Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts and every speaker that has spoken about the need for the safety of trucks on the road. I also agree and will work in conference on this bill to make sure that we do not have an inordinate phase-in period, that we try to use some rationality there. But let us understand the difference between many of the things that are said and what this amendment actually proposes to do. Now, we heard one speaker talk about how he does not want trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, all the way up to Minnesota, that are unsafe. Well, believe me, I do not either, because they cannot get there without coming through Oklahoma and my district, and I do not want unsafe trucks on I-35 as they come through Oklahoma either. But this amendment is not about whether a vehicle is safe. It is not about whether it is in safe operating condition. The amendment is about what was the condition of the vehicle at the time it was originally manufactured, not what the condition is now. Everybody that owns or uses a vehicle, a car or a truck or a bus or anything, knows that things get modified; things are retrofitted. We have the law, and they enforce it at the border. If a vehicle is going to come in and move into the interior of the United States, it has to be in safe operating condition. It has to be in a condition that meets our standards. But that vehicle might not have originally been manufactured to those standards. It may have been retrofitted. The gentleman's amendment says, well, unless you have certification that it was in that condition at the time it was first built, no matter how many years ago that was, unless that is the case, we are not going to let them in. It is aimed at the companies that have trucks that have been retrofitted that are perfectly safe. That is what it is aimed at. It is trying to remove their ability to compete and give competitive advantages to other companies. I oppose the amendment. We can talk about what should be the notification procedures and phase-ins and so forth, but let us make sure that we put the emphasis on the safety of the vehicles in the condition they are in now, not whether or not they were originally manufactured to some different specification. I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's point, and he is well aware that the controversial amendments which relate to Cuba always bring up a lot of heat in the debate in this House. Those amendments are subject to a presidential veto. We have had the message from the White House in the statement of administrative policy, which is very unequivocal in indicating the President would veto the bill over Cuba. This is why, in past years, the gentleman has certainly seen that amendment, as the gentleman phrases it, evaporate or at least not come through in the conference report to the same degree before. My responsibility, as the gentleman appreciates, is to produce a bill that will pass into law. I am unable to give him the assurance that he is seeking, and I am sure he understands why, although he is not pleased by it.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that I give a response of sorts to my friend from Wisconsin. We all know that, for parliamentary reasons, there have been points of order raised that resulted in certain things being taken from this bill. However, every Member should be aware, and I certainly want to emphasize to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the full committee, everyone is aware that those items relating to transportation funding are going to be reinstated in conference. The conference report will not be subject to the same parliamentary points of order that caused the problem. So if any Member is concerned about, well, my goodness, what are we accomplishing through this bill, the answer is, we are creating the mechanism that allows us to fund transportation in the United States of America. Whatever may not be in the bill at this moment can be restored in conference. But we do not get there if we do not pass this House bill. And if Members want to telegraph that they do not care about funding for transportation or they do not care about funding for transportation needs and projects in their district, there is probably no better way to indicate that than by voting against the bill. Now, I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin. His opposition is not toward funding transportation. I understand he is concerned about the Cuba provisions and whether they will endure in the final report. But to every Member of this body it is important that we advance this bill to the conference with the Senate, which enables us to resolve the parliamentary problems with our own rules to put in the transportation funding and, of course, the funding that will benefit the individual Members in their States and in their districts and the projects in their areas. It is important to know who supports that.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I reemphasize that this bill is the vehicle for the transportation funding. It goes to the conference with the Senate. The things that were stricken on points of order can then be restored and will be restored. A vote against this bill is a vote against the transportation funding that is important to every Member. It is important to their States and important to projects in their districts.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). He is certainly correct that the only mechanism to fix the problems with the bill, the parliamentary problems, is moving it to a conference with the Senate, which requires House passage as a prelude to that, and I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments. As he knows, we are very aware of this issue, and we are concerned about the level of tax evasion and fraud that is underway. We want to arm the IRS with the best technology and an overall program not only to combat the fraud but to locate those perpetrating the fraud and put them out of business permanently. There is report language to this effect in this bill. I understand my counterpart in the Senate, Mr. Shelby, is aware of the issue as well. We will be working with him in conference to have a strong position in the final bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we will complete debate on this bill after we hear from the chairman of the full committee. I do want to express my appreciation to the staff that has worked so diligently on this: Our chief clerk of the subcommittee, Rich Efford; a member of my personal staff, Kurt Conrad; and also on the subcommittee staff, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Dena Baron, and Kristen Jones. Without them nothing could be accomplished. This bill merits the support of every Member of this body, and I ask that people support it accordingly and pass it.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the frustration of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and certainly I have a high level of frustration, and many people do, because of the things that on parliamentary procedures were stricken on points of order, because we have so many programs that have not been reauthorized. However, there is a much better way to fix the problem, and that is to finish the process, pass the bill, move it to conference where we are then able to bring a conference report back before this House that is not subject to these points of order. Were we to do what the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks, we would only repeat the exercise in frustration. He wants us to take the bill back to committee, reinsert the things that were taken out on points of order and, while we are at it, put more money in them. Then, if we brought the bill back to the floor, guess what? Those same points of order are here on the floor. We go through the exercise again. Secondly, we have an additional point of order because the gentleman's request, I believe, would push us above the 302(b) allocation which is our share of the budget allocation, and there would be an additional point of order against the bill. We would only repeat the frustration. What is worse than being frustrated once? Being frustrated twice. That is what the motion to recommit would accomplish, but opposing the motion to recommit and passing the bill moves it into conference. That is where the problem can and will be fixed.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and certainly the Committee on Rules could have done something on the current bill and could do something on a different bill, but why do we expect the Committee on Rules would have any different action? The only sure course of action to get this bill passed to fund the transportation for every Member of this body for their States and also to address the desires that different Members have for their different districts is to pass the bill, move it on to the House-Senate conference where we bring it back, and all those problems are wiped clean because now we are under a different parliamentary process that governs the conference report. I oppose the motion to recommit. There is no sense in killing the bill. Let us keep it alive so that we can keep transportation moving in the country.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5025, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, maybe people do not realize what we are actually debating. We are not debating pension plans. We are not debating conversion of pension plans from one type to another. We have before us the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont to this Transportation and Treasury appropriation bill, and maybe people do not realize what the amendment says. The amendment says that you cannot use any of the money appropriated in this bill to assist in overturning the judicial ruling on a particular court case. That case, which was in the Southern District of Illinois, decided last year, was the action of Kathi Cooper, Beth Harrington and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. IBM. The amendment says, do not use any of the money in this appropriations bill to assist in overturning a court case to which the United States Government is not even a party. It is a case between IBM and some workers at IBM. Not only that, this bill does not contain funding for the judicial system, nor do I believe it is the role of this Congress to say, when I like a court decision, I am going to come here with a bill that says, nobody can overturn this court decision. If I do not like a court decision, I am going to come here with a bill that says, we must overturn the court decision. Now, we can change underlying law. That is our job. But it is not our job to say, we are going to decide a particular court case. If we want to change the law that governs the entire country, we ought to do it, but not come with a bill that has nothing to do with the judicial system and say, you cannot use this to overturn a court case between IBM and some of its workers. Now, there is a lot of controversy, we know, about types of pension plans and conversions of pension plans. We have legislation that is being considered. We have the Treasury Department, which is working on potential regulations relating to those conversions. And the Treasury Department works with every company in the country and every individual covered by a pension plan in the country, and you cannot say you do not communicate with each other. But, again, that is not what this says. It says, do not help somebody overturn a court case to which you are not a party. Come on, get real. Besides which, there has been other litigation on this case, and other courts came down on the other side. I think there have been four cases around the country. Three went one way; this one went the other. If we want to talk about the issues, let us bring legislation to talk about what pension laws should be generally, not try to say we are going to overturn a court case with an action before this Congress in the amendment. One final thing just because I know that the proponents of the amendment are getting into the merits of the case. Basically, that case said, well, it is age discrimination if somebody is going to work for a company longer and so their benefits earn more interest than somebody that works for a shorter period of time. And this court decided that was age discrimination. If money accrues more interest because it is invested longer, they call that age discrimination. I do not. I do not think most people who apply common sense would think that. But this amendment does not belong on this bill. This is not changing the law of the land. This is trying to change the outcome of a lawsuit that is now on appeal to which the United States is not even a party. We should not be doing that. I ask for opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have another speaker that may be arriving, but they are not here at this time; and other than that, I know of no other Members seeking time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just received a note that there is a Member that is on his way.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to remind people what this amendment is and what this amendment is not. This amendment is not determining the question of what types of pension plans are permitted by law. This amendment does not determine the question about whether you can convert, if you are a company, from one type of pension plan to another. That is not what we are talking about. This amendment says specifically that you cannot overturn a particular court case between IBM and its workers that is in contradiction of multiple other court cases about whether a retirement plan is age discriminatory or not. That case is on appeal. That case is going to be decided under the law as it existed at the time. We are not changing the underlying law. We are not being asked to create a uniform standard for all companies. We are being asked to help people make sure that they do not lose their case on appeal, even if that appeal is contrary to other court decisions, even if that is not a proper role of this Congress. That is what the amendment is about. It is about stopping the overturning of a particular court case. Mr. Chairman, yes, there is a large part of other issues that are out there that relate to pension plans, and most of the speakers have been talking about those issues. There are many companies that will tell us they made some bad decisions in years past, and because of it, they and their workers are in a tough spot. They may not be able both to pay the benefits they promised to workers in years past and stay in business. Many companies have gone into bankruptcy because of this; and in bankruptcy court, if it is a reorganization procedure, they can abrogate, or in other words, they can do away with, or change the terms of, prior pension plans. It is a conflict often between people who worked for a company and received certain promises, and they want those promises fulfilled and people who currently work for a company, and the company is not going to be able to stay in business if it is stuck with the old pension plan rules. That is why so many companies want options in this. That is why we are looking at legislation to give companies options. It is a bona fide, honest debate that we need to be having, but it is not what this amendment is about. This amendment, says, well, you cannot use any money in this particular appropriations bill to help overturn this one case with one set of workers and one company. We should not even be considering an amendment like this, and I oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)