on Friday. I, of course, am for this continuing resolution. I would hasten to add that, in my opinion, had the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), been leading this effort or, very frankly, the chairman of our subcommittees been leading this effort, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, we would not be in this position today. It is, however, the thoughts of a minority of this House that have put us in this position, who, as the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget have observed, have demanded that we do unrealistic things that the majority of this House will not do, which is why the Labor, Health markup was put off at least four times, and now has produced a bill which is unrealistic in terms of what the ranking member so eloquently pointed out. There is no excuse for that. Frankly, I think the 3-week continuing resolution we are considering today is too long, but it ought to be passed and the President ought to sign it. When the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) took the gavel on January 6, he said, ``We must get our job done. We have an obligation to pass all appropriations bills by this summer.'' We have not done that. Not because of the Committee on Appropriations was not able to do that, but because this House and the Senate were not able to pass the unrealistic demand of a minority of this House. Since then, the leaders of the majority party repeatedly have told us that their primary goal was to make the trains run on time. Well, we all know that that budget process is running about as efficiently as the Washington, D.C., area does sometimes during a snowstorm. Look at the numbers. To date, the President has signed into law only one, only one, of the 13 bills that we are supposed to pass. Two await his signature. And a third, the D.C. appropriations bill, clearly is going to be vetoed. Frankly, let me say on the D.C. bill, everybody knows that that bill is going to be vetoed. We went through an exercise to make a social point, not a budget point, to make a point on one or more issues and to try to embarrass one or more sides. Frankly, we are almost in as bad shape as we were in 1995, when the Federal Government shut down, not once on November 19, 1995, but twice over the holiday period of Christmas and New Year's. If my colleagues will remember, back on September 30, 1995, Congress had not passed a single spending bill. Over the next 7 months, it took 15 different legislative measures, 15, to fund the Federal Government for fiscal year 1996. The last one, an omnibus appropriations bill, was not enacted until April 26, some 8 months, 7-plus months into the fiscal year. The fiscal year was almost half over. Now that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, was a real emergency. What the American people and more than, frankly, one million Federal employees who were furloughed during the two Government shutdowns during 1995 want to know is this: Is that where we are headed again today? Now, I say that in the context of the fact that some people on the majority party, not anybody on the Committee on Appropriations are saying, we are not going to talk to the President. Let me remind my colleagues of an extraordinary speech that Speaker Gingrich gave to what he called the perfectionist caucus of his party. That is the caucus who said, do it my way or no way, and that led to shutdown and no way. Speaker Gingrich pointed out, I would remind my friends, that the American public have selected Republicans, Democrats, Senators, and a President and they expected us to work together, and we cannot work together, I say to my friend on the majority side, if you will not talk to the coequal branch of Government, headed up by the President of the United States. Government is the art of compromise. I say ``art'' because it is necessary to accomplish the objectives the American public sent us here to do. It is necessary to do that to talk to one another. I see my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). I want to tell the American public, if the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) were in charge, this would not happen. We would be finished with most of our work, maybe not all of it, but certainly most of it. And the chairman would have sat down with Chairman Stevens and President Clinton, maybe not directly, maybe through staff, maybe on the telephone, but they would have sat down and they would have said, how do we make this work, realizing that nobody is going to get 100 percent. The tragedy, my friends, is that we ought not to be here today passing a CR but for the intransigence of some. A minority of this House, not the majority, a minority of this House, has tied up these bills with unrealistic expectations both from a policy standpoint and from a fiscal standpoint. What great news we have for the American public in the context of 2 years in a row a budget surplus, the first time in 50 years that that has happened, $115 billion surplus that we have, and yet we are mired in inability to do our work on time. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. I, obviously, will support this continuing resolution. But I will say to my friends in this House that I believe we ought not to pass a second resolution 3 weeks from now unless and only if meaningful progress and discussions have been made to reach agreement between those that the people of the United States have elected, the President, the House, and the Senate. We can do our business and we can do it in the next 21 days if that willful minority will let us proceed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, Inc., or CAASA, in celebrating its 10th Anniversary. CAASA, an organization which aims to fight substance abuse, has become a key player in reducing alcohol and drug abuse across Calvert County, Maryland. I commend CAASA for its starting as a grassroots drug prevention efforts. It is imperative that youth are taught the dangers of drugs and alcohol at an early age. CAASA's sponsorship of numerous community activities geared towards children has encouraged them to steer away from drugs. Their support of various activities such as DARE, Just Say No Clubs, the Haunted Crack House, and many other programs have helped to keep many of the youth of Calvert County drug-free and out of trouble. By providing more school-based substance abuse programs, they have given these children alternatives to drug use. Without the full support of the government and local communities, CAASA could not have enjoyed ten years of success. I would like to recognize community members, schools, civic and service organizations, religious groups, businesses, public agencies, and the county government for their continuous support of CAASA. This valuable partnership has enabled CAASA to reduce alcohol and drug abuse through public awareness, education, treatment, and law enforcement. Alcohol and drug use remains a problem in both rural and urban communities across the Nation. Calvert County is fortunate to have such a valuable resource. I congratulate CAASA on 10 years of service and wish it all the best in the years to come.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 2367, the Torture Victims Relief Act reauthorization. I also want to commend my colleagues, Representative Chris Smith and Representative Joseph Crowley, who serve on the International Relations Committee, for bringing this bill to the floor, today. The Center for Victims of Torture is one of over 175 centers which treats and supports victims of politically-motivated torture. It was established in 1985 and is the first of its kind in the United States. The Center helps to rehabilitate survivors by addressing their physical and psychological needs in order to reintegrate them back into society. The treatment program assists their families who also suffer the effects of the torture. They have provided services for survivors from more than 45 countries and all continents. And the center treats American victims of torture overseas. According to the Center for Victims of Torture, ``The debilitating nature of torture makes it extremely difficult for survivors to hold down jobs, study for new professions, or acquire other skills needed for a successful integration into the culture and economy. Torture is a crime against humanity; as a strategic tool of repression, it is the single most effective weapon against democracy. Its purpose is to control populations by destroying individual leaders and frightening entire communities. Torture is rarely used to extract information from someone.'' I am a strong supporter of this program and am pleased that both the House and the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bills have provided $3 million for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and $7.5 million for the Foreign Treatment Centers for Torture Victims. As a member of the Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I am hopeful that once we draft our legislation, it will reflect the President's FY 2000 request of $7.5 million for Domestic Centers for Victims of Torture. John F. Kennedy once said, ``I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit.'' This program does just that. It works to rebuild the human spirit that was broken as an act of war and repression. Again, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and encourage full funding for these programs. Because democracy is neither easy nor simple. It is, however, a goal that we must boldly pursue. General Leave

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to debate at length the presentation of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the last speaker, but I understand his point. I do not agree with it. In fact, I would make the observation that we have a system whereby the federal employees are compared with comparable positions in the private sector. That report is done pursuant to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, for comparable work done in the regions of the country, it is done regionally so it is not over-inflated for high cost areas and low cost areas, but by region, our federal employees for comparable work done in the private sector are 20 to 30 percent behind. Now, the reason the salaries sound high is because we have NIH scientists, we have NASA engineers, we have law enforcement officials that are skilled and, for instance, in FBI, college graduates, doing some of the most sophisticated criminal investigations possible and DEA and ATF and other agencies. We have at the IRS highly skilled and paid personnel to carry out very sophisticated financial responsibilities and analysis. So that, yes, by comparison with the overall, they are high. But just as well, Michael Jordan's salary by comparison was high. I tell people that Abe Pollin could have gotten 100 people to apply for the Bullets at $250,000 a year. There would have been no lack of people applying to play. Now, the fact of the matter is Abe Pollin would never have won a game because, at $250,000, which is a lot of money by our standards, by anybody's standards, he would not have gotten competitive ball players. That is the nature of some of the things that we do in the federal service, very sophisticated, requiring highly skilled people. In the competitive market, one pays what the market pays. As I pointed out before the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) got here, we just passed the defense authorization bill, I obviously do not know whether he voted for or against it, in which we included 4.8 percent adjustment for military pay because we want to keep them and we want to be able to recruit. The law calls for parity, and that is what we are providing for in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I did not say the average Federal employee. The gentleman does want to continue to compare apples to apples. The reason I use the NBA analogy is because they make far more than any of us contemplate ever making perhaps in our lifetime in a year. Why do they do so? Because the marketplace demands that if an owner of an NBA team wants to have the opportunity of winning, he must hire the skill levels necessary to accomplish that objective. The skill level required, and the gentleman knows my point, is such that we need to pay more. Now, I asked the question for doctors not because I think doctors should not be well compensated. They have to go through extraordinary difficulty to acquire the skills that I want in my doctor. I want my doctor to be highly skilled; and, therefore, I know in the marketplace, in a free market, I am going to have to pay that doctor, society is going to have to pay that doctor, commensurate with the skills required. What I suggested during my response to the intervention of the gentleman was that we have the requirement for some highly skilled people in the Federal service. The Federal Government does some extraordinarily difficult, complicated things requiring high skills. NIH doctors. That goes into the average my colleague is talking about. But I will tell my colleague, the average NIH research doctor at NIH makes far less than his private sector counterpart. I think the gentleman would probably concede that. So when we take the average across the country and compare not just average salaries but compare skill levels, the report of every report that has come out since I have been in Congress in 1989 when we had Ronald Reagan and George Bush and now Bill Clinton in office, it did not really vary in terms of administrations, was that there was a substantial pay gap between the private sector when we compare comparable duties and responsibilities with the public sector. That is my point. So my colleague continues to say ``average,'' and that is correct, but many of our people do not have average skills any more than a doctor has average skills. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield for a question on that point, I ask him, how much does the average doctor make above the average salary?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and his staff for their leadership and work on this bill. This has been in some respects a difficult bill, and in other respects a relatively easy bill. Within the 302(b) allocation level that had been provided to this subcommittee, this is a very good conference report. Even though we were not able to fund the courthouse construction within the constraints of this allocation, this report deserves bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I was one, and I know the Chair shares my view, that believes we should be moving forward on courthouse construction. There is a backlog in the criminal justice system which certainly requires this, as does the civil side of the court dockets. Notwithstanding the fact that we have not been able to do that, the balance of the bill warrants the support of both sides of the aisle. This conference report funds the Treasury Department at $12.355 billion, which is $21 million below the President's request. However, it is certainly sufficient to give to the Treasury the ability to do the job that we expect of them. Included within this amount is $3.3, almost $3.4 billion for the Treasury's five important law enforcement agencies. Those agencies comprise, Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of law enforcement at the Federal level. In addition, I am happy to note that this bill fully funds the IRS at the requested level, providing for enhanced customer service and the restructuring of the IRS recently mandated by this Congress. As my colleagues know, this is one of the major problems I raised with respect to the bill as it passed the House. I was very concerned that we were not providing the resources necessary to implement the reform program that we had adopted just a short time ago. Happily, in conference, we have now provided the resources so that that reform can be fully implemented. I have talked personally, as I know the chairman has, to Mr. Rissotti, and he believes that, given the resources in this bill, that he will be able to meet the expectations that the Congress has to ensure that citizens are treated well and served effectively and efficiently by the Internal Revenue Service. This bill also funds many drug activities, including $460 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This important, yes, even critical office has the lead role in coordinating all of this government's efforts in the war against drugs. Within this $460 million, $192 million is for the very successful high-intensity drug trafficking program, $185 million for the ONCDP, National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign, and $30 million for the third year of the Drug-Free Communities Act. I think the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) received a request from almost every Member of the Congress, it seemed, to fully fund this drug-free communities effort. While we could not fully fund the General Services Administration within the 302(b) allocation, GSA is funded near the requested level, including funding for needed border stations in several States, and the first stage of the project to consolidate the Food and Drug Administration at White Oak, in Maryland. This bill addresses the rate of increase also for Federal employees' compensation. Just a few minutes ago, maybe an hour ago or so, we passed the defense authorization bill, which authorizes a 4.8 percent level for the military. Happily, this bill, pursuant to the parity language adopted by this House on two different occasions this year, funds Federal employees at the same rate. I thank the chairman for his leadership and assistance in accomplishing that objective. Both he, Senator Campbell, and Senator Stevens were very supportive of this objective, and I thank them for their efforts in that regard. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have extended the authority for voluntary early retirement for Federal employees in this bill, critical as we downsize in a smart way. Clearly an across-the-board RIF is very inefficient. It does not necessarily remove those employees who are no longer needed, and is, both from an efficiency standpoint and from an economic standpoint, a very poor way to manage our service. This language, which gives permanent authority to OPM to authorize early outs, will be extraordinarily helpful, I think, in managing well the Federal Government. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides government agencies with the authority to use appropriated dollars to provide child care for low-income Federal employees. I know this has some controversy to it and I know that the chairman has indicated that he intends to have our committee very closely monitor this initiative, and I look forward to working with him on this effort. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. It deserves bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I would hope that every Member of the House, on both sides of the aisle, could support this report. I thank the chairman for his leadership and his work, and join him in his words of praise, again, for the competency and commitment of our staff in reaching this result. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to join the chairman of the committee in commending the work of Clif Morehead. This is an extraordinarily valuable program for the Federal Government, these exchange programs. They give the Members of various different agencies a perspective on how the Congress operates, and other agencies, but how this process works. Clif Morehead is an extraordinary young man who has contributed a great deal to the quality of our work during the past frankly 24 months, first working in my office, where he was an invaluable asset, and then in the committee office, as well. I want to join the chairman in commending Clif Morehead. He is an extraordinary asset of the Secret Service, and has been an outstanding asset of ours. I join with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) in wishing him the very best as he returns to his position as an agent in the United States Secret Service, where I know he will continue to prove to be a valuable asset to our country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I agree with him. Allegations of unfair treatment by Customs personnel toward minorities at international airports is certainly taken seriously by this committee. This is an area where we need to exercise our oversight responsibilities. The United States Customs Service has taken these allegations seriously as well and has undertaken a thorough review of its policies. More importantly, an independent panel has been appointed to review the practices of personal searches at the Customs Service and by the Customs Service. The Personal Search Review Commission is chaired by a widely respected individual, Ms. Constance Newman, and includes three esteemed officials from other agencies. As someone who has had the opportunity of working with Connie Newman over the years, I have full confidence in her fairness, in her thoroughness, and in her impartiality. The collective experience, knowledge, and insight of the commission will provide a firm basis for an objective analysis of the Customs Service's methods for carrying out this aspect of their mission. In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sanford Cloud, the President of the National Conference for Community and Justice, has been selected to be an independent advisor to the Commission of the Customs Service on personal search matters. In this time of change at Customs, it is imperative that Congress be provided with the information to evaluate the modifications in personal search policy. That is why we intend for this report to be prepared by the Customs Service with the approval of the Secretary of Treasury and Under Secretary for Enforcement on the changes and its implementation. I thank the chairman for allowing us to clarify this matter so that we fully understand the import of the language that is included in our bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman make that point again.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding this time to me. We ought to reject this amendment. This is a large issue which we are debating, campaign finance reform. The American public wants campaign finance reform. We ought not to mire ourselves in the petty politics, as the gentlewoman indicated. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says he did not mention the First Lady. He did not have to. He cannot mention anybody else that this affects. He cannot mention anybody else that this affects right off the top of his head. Mr. Chairman, I know it, and my colleagues know it. This is trying to make a petty political point to distract our attention from a major reform bill. Reject this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), one of our most distinguished new Members.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we want to make sense today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), president of the freshman class on our side.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. I would like to think my IQ is above minus 10. I think there is an analogy. Yes, I can buy the stock and yes, I can take the job, or yes, I can join the union or not join the union. If I do not need the job, I can go someplace else. The fact of the matter is, Beck is included in this legislation, as the gentleman from Connecticut has said, exactly as the court ruled. The fact of the matter is, this legislation is an attempt to make impotent the ability of unions to effectively represent the interests of their members and those whom they represent, members or not. I would suggest that we defeat this amendment, but I am pleased that the gentleman has decided to withdraw the amendment and that will not be necessary. I know the gentleman feels strongly about his amendment, but we feel equally strongly that this is not an amendment in the best interest of this bill or in the best interest of America's workers.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, absent anyone claiming time in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the senior Member of the House of Representatives who has had more experience with respect to this issue than any other Member, and cumulatively perhaps more than most of us elected. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), co-chair of one of our largest centrist caucuses, cochairman of the New Democrats. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)