Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I have some genuine concerns about the funding levels of specific accounts within H.R. 4194, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. I understand the difficulty that the chairman and the ranking member faced in crafting this legislation within the tight fiscal constraints that the Appropriations Committee had this year. However, I am concerned that certain initiatives, which have been priorities of the committee and the Congress in the past, will not receive the necessary level of funding in fiscal year 1999. First, the bill proposals a $59 million reduction to NASA's Earth Science Program. This important program can help predict weather and climate changes up to a year in advance, will yield tremendous benefits for argricultural and natural resources productivity, will save money and lives by allowing natural disasters to be predicted earlier, and involves partnerships with Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and France. Goddard Space Flight Center, located in Greenbelt, Maryland, is NASA's lead center for these efforts and has an extraordinary reputation for Earth Science studies. I have visited with the scientists working on this program and I can tell you that their work is amazing. Funding for Earth Science will produce both practical benefits and a long term understanding of the environment. This reduction would be disruptive to the program at a time when the need for programmatic flexibility is at its greatest due to technical challenges in the development of various missions, and could lead to either significant delays or even cancellation of project elements. I also want to express my concern about the bill's elimination of the AmeriCorps National Service Program. AmeriCorps' members are estimated to leverage an average of about 16 stipended volunteers per member. AmeriCorps teaches its volunteers responsibility and opportunity. The organization has also had a positive effect on traditional volunteer activity. If we are going to make children and youth our top priority, we need the assistance of volunteer service organizations such as AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps plays an important role in advancing the goals of the summit for America's future. We cannot fight to make the future better for our nation's children without AmeriCorps' help. Finally, the bill increases the limits on the sizes of home mortgage loans that may be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) under its single-family loan program. Raising these loan limits poses little or no risk to the FHA fund. It is a fund with a value of about $11 billion. Auditors give it a clean bill of health and say that loans at the higher end pose less risk than do low balance loans. Raising the FHA loan limit is critically important and will expand home ownership opportunities to families all too often shut out of the conventional mortgage markets--first time home buyers, minorities, families in inner cities and rural families. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I fully understand the budget constraints which we are under, but I am concerned that we are not properly funding the Nation's priorities in this bill. I would hope that we can work towards remedying this imbalance.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear the gentleman said ``this bill.'' This bill does not provide for any pay raise or cost of living adjustment for Members, with or without this provision. This provision prohibits what is provided for in the law that was passed in 1989 from going into effect so that when the bill comes those who demagogue the bill for being a pay raise are absolutely incorrect. I know what the gentleman meant; I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that phrase mean?

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I know he is going to withdraw this amendment, and I know it is subject, as well as he knows, to a point of order. But I know he has done a lot of work on that. He and I have discussed the concerns that University of Maryland system has with respect to this matter, and I thank the gentleman for all the work he has done on this and look forward to looking at this with him. I am sure that the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut who chairs the committee, I suppose, that has jurisdiction over this will also be looking at this closely, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. I wish that it were in order, and I would vote for it. And I wish perhaps that we were not going to object. But we are. And I understand the ranking member's position. I, too, was adamantly opposed to this rule. I am concerned, as I know the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is concerned, that we are designating salaries as the funding source here because we are squeezing salaries. And the gentlewoman from Maryland and I regretted that we lost a very important part of this bill as a result of an objection from one of the Members, over her objection and mine. But we need to pursue this issue. We need to make sure that the Federal Government, as the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from Maryland have pointed out, is in fact a model employer. My district is, I do not know the most but one of the most child- care-dependent districts in America because we have a lot of parents with a number of children who are either a single mother working or a single dad working or both parents working, so that child care is a necessity. And, of course, the Federal Government is the largest employer in our area. So this is a critical necessity, not a luxury, not an optional requirement for families not just in this area but around the country. So that I congratulate the initiative that has been shown here, regret that I cannot vote for it at this point in time and hope that we will be able to support it and have it on the floor as soon as possible, and certainly we will support it at that time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and others who have worked on this case, that this is a compelling case. There is no doubt about it. And I have spent substantial time talking about it. I have in turned talked with the Treasury Department about it tonight very briefly, and not fully, but I want to say that we are all agreed that this is a compelling case. And although the language is not finally in the Senate yet, it is in the committee reported bill. There are some other issues involved. However, I am hopeful, and I have talked to the chairman about this, I am hopeful that we can, as the gentleman from New York said, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) said, resolve this so that the family, who has been grievously injured, will have redress of that grievance. And I look forward to working with the gentlemen from New Jersey over the next few weeks and the gentleman from New York and the chairman toward that end.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a proponent of the United States Postal Service it would be, I think, unseemly to oppose sending a message, and I will not.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in point of fact, it was also dishonest. Because, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, the vote yesterday was not on this issue; it was, in fact, on issues of import which we have debated on this floor at some length and was on the issue of whether or not we were going to fund in this bill the fixing of computers in the Federal Government so that they would be compatible with the change of the century. Those were substantive issues. They have both been struck on this floor today by one Member because of the rule we adopted. I regret that it appears that the rule was specifically fashioned to facilitate this kind of demagoguery, this kind of threat, this kind of intimidation on the Members of this House. Now, as every Member knows, I have been for this process and have been sometimes among 20 people, 30 people voting for the cost-of-living adjustment because I thought the American public deserved an honest response. The American public is not surprised that when we vote on this, sometimes half, maybe sometimes two-thirds, vote against the cost-of-living. And the American public is not surprised when, guess what, almost every Member who voted no on the ECI takes the money, takes the money, leading to further disrespect for this institution and the individual Members who they thereby perceive as dishonest with them. I love this institution and respect it. It is in fact the people's House. But if we do not respect ourselves, if we do not respect this institution, we cannot expect the American public to respect us or this institution. I am going to vote no on this amendment, which will probably be the first time since I have served in this body that I have voted against the cost-of-living adjustment. The reason I am going to vote against it is because I do not want to flimflam the public. We reported this out because it was the perception of the chairman and mine that this issue had been so politicized and would be so politicized that it would lead to further undermining of this institution's credibility. But I want everyone to know that I am for the ECI. I think it ought to go into effect. Because I believe that was a reform that was good for America and this institution and was fair and honest. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment so that no one will be confused by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) or anybody else.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt.

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

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is saying. What I am trying to focus us on is abortion is a wrenching question for America. It is a wrenching question for Americans. It is a wrenching, traumatic issue for the individuals involved. It is a wrenching issue for me as a legislator. I will tell you that. I cannot believe I am any different than any other legislator in this body. What I am saying is, that is not what this is about. It is not about this because Federal employees, like every American, have been guaranteed by the Constitution to choose something that many people believe ought not to be an available choice. I understand that. But they ought not to be treated differently because they are Federal employees, and that is what this is about; not about whether abortion is legal or illegal, not about the wrenching issues brought up by the gentleman from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal of respect. It is about whether Federal employees will be treated differently than every other employee in America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) will be pursuing this. The gentleman is one of the most tenacious and energetic Members of the House, and I know he will be following this very closely to ensure that this objective is accomplished.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I have discussed this. I am pleased that the chairman is going to accept this amendment. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who has talked to both the chairman and myself, worked very closely with us. This obviously is a problem. We need to ensure that the records of veterans which are critical for health care purposes, retirement purposes, all sorts of other purposes, are in fact retrieved in a timely fashion. That is not now happening. The good news is not only that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has brought this to our attention, obviously communicated with the veterans' organizations throughout this country and energized them and focused them on how we can solve this problem, but also that Governor Carlin, who is the administrator, relatively new, recognizes that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is absolutely correct. This is a problem that needs to be solved, and they are initiating and pursuing that objective. So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for this initiative. It is a positive one, and I am pleased to join the chairman in supporting it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this was included in the bill at the insistence of the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the committee for the purposes of providing for the emergency that they foresaw with respect to effecting a solution to the problem of our computers working after January 1, 2000. In that context, it was judged to be an emergency and critically important to be included in this bill so that the objectives of this bill and every other bill other than the defense bill could be ensured to be carried out in the next millennium. I would hope that the Chair, realizing the critical nature of this provision, therefore, might find that in fact it was in order.

Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it for future reference, as we go through the rest of this bill paragraph by paragraph, and there may be other expansions, can the Chairman focus me on where I ought to look at the rules and/or the precedence for that ruling?

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order that I raised said that line 2, starting with ``Provided'', down to line 11, concluding with ``Residence'', is legislation on an appropriation bill and it is, therefore, subject to a point of order because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. However, the chairman now seeks to expand upon the point of order I have made by including in the ambit of that point of order the first sentence. The first sentence reads, ``In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff overtime, $630,000.'' I would suggest to the Chair that a point of order does not lie against that inclusion because it is, in fact, authorized. And it is not legislation on an appropriation bill, it is an appropriation to an objective which is consistent with the rules providing for the Committee on Appropriations report to make such appropriations as it deems appropriate for such objectives as it provides. My point being that I raised a proper point of order and the Chairman seeks to add something thereto which is not subject to a point of order.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we are now at page 28, and I rise to make a point of order against a proviso beginning on page 28, line 2 through line 11, because it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling by the Chair.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we reading by paragraph?