Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), ranking member, soon to be chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for noting my comments with respect to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and again repeat, as I will when we get to the debate on the bill, my appreciation of the handling of this bill by the gentleman from Arizona. He has been extremely cooperative and bipartisan and open in his handling of this bill. And, as I said earlier, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing those remarks of mine to the Committee on Rules to the attention of the body, because I believe them very sincerely. The gentleman from Arizona is not only chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, but also my good friend and an outstanding representative. Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak on this rule. There are times, of course, when we rise and oppose rules because we do not believe they are fair. In this instance, however, I rise in strong support of the rule. I think the Committee on Rules has issued a rule which is fair to both sides. I am sure in its protection of certain provisions of the bill and items within the bill that have not been technically authorized, that is appropriation accounts that have not had authorizing bills passed, that there would obviously be individuals who might want to object and they might object to the rule for that reason. But the Committee on Rules has been fair in treating both sides equally. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the other members of the Committee on Rules for passing a rule that I think provides for a fair and free and open debate on this bill. Therefore, I am going to urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to strongly support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I would observe that when we come to debate on the bill itself, as I did in the Committee on Rules, I will express reservation about the cuts that have been recommended by the committee. I think those cuts are unfortunate, and I think they will have an adverse impact. But as we know, this is not the final step on the process of passing and adopting this bill. Therefore, we will have other opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), my colleague who is coming into the Chamber.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky. He has discussed this matter with me. I understand his view. And while he and I disagree on this issue, I certainly respect his right and his appropriate action in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, strong support of the previous question, and thank the gentleman for Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I am, Mr. Speaker, opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I listened to my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), cares a great deal about the policies of this government, a great deal about the working men and women of this country and is one of our finest Members. I also listened to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who I also believe is a very fine Member. We happen, however, to disagree on this particular issue. I understand what is being said. I understand about the multinationals and those who have extended credit wisely. I agree with all that, and that angers us. But the fact of the matter is the real adverse ramifications are not to those necessarily who have acted so irresponsibly. Destabilization impact is not on those rich guys who did things speculatively that may have made them a lot of money and at great risk, and when the deal went bad they maybe either expect to bail out or just bail out themselves and leave others holding the bag. The real problem, from my perspective, is that the destabilization that occurs if they are not bailed out is to those working men and women in this country and in other countries; and they are the ones who suffer, from my perspective, unfortunately. It is like bailing out the savings and loans that was so controversial. Yes, we bailed out some big guys who were bad people, but the fact is what we tried to do really was to save harmless, an awful lot of depositors who had relatively small amounts of money invested. I believe he has been quoted of course, and there are some people who obviously disagree, but Secretary Summers has been very much involved in the utilization of this fund over recent months, to, in my opinion, the great benefit not only of the governments of Korea and Brazil and of Mexico but also this government and our people as well. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his action, I know the chairman does as well, and I look forward to his joining with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and ourselves in working on this issue. I know from having talked to Commissioner Kelley that he shares our concerns. As my colleagues know, he is relatively new as the commissioner, but he is going to, I am sure, vigorously pursue this, and working together I think we will get at this problem and make sure that we resolve it. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his efforts and for his interest.

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

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentlewoman for the work that she has done on this issue. I also want to mention the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) who has also in the Committee on Appropriations worked on this issue. Obviously this is, we think, a very fundamental and appropriate policy. The Federal Government ought to be encouraging this healthy activity on behalf of families in America and would hope that we would adopt it.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the gentleman's amendment and the gentlewoman from Connecticut's amendment and would hope that we would adopt it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for raising this very important issue. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona. I want to say to my friend from Illinois that Commissioner Kelley is vigorously pursuing this and is very concerned. He agrees with the gentleman that incidents of this type have no place with respect to the Customs Service or in this country. So I am very pleased that the gentleman has introduced this. It is my understanding he is going to withdraw it, but I know that the chairman and I both committed to the gentleman that we are going to vigorously pursue this and work with him to make sure that we know exactly what is going on and that corrective action is taken that is effective and precludes these kind of incidents from happening at any time in the future. I will say to the gentleman once again that I think the gentleman from Arizona is right. Commissioner Kelley shares our concern and is going to, I think, therefore be an ally of ours in pursuing this very strongly; and I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding and want to congratulate him on the offering of this amendment and the pursuing of this very compelling case. Quite obviously the Flato family has suffered a very significant loss, has received a judgment which obviously cannot compensate for their loss but is a money judgement as we have in our system which is the best we can do. Clearly the Congress intended for an American citizen, as the gentleman has pointed out, to collect on this judgment. The only difference I would have with him, while it is a case of justice, quite obviously it is not as simple, and there are different perspectives on the ramifications beyond this case. But I congratulate the gentleman, and I have indicated to him and to others that I will work closely with the chairman to see if this matter can be resolved successfully.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I probably do not have much left, but I would say that the gentlewoman I think has tried to reach a resolution within the framework of what we know exists now. I asked the gentleman if there was a plan, because if there is a problem and we are compelling them to do something that they have a moral conviction against, we ought to look at that. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He is absolutely right. On the other hand, apparently we do not at least now have a problem with respect to this. However, we may, as the gentlewoman from New York has pointed out, have a problem, and we want to make sure that not only do individuals not have to prescribe, but they do not have to involve themselves in providing. The gentlewoman's amendment deals with individuals' rights to certainly say, no, I have a moral conviction or religious belief, and I am not going to do that. I really do believe the gentlewoman has tried to reach a middle ground, if any such exists; and I do not know that that is the case, but if any such exists on this particular issue, because I think in the first instance that problem does not exist, but on the second instance, it may exist and she provides a protection against it. I would hope that we can adopt the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a question, because I know of his very sincere beliefs, and do not question them at all. I agree that we should not question moral convictions, either. Is there a problem? Have we had some plan, an insurance company that deals with the FEHBP, i.e., a plan, come to us and say that they were being compelled to do something that they did not want to do?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we had a very extensive debate on this issue last year. The extensive debate really dealt with the gravamen of the central point of the providing of contraceptive services through the insurance plans. Very frankly, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, as many people in this body know, are very close personal friends and work very closely together, and I have the greatest respect and affection for him, but we disagree on this issue. We have a different perspective. But during the course of that debate and during the course of the compromise on trying to come to grips with how to provide for what the overwhelming or significant majority of this House believed ought to be provided in the health care plans available Federal employees was the fact that we ought not to have insurance companies who had a religious affiliation and religious base do something that was inconsistent with their religious tenets. Most of us agreed that that was appropriate. What the gentlewoman who worked so hard on this amendment and so effectively on this amendment said when developing a conscience, the gentleman from New Jersey now seeks to add moral conviction to the language that exists for religious organizations. Now, clearly, executives of insurance companies have moral convictions; clearly, employees of insurance companies have moral convictions. But those moral convictions, I would suggest to my colleagues, are probably pretty diverse. And the executive vice president in charge of negotiations with the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan may have one moral conviction, and the operating vice president may have another moral conviction. Now I am not sure whether the stockholders would vote on what a moral conviction is at any given time, but clearly, in fairness, that is an impractical standard to add to the standard that exists. What we were trying to do is make sure that religiously based and centered insurance offerers were not compelled to do something that was against their religious beliefs. We all understand that. But I defy anybody to explain to me how one is going to determine on insurance plan A or B or C that are not religious affiliated what their moral convictions are without, in effect, polling or voting or having included in their charter something that says moral convictions. The fact of the matter is that we had this debate last year, and we rejected this proposal because of the lack of clarity in the proposal. So I would hope my colleagues would reject this again this year because, quite clearly, it goes far beyond the exemption that we all agreed was appropriate; that is, the religious-based exemption, and goes to a further step, which moral convictions are critically important. Hopefully, all of us hold moral convictions; and, hopefully, as I said, insurance executives hold moral convictions as well. But they do not operate, unlike religiously based insurance companies, to promote their moral convictions. They hopefully operate legally, ethically and morally, but they operate to offer insurance programs to their clients. And, therefore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while I frankly would call it an imperfecting amendment, Mr. Chairman, in that it adds a provision that will be extraordinarily if not impossible to apply and interpret, for that reason I would hope the House would reject this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I too have just seen the amendment, but it does appear to require action beyond what would be solely a perfecting amendment with respect to the paragraph 2 that is being added, in that the plan objects to such coverage on the basis, one would have to make a judgment as to the objection, the reason for the objection, and, therefore, it imposes an additional duty on the administrator. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that this would be in violation of the rule cited by the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me respond to two points. First of all, I will tell my colleague that there would be no shortage of people who would be President of General Motors if they paid at $100,000. We could get a president of General Motors, perhaps not a very good one. There would be no shortage of players to play on the Washington Wizards for $100,000. Now, the fact is, the gentleman and I both know they would not win any games, ever, but there would be five players on the court. So I would make that point. We are not recruiting anybody if we paid them zero. Let me make another point. The gentleman talks about former Presidents. President James Carter, who was relatively wealthy when he came to the office, that is correct, but there is a perfect example of someone who has used his time in a voluntary way to make life better for his fellow citizens here and around the world. So I understand the gentleman's point, and people do different things. Both President Bush and President Reagan did make a lot of money in speeches. Maybe this President and future Presidents will do the same. But I think we ought to, nevertheless, appropriately compensate them relative to what the rest of us in government make. Because if an individual had the responsibility that the President of the United States has, they would be paid millions and millions of dollars in the private sector for comparable responsibility. I do not think we ought to do that. That is not appropriate, the gentleman is right. People should not seek this to become millionaires.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleague from South Carolina that if the President had gotten simply a cost of living adjustment since 1969, he would be making $758,000 today. Just a cost of living. So I think the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), has been very modest in his proposal. And as a matter of fact, all the testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), was that a higher salary was justified. So I enjoyed the back of the envelope presentation. I tell the gentleman from South Carolina, notwithstanding the fact that it was written on the back of the envelope, it was not given at Gettysburg, and may not last quite as long. I think his compilation was interesting but not particularly relevant. It is important for us, I think, to compensate the President not in the sense of a king or lavishly, but certainly appropriately as it relates to the rest of the people in government. And as the gentleman knows, the Speaker makes $175,000. In 1969 the Speaker was making less than half of that. So it is appropriate, in my opinion, to at this point in time, for the next President, this will not affect, as the gentleman knows, the incumbent President. Under the Constitution, we cannot do that and should not be able to do that. But this will reflect an appropriate salary for arguably the person who has the toughest job in the world and on whom billions of people rely for good judgment and honest service. So I would hope that the House would reject this amendment and approve the committee's recommendation.

Mr. HOYER. Yes. How did he support that house? I do not want to get into that, but the fact is, the point I am making is that $400,000 is a very significant sum of money, but it is only 10 percent of what our Founding Fathers determined the President ought to be paid. Ten percent. Of course we have him live in the White House, but that is the People's house, America's house. The President lives there because that is where we tell him to live. Of course we fly him on an airplane, because he has international global responsibilities, and we want him to get from place A to place B safely and fast so he can conduct the People's business. Of course he has benefits of being the President of the United States, which he will lose when he leaves that office. Of course I agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) on that. But the fact of the matter is, the President of the United States, unlike the Congress, that has had numerous raises since 1969 when we were making $42,500, we will now be making approximately 3\1/2\ times that, the President has not had a raise in that period of time. If we did 3\1/2\ what we have gotten, clearly the President would be making about $750,000.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.