Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I moved my place and I went over to the seat on the other side of the aisle so I would have a better opportunity to see this sort of monologue stand-up comedy routine that we had. It was a great routine. But I thought to myself, I wonder if the President calls up the comptroller at Stanford and says, ``By the way, can I send you a picture of Air Force One, and maybe you can even get a picture of the White House, because it's a worth a lot, for my tuition payment this semester.'' And the bursar at Stanford is going to say, ``Send money.'' My colleagues, with all due respect, let us look at what we are talking about. The President of the United States in 1969 had his salary set at $200,000. Now, hear me now, my colleagues. The Founding Fathers, not in the Constitution, but in their early legislation set the President's salary in 1789 at $25,000 cash money that he was paid. Twenty-five thousand dollars 210 years ago. In today's dollars our Founding Fathers set the President's salary at $4 million per year. Frankly, when I go to the grocery store, I do not say, ``Hey, I am a Congressman. I have a heck of a good office, I've got a great view there and all kinds of things, so can I get my groceries for that?'' No. They say, ``Give me the money.'' We have an insurance executive in America who made last year $400 million. Now, my colleagues, Mr. Sununu, whose son is a Member of Congress, testified, and he is the one that, by the way, said that the President's salary effectively in 1789 was in today's dollars $4 million per year.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. As the gentleman knows, I would have supported the chairman's point of order. But I do want to commend the gentleman. Significantly, Federal employees do not have the dental benefits that are available in some other policies. I think the gentleman raises a good issue, not in the context he raises it, he and I would disagree on that, but in a separate context outside of that. I think that it is a good issue, and I am pursuing it, along with others.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, what I essentially said was that the money spent on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, in other words, the gentleman is saying Federal tax dollars, the money we spend toward the retirement program and the salary, are all a part of the compensation package of the employee. Now, the salary is paid directly. I put it in my pocket. No one could refer to that as Federal tax dollars that were given to me and put in my pocket. But surely my point would be, my colleague would not tell me or anybody else tell me that I can only spend that money in this way or that way. In fact, a woman could spend her part of her salary to accomplish a legal objective with which my colleague would disagree, I understand. My question to my colleague is, how do we differentiate that part of the compensation package, albeit it is paid directly to the insurance company, because it is put all together?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the position of the gentleman. I ask this legitimately because the gentleman heard my argument.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue for anybody on this floor. I join in supporting and, as a matter of fact, I cosponsored the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I would just take a brief time to reiterate why. Some very close friends of mine have a view different than mine, and I respect their view and I hope they respect mine, with respect to the termination of a pregnancy, for important reasons. It is my view, however, Mr. Chairman, that this issue does not deal with that directly; and the reason is this: It is my belief that a Federal employee covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan has, as a part of their compensation package, three things. They, first of all, have their salary, the money they are paid directly. No one would get up on this floor, it seems to me, and say that we ought to take a portion of that salary and ensure that they do not spend it for x, y, or z. Surely those who say that they want to have tax cuts because they want to leave more money in the pockets of those Americans so that they can choose how to spend their money would not support that effort. Secondly, a Federal employee has their retirement benefit. Obviously, that is a valuable part of their compensation package. It will in retirement provide them with the, in effect, income in retirement that they earned during their working years. Thirdly, they have the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. We should not tell them how to spend that portion of their compensation. We ought to allow them the option to purchase such policy as they choose because it is part of their compensation and is their money, not ours. We made a deal with them. We said, if they work for us, this is what we will pay them. They ought to have the option to spend it as they see fit. I support the amendment of the gentlewoman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I guess that gives us 22\1/2\ minutes apiece; am I correct?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from Michigan had an amendment to set a specific amount of damages for the two parties that were most directly affected here. I indicated to him that I would not be able to support that at this time, simply because I do not know what the amount of damages are. Quite obviously, on the floor it is difficult to assess the amount of damages of a claim, and there are thousands of claims, of course, against the government; and if we did that on a regular basis, it would be chaotic. That does not, however, diminish in any way the absolute justice in the amendment. I am going to be working very, very hard to try to get to the bottom of this. And I say to my friends from Michigan and Georgia that their prosecution of this matter is obviously very vigorous, very focused, but very appropriate; and I look forward to working very closely with them so we can come to the bottom of this. And whatever we assess as the damages, we will work with them towards making sure that their constituents and people with whom they are involved are made whole to the extent they can be.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. The gentleman came up to me on the floor about 2 months ago, I believe, and brought this matter to my attention, and I shared his anger and outrage at the apparent treatment that has occurred here. When I say apparent, it is simply that I have not personally verified all the facts, but the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) are both men of great integrity. I know the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is also very concerned about this, as is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is also very concerned about this. I personally have been pursuing this with Customs and with Mr. Kelly. I know that Mr. Kelly, the commissioner of Customs, is very concerned about this matter and shares the outrage of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Georgia about what apparently has occurred. They are in the process of trying to come to grips with this. Unfortunately, the timing is not as good as it should have been; better to have met last week than next week, but my staff is pursuing a meeting, as the gentleman knows, and I hope the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) knows, because we have been in touch with his staff, a meeting next week, with Customs and with the four gentlemen who have been so involved in this, along with myself, and hopefully either the chairman or a member of the chairman's staff so that we can continue to pursue this and get to the bottom of it. The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Georgia, the two gentlemen from Georgia, I suppose, and the gentleman from South Carolina are absolutely correct if individuals were treated in the manner that we believe they were. It was outrageous, unacceptable, and the citizens involved deserve compensation for their loss. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan wanted to offer an amendment which set a specific dollar value for the loss.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me under his reservation?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that will be offered and then withdrawn to title I. Now I know we are past title I.

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has great concern about a case I have been working with him on. I apologize. He wanted to offer the amendment, and I suggested that he offer it and then withdraw it, which he has agreed to. But he wants to raise the issue. It deals with a Customs matter in which his constituents, he believes, were mistreated. He simply wants to make that point. I have assured him that we will then work on the issue.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and concur with the chairman. Obviously, this is now, as the gentleman from Illinois has pointed out, the policy. What we need to ensure is that the policy is being followed so that no American or no foreign visitor is subjected to unwarranted and inappropriate processing by Customs or searches by Customs. I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue and look forward to working with him on it.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for raising this issue. As someone who has been involved in this, I have a lot of marinas in my district on the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River and Patuxent River. We have the fuel, commercial and recreational fuel, and that of course is colored as well. Not, obviously, the same issue but a similar one that I have been involved in. I think that the gentlemen's initiatives on this are very well taken. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can get this problem resolved. I thank the gentlemen for their efforts.

Mr. HOYER. It was not a bad place.

Mr. HOYER. Has the gentleman noticed the House that George Washington lived in?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's perception that George Washington said, ``I know Air Force One is out at Andrews, but I am a good guy, and I am just not going to use it''? Because if that is the gentleman's perception, I must inform him, with all due respect, that Air Force One was not there to use. But I have a sneaking hunch if he had had a horse that flew, he would have used it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman raises a good point. I ask the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his unanimous consent and move to strike the last word so we can discuss the matter.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, last Congress the House authorized the Money Laundering Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, of which the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, was a cosponsor, along with the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who will also be speaking. I do not know whether the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) was a cosponsor as well. Apparently. I understand what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is saying, but I am rising in support of this amendment. This bill created a national strategy to fight money laundering at the local level and attack drug trafficking at its source. Let me say to the gentlewoman from New York so she understands, the gentleman from Arizona has been an extraordinarily strong supporter of the financial crimes enforcement unit that is in this bill, FinCEN, that the gentlewoman is probably familiar with. So the gentleman has been very concerned about money laundering. I know the gentleman has a concern also about the levels in the bill. He and I at least momentarily disagree, and I think we can do this at this point in time. The bill on the floor does not include funding for these grants, and I think that is an oversight on our part. I think we should have included the money, and that is why I am supporting this amendment. Money to fund the grants was included by the President in this budget and in the Treasury Department's budget proposal, but the committee chose not to fund it. To remedy this, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and others have offered this amendment to earmark $3 million to the general fund of the Treasury Department to finance it. Mr. Chairman, I have not been in touch with the Treasury Department, but the gentlewoman from New York has, and indicates that it is in their budget. They believe they can afford it and can support it in the context of their bill. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we need to give local law enforcement the tools to fight these crimes which are the basis of the drug problem in our communities making money and then converting that money so that it can be used legally. The funding in the amendment would give local agency the tools to fight the root of the drug problem. It would target high-intensity drug trafficking areas. Because of that, and because I think it is so critically important, and because I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services have been strong supporters of this legislation. And I believe that we have such a broad base of support for this legislation, I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee would see his way clear to letting this be adopted and then seeing how we can work between now and conference. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who I understand wants to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and myself.