Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman will yield, amendment No. 8 is in a grouping with amendments numbered 2, 8, 12, and 18, as printed in the Congressional Record, which shall be debatable for 5 minutes each.

Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing these concerns to our attention, and certainly I am open to working with him. I am compelled to add, however, that the wage-grade issue is exceedingly complex, and I would want to be very careful about any proposals that may be advanced. I should also add that the authorizing committees have jurisdiction over this issue and, therefore, it is necessary that they should be involved in any proposed reform that might involve this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that the attached article appearing in The Weekly Standard on May 27, 2002 regarding the recently passed and signed Farm Security Act conference report be included in the Congressional Record. [From the Weekly Standard, May 27, 2002] The Pigs Return to the Trough Farm subsidies are back, bigger than ever (By Fred Barnes) The White House veto of the farm bill was bold and defiant, reflecting the strength and confidence of the president. The bill not only costs too much and imposes too many government controls, he said, but it's also filled with ``so much that would be detrimental to farmers,'' their future would be put in jeopardy. ``It would do harm to every agricultural region of the country,'' the president said, causing large surpluses. ``Thus it fails to meet the test of being good for farmers and fair to all our people.'' Too bad this veto message didn't come from President Bush last week when he instead signed the bloated new farm bill. No, those words were President Eisenhower's as he vetoed the Agricultural Act of 1956. At the last moment, Bush considered a veto. His aides checked with congressional Republicans to find out if the bill's price tag might be as much as $20 billion more than advertised. It's costly, but not that costly, the White House was told. And even if it were, it was too late for a veto, the president having signaled repeatedly that he'd sign the measure. So, with misgivings, Bush went along. Three times, he called the bill ``generous,'' and he conceded ``it's not a perfect bill.'' His weak explanation for signing it was: ``There's no such thing as a perfect bill.'' There's a lot more wrong with the bill Bush signed than a few imperfections. First, there's the money. Depending on whose projections you use, it will raise farm spending by $73 billion to $82 billion over 10 years. The bill's total cost is pegged at $457.8 billion, including $251.9 billion for food stamps. What's worse is the attitude of Congress and the White House toward the increased spending that the bill reveals. A war is on and there's again a huge deficit, yet Washington is back to its old ways, gorging on spending. The era in which big government was over is over. The bill not only increases spending for most existing crop subsidy programs, it brings back old ones that had been killed and even creates new ones. Remember the mohair subsidy, which became famous because one of its recipients was newsman Sam Donaldson of ABC? It was eliminated in the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which was supposed to wean farmers off subsidies altogether, but didn't. Well, the mohair subsidy is back, along with the previously killed wool subsidy, thanks to the chairman (Larry Combest) and ranking Democratic member (Charles Stenholm) of the House Agricultural Committee, both from Texas. And thanks to the efforts of Democratic senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the honey subsidy has also risen from the dead. Is it crucial to America for these products to be federally subsidized? Of course not. Yet what's alarming is how easily these subsidies were revived. The standard wasn't whether they are necessary. Obviously they aren't. It was whether the subsidies could be slipped into the farm bill, one way or another, while everyone is distracted by the war on terrorism. This is the old way of doing business in Washington: Feather your own nest--that is, your district or state--with as much of the taxpayers' money as you can get your hands on. This practice, dormant for a spell, is now back in full flower. Republicans are almost as guilty as Democrats. For instance, they used the farm bill to present a gift to Ben Gilman, former chairman of the House International Relations Committee, who's retiring. Onion growers in his upstate New York district have been clamoring for federal aid for years, and so has Gilman. The farm bill provides a subsidy. Gilman was duly appreciative. ``This measure enables us to finally deliver the needed $10 million in federal assistance to our Orange County onion farmers, who have suffered year after year,'' he said. Gilman is a capable congressman and a nice man. But should the farm bill be a vehicle for gifts? The onion program is not the only new one. Conrad was the key player in bringing about a subsidy for ``pulse'' crops-- you know, chickpeas, lentils, and dry peas. A subsidy for those is designed to encourage farmers to rotate their crops. Crop rotation is a good agricultural practice. But hasn't it been done for eons without a subsidy from Washington? Must farmers really be prodded at taxpayers' expense? To no one's shock, the farm bill is blatantly political. As Richard E. Cohen and Corine Hegland noted in the National Journal, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle made sure Democratic senators up for reelection this year were helped. Max Cleland of Georgia got a bigger-than-ever peanut subsidy. Tim Johnson of South Dakota wanted something called ``country-of-origin'' labeling on products--and got it. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, got a big, fat farm bill to brag about back in Iowa. What about President Bush? He could have kept the farm bill from becoming egregiously larded. Citing new economic circumstances, he could have called for a little belt- tightening. It was back in spring 2001 when Congress authorized the $73 billion increase in farm spending. At the time, the budget surplus was $5 trillion and no annual deficits were in sight. The economic slump changed things. By late 2001, the surplus had shrunk dramatically and deficits were foreseen. True, the White House complained about House and Senate farm bills as they were being drafted, saying they cost too much and didn't meet the White House's free-market standards. But Bush could have insisted Congress trim the $73 billion hike and not add programs. Against a good bit of evidence, Bush and his aides assert the Freedom to Farm bill with its market-oriented approach has not been reversed by the new farm bill. At last week's signing ceremony, Bush said supplemental farm bills won't have to be enacted every year, as was the case after 1996. The new bill, he said, ``is generous enough to eliminate the need for supplemental support later this year and in the future.'' We'll see. The question is whether farmers and their allies in Washington have merely been whetted. The answer, more likely than not, is whetted.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation that is before us. Mr. Chairman, as it has been mentioned, there are three purposes behind this bill: it is a wartime supplemental. First, to pay for the expenses, the huge expenses of our war against terrorism. Secondly, to pay the major expenses of homeland security to protect the United States borders and the people in the country. And, third, to provide the emergency assistance for those that have suffered through these disasters relating to terrorism. I rise to address some of the elements relating to homeland security. We did not begin just after September 11 to try to address homeland security. Our subcommittee, among other things, funds the U.S. Customs Service. Even before September 11, we had allocated major funds to put 285 additional agents of the Customs Service at our borders, to add $33 million in inspection technology to examine the cargo that is coming into the country, looking for dangerous substances as well as drugs that could be sought to be brought in. Then we continued this process in the supplemental that we passed in December, not only paying for recovery and restoration of the offices that were destroyed in New York City but also beefing up the air and marine operations of the Customs Service, providing the funding with which the Customs Service is already adding over 300 additional special agents, over 600 additional border inspectors and the support people to go along with it. There is another $68 million in the technology to be able to examine, without having to open all the containers, the cargo that comes into the country; and the major expansion of the training that is necessary for the people that are coming in as new Federal law enforcement people. This supplemental continues those efforts. For example, the Federal law enforcement training center in Georgia has to train some 6,000 investigative personnel of the Transportation Security Administration. This bill has the funding for those personnel. It has additional funding to add more security at the Federal buildings under the supervision of the General Services Administration which is the landlord for our Federal Government. It has some $87 million to help pay for better filtration equipment and other items to protect workers in the postal system against the threats of anthrax or any other substance that someone might send as part of a terrorist act through the mail. There are major other elements of this bill trying to protect our Nation, trying to secure our borders, to detect and deter and halt threats before they get into the United States of America. This is a major and significant effort. I want to thank Chairman Young and everyone who has been responsible for making these resources available to better secure our homeland.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, due to the death of my stepmother last night, I will miss the vote on the farm bill, as I am traveling to Fort Worth, TX, to be with my father and other family. Had I been able to cast my vote on this bill, I would have voted ``no.'' The genuine problems of America's farmers and rural communities will never be fixed by these enormously-expensive subsidies. The biggest costs have nothing to do with helping family farmers. Although the House and Senate each voted that nobody should receive more than $275,000 per year in subsidies, the final bill says there's no limit on the amount! That typifies the problems with this bill. American farmers, consumers and taxpayers need more free enterprise, not more big-government subsidies. I'll keep voting to help farmers by expanding world markets, diversifying agriculture, encouraging rural economic development and providing fairer tax treatment to farmers. We have enormous expenses for the war on terrorism and for homeland security, and we've got to provide whatever it takes to protect America. But that's no excuse for huge escalation in other spending. We're undermining our future if we don't get better control over spending taxpayer's money. Unless we adopt the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, requiring a balanced budget in peacetime, we may never get spending back under control.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will not duplicate some of the terrific details that were recounted by my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); but I do adopt them in praise of the men and women of the Secret Service and the heroism that they displayed on September 11, 2001. Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the very selfless efforts of the men and women of the United States Secret Service, the New York field office, on September 11, 2001, and the days that have followed since then. It is difficult to separate oneself at a time like this, to get beyond looking at the totality of the horrific events that occurred so that we can examine individual acts of determination, of compassion, and of courage. They are far more telling about the fate and future of our country and how the fate and future will be bright because of this determination, compassion, and courage. That is more telling about our country's future than the damage that was inflicted by this evil. There were a great many examples of selflessness and courage, as we have heard, that occurred that day. They came from a multitude of people, from a multitude of walks of life. I am focusing at the moment on the Secret Service because, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, I have come to know them through the work that our subcommittee does with them, and through the fortunate experience that I have had of having several of the good people of the Secret Service work in my personal congressional office on fellowship programs. I have to say that while the resources we provide to them are important, there is no substitute for the character and dedication that these individuals bring to their efforts and to their mission. On September 11, the Secret Service New York field office, which was located in 7 World Trade Center, was destroyed by these terrorist attacks. Throughout that day, throughout that night, there were countless examples, as we have heard, of Secret Service employees placing themselves at great risk to be of aid to others. Just one example of heroism and dedication is Master Special Officer Craig Miller, who was lost in the collapse of the World Trade Towers. It is important that Craig Miller be remembered as an example of what is truly important about this country. We may never know exactly how Craig Miller died that day, but his life provided many examples of the sterling character which characterizes the people in the Secret Service of which we speak. That day his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of others who were lost beside him in serving others, inspires all of us as Americans to move ahead on the course of freedom; to know that through dedication to duty, through strength of character, and through selfless service to others freedom will prevail. The men and women of the Secret Service New York field office proved themselves worthy of the trust and confidence that we have placed in them. Throughout the hours and days that followed the attacks, they tirelessly worked to reestablish critical field office operations and also to assist State and local public safety officials. The performance of the personnel in the New York field office on that day and the days that followed represent a dedication to duty in the highest traditions of the Department of the Treasury, of the United States Secret Service, and of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to recognize their service, and I urge adoption of this very important resolution.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and to thank the employees of the United States Customs Service in New York City. These dedicated men and women give new meaning to the term public service. On behalf of all Americans, this resolution says to them, thank you for your steadfast work following the terrorist attacks of last September, steadfast work that continues this day, as it has every day since September 11. Like a number of other Federal law enforcement agencies, Customs had its principal office in 6 World Trade Center. Thanks to lessons learned from the previous bombing several years prior, they had updated and practiced their evacuation plans. That is fortunate because in large part due to this, none of the more than 750 Customs employees that were there were seriously injured, and none were killed. However, the emotional pain was very real with them, as with all of America. It continues to this day. Yet these Customs employees more than rose to the occasion. In addition to assisting in the broader search and rescue efforts at the World Trade Center, these men and women were quickly engaged in the investigative efforts to find the responsible parties, and to guard against any additional attacks. At a time when many Americans were still too stunned or too frightened to leave their homes, these brave officers of the Customs Service continued their role as America's front line on our borders. In fact, many officers worked through the night of September 11. Commercial operations that are so vital to America's economy, involving billions of dollars of trade every day, involving millions of American jobs, these commercial operations were quickly restored, consistent with the security that must exist at our borders. Special agents immediately joined with fellow law enforcement officers to pursue every lead, and the New York Customs Service laboratory was up and running in temporary quarters less than a week later after the loss of their regular office space. Today the New York Customs family is scattered through five offices, rather than being combined to one. Commutes are longer, the hours are longer, the time away from the family is greater, and the worries, of course, are many. I want each of the men and women there to know that we understand, as best as anyone not in there with them on a day-to-day basis can understand, the enormous challenges that they face. We are grateful for their efforts to carry on the very important work that they do for America. Throughout the country, as in New York, Customs continues on Level 1 Alert. Across the northern border, along the southwest border, at our seaports and our airports, at investigative offices and elsewhere, including overseas, the men and women of Customs stand watch 24 hours a day. Overtime numbers are up. That means time with family, time with friends, time on personal pursuits are down. Stress levels continue to be high, yet the need for careful consideration of each entering person, each item that enters the United States as part of goods and cargoes, the need for careful consideration of each of them has never been higher. The execution in their job has never been better. Since 1789, Customs has been an integral part of our government. It is America's oldest law enforcement agency. Customs has had many proud moments, but perhaps none more significant than in the past 7 months. The dedication of these men and women reminds me of President Bush's comments last fall in which he thanked all Federal workers. As he stated, ``Public service is not simply a noble profession, it is an honorable life. Your service to your country makes the ideal of America a daily, living reality. History has never known a Nation of such strengths and compassion, honor and ideals. Your work and selfless commitment are vital. On behalf of not only a grateful Nation but a world in need of America, thank you.'' To these words of President Bush, I join my words of thanks as I know these words are also joined by every Member of this body. I urge all of my colleagues to join in paying special tribute to the remarkable dedication of Customs agents, inspectors and other personnel in New York. Their service, from the most junior employees to the most senior managers, exemplifies the best of our Nation. Madam Speaker, we recognize their service, and I am thankful for this opportunity to extend that recognition.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, this week is the 90th anniversary of Girl Scouting in America. After its founding in 1912, and its Congressional Charter in 1950, it has grown to a membership of over 2.7 million girls. Today, in Oklahoma, there are 25,000 Girl Scouts, with 8,500 volunteers helping girls develop to their full potential. Evidence has demonstrated that the more time a girl spends in Girl Scouts, the more likely she is to be drug free, avoid sexual activity that can lead to unwanted pregnancy, and attend college. I commend all of the leaders across America who are working to make our children's lives better, and to prepare the next generation for a healthy and productive future.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 64, I was detained due to chairing a hearing regarding the White House and its budget. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and all Members who have been involved in this legislation. Many of us have a concern, however, that although this addresses with some special funding States who have not been as diligent about updating their electoral machinery, although States which have been more apathetic are rewarded under this, there is no reward, no incentive, for States which have been diligent. My State of Oklahoma is one such diligent State. Oklahoma spent $20 million to create optical scanning voting equipment in every precinct in every county in Oklahoma. I applaud the foresight of our former State election board secretaries, Lee Slater and Lance Ward, in doing so. The amendment, which was intended to be a part of a manager's amendment that ended up not being, is simply to say that States which have funded an optical scanner or electronic system on a state-wide basis would be reimbursed at the same per-precinct rate as States whose equipment we seek to replace under the bill. request to offer amendment

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment at the desk.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to especially express my appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson) for offering H.R. 2742. I certainly rise in support of it. As the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson) mentioned, he is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Tribe. In fact, there are some 67 tribes that originally inhabited what became known as Indian Territory, and now is known as the State of Oklahoma. Through a chapter in our Nation's history, of which we cannot be proud, we had the Trail of Tears with the movement of Indian Tribes across the country, from eastern parts of the Nation, from Florida and Alabama and other states in the Southeast in particular, moved by the U.S. Government to Oklahoma. Now we need to recognize what they built there, what they established under adverse conditions, in a good land but not the land that was originally theirs, but the land that became theirs. It is fitting and proper that the Federal Government participate in establishing this center about the education, the culture and the history of the Tribes that were moved across the country to become the homeland of now the State of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which is supported by the Tribes to preserve their heritage in the lands which became theirs, is a partnership piece of legislation. It states that the money to be provided by the Federal Government will be matched two-to-one by funds being provided by State and local and private sources. Indeed, the State legislature has already appropriated $6.5 million. There has been a grant of land from the City of Oklahoma City of some 300 acres, in the prime location where Interstates 40 and 35 come together next to downtown Oklahoma City on the banks of the North Canadian River. In that prime location will be erected the proud monument and preservation of the history and culture of the Indian Tribes that inhabited so much of the country and came to rest in the State of Oklahoma. Private donations are being solicited. We are not asking for the Federal Government to assume the cost of operating this. We are not asking the Federal Government to even bear the lion's share of the funding for this. We are saying that State, local and private sources will provide two-thirds of the funding, and the Federal Government is only being asked to provide one-third. That is more than fair, Mr. Speaker, and it is just that we provide this funding, that we authorize it today, and appropriate it over this 4-year period, as the bill calls to be done. I want to express my appreciation for the partnership of the many people and several Indian Tribes involved in this, the civic leaders in the city of Oklahoma City, the State legislators. I want to single out one member of the State legislature in particular, State Senator Enoch Kelly Haney, a Native American who was responsible for much of the vision regarding this center. In fact, he is also an artist. He is a sculpture. He is donating his work of the statue of a Native American to be the new statue atop the new dome being put on the Oklahoma State Capitol. I also want to express appreciation to Governor Bill Anaotubby of the Chickasaw Nation, Principle Chief Perry Beaver of the Muscogee Creek Nation, Former Chief Joe Byrd of the Cherokee Nation, Former Chief Elmer Manatowa of the Sac & Fox Nation, and Dr. Bud Sahmaunt of the Kiowa Tribe. They have all served on the Board of Directors of the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority and have been involved in the planning for this museum. I again want to express my special appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), for sponsoring this legislation, knowing that it is not just a matter of things that are important to the people in his district, but also that are important to the people throughout the State of Oklahoma and to the preservation of Native American history and culture for people throughout the United States of America as well. Amendment Offered by Mr. McInnis

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we are often impatient people in the United States; but as the President has reminded us, we must be patient. This will be a long-term effort against terrorism and protecting our homeland. While we are doing these things, we have to make a lot of changes to prepare to be able to do it right. This week the Marines have landed in Afghanistan. Some people say why were they not there already? Well, the time was not right. We have to proceed in an orderly way to accomplish the maximum results. That is what we are trying to do. I appreciate that the author of this amendment has not questioned the priorities of the bill before us. He has just said he wants to do more, and he wants to do it now. Many of us say, however, we need to look at what we have done in this bill and understand that we are doing things in an orderly fashion and we are putting the money where the priorities are greatest. And we have, as Congress, asserted some of our priorities that differ a little bit from the administration. That is part of developing consensus. But we cannot do everything yet; we are not ready. We are not able to do everything yet. We must be patient. Books come in chapters. Plans come in phases. In a major construction project, public works or otherwise, it is necessary to design the plans, start digging and preparing the site, lay in a foundation, start with the walls, move on to the ceiling, the interior, the landscaping, and do the utilities along the way. What happens with the funding? It comes in the form of progress payments. Mr. Chairman, as we are ready and willing to do certain things, the funding is there. As we are ready and able to do things in protecting our homeland, the funding is there; it is being provided by this Congress. I want to address some of the things that we have done. For example, some people have mentioned border security. Even before September 11, in our subcommittee we had already provided an additional 285 positions for the Customs Service to inspect the cargo as well as the people coming into the United States of America, as well as enhanced spending on inspection technology. In this measure on top of that, we are funding an additional 277 Customs Service positions at the northern border and 460 at seaports. Why? Because we know we have to have more homeland security, and we have to staff the entry points better than we have been doing, and we are doing so. The postal service has already received $170 million out of funds allocated by this Congress to help them find ways to make the mail more secure. They are using that funding already for their pilot projects of testing this irradiation technology to remove any contamination that might be present on or in the mail. We have been pursuing these things, but we are not ready to go further. The postal service will not be ready for some time to know if this technology will do what it promises to be able to do, and will do it without side effects and without unintended consequences. We are not ready to go further; but we are putting more money into training and preparation. We are putting the money that we need for homeland security already in the base bill. Let us not be impatient and try to skip forward to the end when we do not know everything that is going to happen and everything that is going to be needed. We have a very responsible piece of legislation in front of us; and I oppose this amendment although I appreciate the intent with which it is offered to protect our homeland.

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), another member of our committee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2590) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ISTOOK. The gentleman is correct that we are trying to make sure the resources are there at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia. As much as possible, we try to consolidate Federal law enforcement training that is generalized through this facility. Then, when they have specific needs, for example the Secret Service has protective detail needs, the air marshals have some specific needs for specialized training that is done in New Jersey and at Fort Dix and so forth, but for the generalized law enforcement training needs, especially for example someone coming into the air marshal program that does not have a law enforcement training, they might be coming out of the military and such, their initial weeks of training are to be at FLETC. The number of people in that program is being kept classified, so I am not going to detail the numbers, but we are certainly making sure that, as part of the expansion of homeland security, we are utilizing the facility that we have at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. And I want to make sure that we continue to use that as the best way to apply the taxpayers' dollars towards how we handle these national homeland security issues.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2002 conference agreement for the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. This conference agreement provides $17.1 billion in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. That represents, Mr. Speaker, an increase of 6 percent above the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels and 2 percent above the President's request. It is especially important to have this funding in place because of the increased demands of national security and homeland security from the events of September 11. One of the little known facts about this particular bill is that it supports over 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement through the Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I want to highlight that, Mr. Speaker, because of the current role these agencies are playing in ensuring homeland security, and also because, whether we are at war or peace, it is important to understand the tools that our Nation possesses to defeat our enemies, to ensure an environment that encourages trade and commercial growth, and the normal, everyday activity in conducting the business of America, and to provide for the safety and stability in the daily routines of all Americans. I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the new Office of Homeland Security, headed by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, is within the Executive Office of the President, another portion under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and its funding. Historically, law enforcement officials in the U.S. Department of Treasury have fulfilled their role quietly, without fanfare, without drawing the attention of the American people. Yet, the oldest law enforcement agency in the United States Government is the Customs Service of Treasury. It was established in 1789, one of the very first acts enacted by the First Congress of the United States after adoption of the Constitution. The evolving threats to our country are making special demands upon this, America's first law enforcement agency, the one that defends our borders, as well as the other law enforcement functions that come under the Treasury Department and within this bill. We need to focus the support and attention of Congress and the Administration and of the American people to determine appropriate, coordinated strategies and provide the funding levels for Treasury law enforcement bureaus to enable them to fully carry out their missions. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us recognizes that there are additional resources that are going to be necessary because of the September 11 terrorist attacks. This bill begins to address those requirements. We will have within a few day's time a supplemental appropriations that will deal with further law enforcement needs and other Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as other aspects of our military and the national government. There is within this bill some $5.7 billion for law enforcement efforts under our jurisdiction. It is an increase of almost 12 percent, $593 million above the current year. That is even before we factor in the necessary increases that will be part of the upcoming supplemental. Specifically, in terms of supporting Federal law enforcement, this conference report provides an increase of $402 million for the Customs Service, of which some $33 million is devoted to border inspection technology; $28 million for additional inspectors and agents along the northern border, which has not received the increase in recent years that the southern border has; and $170 million is added for customs automation modernization, which includes an amount not less than $300 million, for the automated commercial environment. This system will tie together some 50-odd Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over products that are coming into the United States, part of the cargo which must be inspected by the Customs Service. Because of the manpower shortages, Mr. Speaker, customs is able to inspect only 1 or 2 percent of the entering cargo, a ratio which we intend to increase. We also expand the funding for Customs for its efforts to halt trade and goods that are produced by forced child labor; also providing funding for the protection of intellectual property. Some of the smuggling that happens across our borders is not just illegal drugs. It is not just contraband shipments of alcohol or tobacco. It is not only knock-offs of American products which people are trying to pass off cheaply-produced goods overseas that have the appearance but not the quality and certainly not the original manufacture of American goods. We are also protecting intellectual property because smuggling, whether it be DVD software, compact disk recordings, whatever it may be, there is a severe organized criminal assault against the intellectual property that is produced by American artists, scientists, engineers, computer programmers and others, which is part of the great commerce and the great advantage that this Nation enjoys technologically. That intellectual property is protected by Customs just as it protects us from other illicit cargo. We also have an increase of $45 million for Secret Service recruitment and retention. These are men and women who protect not only the President but protect our currency against counterfeiting who are in charge of the special security arrangements at the upcoming Winter Olympics to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. These men and women have been working drastic amounts of overtime, and we want to make sure that we do not work into the ground the people that are in charge of protecting our country and key parts of America. We also have increases for the Federal law Enforcement Training facilities that support the basic training of border inspection agents and a great multitude of the people that are involved in Federal law enforcement, working through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. We also provide $1 million for a canine detection program sponsored by Customs to use dogs to detect chemical and biological agents. We have some $20 million to increase the efforts of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, bringing that account up to a total of $226 million to coordinate between the State and local government entities and the Federal Government in efforts to combat illegal drugs and the immense problems that they bring upon our society. I should mention that we also have within this budget the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Key portions of the drug enforcement efforts are handled through the funding of this bill, not just through Customs but also through ONDCP, the so-called drug czar, and these high-intensity drug trafficking efforts and the promotional efforts such as the Drug Free Communities Act. I am pleased to note that the conference report includes some $18 million for constructing seven border stations, including four along the northern border, again part of beefing up the borders for our border security and our homeland security. It also includes a number of courthouse constructions to make sure the criminal justice system continues to be able to handle the load that is being placed upon it. We also have an increase for the Internal Revenue Service, including $320 million for critical information technology investments so that when my colleagues or I or anybody else, Mr. Speaker, calls the IRS having a problem with how our taxes are being handled, that they have the information readily accessible, that they can be responsive to the public, and we are continuing the efforts through funding and mechanisms in this bill to make the IRS more responsive, more user- friendly, more customer and taxpayer oriented in what it does. Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes several legislative provisions. It provides parity for Federal employee health benefits. It retains the current law prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for an abortion, and it also has the requirement that prescription contraceptives would be covered under certain circumstances and exceptions as conscience clause protections for those that have an objection of conscience, Mr. Speaker. This bill includes a pay increase for Federal civil employees of 4.6 percent, as authorized by the Congress. It extends the authorization of the breast cancer semi-postal stamp until December 31, 2003, which provides additional funding for efforts to research and combat breast cancer. It authorizes the September 11 hero stamp to continue until December 31, 2004, honoring the men and women who were the responders or the victims of the tragic events of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, people who we wish to honor. It also authorizes the semi-postal stamp on stamping out domestic violence, which would be a program that would continue until December 31, 2006. Mr. Speaker, I would finally note that this conference report takes out language that had been in the House version of the bill regarding travel to Cuba. We feel that this is not the time to be addressing that particular sensitive issue in this environment, including the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee. We have had an excellent bipartisan spirit and cooperation as this bill worked through the legislative process. His personal staff member, Scott Nance, and the full committee's minority member, Rob Nabors, toiled long and hard in working things through, and without their assistance we would not be able to bring this bill up in the collegial fashion that I believe it is being brought up today. I especially want to thank the chief clerk of our subcommittee, Michelle Mrdeza, for her persistent and tireless efforts on this, as well as the great expertise, insight and counsel of the other staff members of our subcommittee, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd and Tammy Hughes plus Chris Stanley, who is a detailee on a fellowship from the Secret Service, which is his normal workplace. I would also thank a member of our committee staff that worked through my office, John Albaugh, who functions also as my Chief of Staff, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, keeps things going in a very important way, for which I am grateful. I do want to single out our congressional fellow Chris Stanley, an agent of the United States Secret Service, who will be heading to his next assignment as special agent. He has served not only on the subcommittee staff but also worked a year in my personal office, and his experience, working last year on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, this year on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, has brought tremendous insight regarding law enforcement, has added a lot of benefit, a lot of professionalism, with a very strong background in the technical issues which we sometimes must address. Combining his professionalism with his law enforcement skills, his paramedic skills and frankly his cool head and enjoyable good nature have been a great asset to us. We are going to be sorry to see Chris leave to go back to his regular assignments, but we know that the Secret Service has a great need for his direct expertise, and we hope that what he has learned here in Congress will be of benefit to the Secret Service and the jobs that they perform. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention as part of noting the key involvement of the Customs Service and law enforcement that we were notified that yesterday a U.S. customs inspector died in the line of duty at the port of Gramercy in Louisiana. Customs Inspector Thomas Murray lost his life during an examination of the hold of a vessel in which evidently there were toxic fumes present. That is an illustration of the dangers that many Customs agents accept as part of their job. I have personally visited some of the vessels that they have to inspect and have seen what they have to do to find the hidden compartments that are used to smuggle drugs or other contraband, all in the name of protecting our Nation. So I want to commend Customs Inspector Thomas Murray and express our gratitude for the efforts that he put in for some 31 years with the Customs Service. We want to express our sympathy to his family, to his co-workers in the Customs Service, and thank the late Thomas Murray for his efforts in being part of the front line of defense for the United States of America and our homeland security. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.003 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, this bill tries to meet the needs of Federal law enforcement and border security, although not totally so because there are greater needs that we hope to meet in further legislation coming forward. I think it is important to mention that of the numbers mentioned by my colleague from Arizona, there has been coupled in that mandatory spending from previous Congresses for things such as the insurance and retirement benefits for Federal employees that are not under the control of this subcommittee. We have control over certain accounts and we have sought to be very responsible making sure that it is the Federal law enforcement, such as through Customs, that has the 12 percent increase that makes some other numbers look higher in this bill than they actually are. We know that, at our borders, only 1 to 2 percent of the cargo that comes through is currently inspected. Why? Because we have neither enough manpower nor technology to examine these things for the safety of the American people, to be looking for things that may be chemical, they could be biological, they could be nuclear. We know the threats are out there. We are trying to improve the security of our homeland. We cannot do it without providing the resources. We are trying to prosecute the war on terrorism with the troops that we see on land, at sea and in the air in the Middle East, in Afghanistan right now. We have to pay for those things. We have an economy that is suffering from the impact of the attacks that were made. Part of the response to that, for example, dealing with the airlines, comes under the U.S. Department of Treasury, which is the chief agency that we address in this bill. The Office of Homeland Security, an extension of the White House and the Executive Office of the President, comes under our jurisdiction through this bill. We have sought to put the focus on homeland security. Yes, I know some people say that does not count, ``I want people to travel to Cuba.'' We have seen some significant changes between who were allies and who were antagonistic and enemies in past years. It is well beyond the lessons from World War II in the differences in our relationships with Japan and Germany today. We find that with Pakistan, sanctions are being lifted and a new spirit of cooperation has come in. We find that of all nations, Iran holds promise of cooperating with the United States. Afghanistan, which was an afterthought in so many people's consideration of foreign policy before, assumes extra importance. There are critical and fragile negotiations going on around the globe on what do we do to link together changes in our policy toward a nation with their cooperation in the fight against global terror. Cuba has a history as a bad actor when it comes to sponsoring terrorism. If we are going to have a change in our policy towards Cuba, it should be part of what is coordinated with the administration, with the Secretary of State, with bringing them on board into compliance with many things that meet the security needs of the United States of America and the global security in our war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, it should not be just because some people say it is time to end it. It ought to be done as part of a coordinated change that involves other significant changes with Cuba if we are going to change that travel policy. It is for reasons such as this that the Administration said they would veto this bill if it contained the language that was sponsored by Members of this House and put in this bill on the House floor. Let us not bury our heads in the sand. Let us recognize that paying for security does cost. We acknowledge that cost, and are trying to do it in the most responsible manner possible. I urge every Member to support this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report accompanying H.R. 2590, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.