Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank my friend from Indiana, and I thank everybody for having a little bit of time this evening to talk about the importance of the Republican Study Committee, the importance of conservative principles. And I really enjoyed hearing my friend Gil Gutknecht recount some of the things during his years here. Myself, I don't choose to try to talk about the things that have happened during the 14 years, because really I don't think service in the Congress is about me, and it is not about us as individuals; it is about what do we do to carry on the principles upon which this country was founded, the self- government, the ideal, the understanding that God made us as people able and capable to govern ourselves; and not only that, to live our lives without having to be controlled by government. So I would like to spend my time this evening talking a little bit about what I believe, as a principled conservative, as somebody who believes, yes, in economic conservatism and social conservatism. But it is really based upon the premise that God made each of us as capable individuals, and that we have the free agency to make decisions for ourselves. And conservative principles enable us, enable us, to fulfill that destiny rather than having our lives dictated to us by government. I fear, of course, that the pendulum has gone too far in the United States. Government is too big, it spends too much. And, of course, any government that is big enough to give you everything that you want is powerful enough to take everything that you have got. And I know the year that I was born, which was 1950, the typical American family, in Federal income taxes, paid something like 2 or 2\1/2\ percent of their annual income in Federal income taxes. Today, on average, it is closer to 10 times that amount. Now, that tells you something about what is going on. And when you look at what has happened here in Washington, D.C., and the voters sent a message if people here will just listen to it. And what is the common factor, whether you are talking about the level of spending, the amount of earmarks, the bridge to nowhere, whether you are talking about campaign finance issues, ethics issues, lobbying issues, it all happens because big government creates big problems, big government creates big lobbying, big government creates a big need to defend yourself against it. So everything that we have that I think has caught the attention in a negative way of the voters this year traces back to the fact that we haven't controlled the size of government. Now, I was really happy when we had some years during my time in Congress when we actually balanced the budget. Boy, that was important. But you know, when 9/11 happened it became an excuse not just to spend more money on defense and homeland security to meet the security needs, but it was, what is the old adage, ``in for a dime, in for a dollar.'' And we saw that. I remember back during the Vietnam era the catch phrase was ``guns and butter.'' If you are going to pay for guns, you don't have enough money to pay for butter. You can't be expanding social programs at the time that you are trying to take care of the defense and the security needs of the country. Well, we saw that some people said even though 9/11 created some spending requirements to take care of the security of Americans, we still spent too much in other ways, and we are paying the price, the consequences. I was asked when I was first elected to Congress, if there is one thing, one thing that you could accomplish, what would it be? And I said the adoption of a balanced budget amendment, because I think that is what constricts and controls the size of government. You know, we haven't even had a vote on a balanced budget amendment here in this House in 11\1/2\ years. I have become the principal author of the balanced budget amendment, but unfortunately the people in charge of bringing things through committee and to the floor haven't brought it here in 11\1/2\ years. I think that is one of the reasons that we have the difficulties that we do: We don't require government to live within its means as all of us have to do when we sit around the kitchen table and try to balance the family budget. Maybe we need to install a kitchen table here in the Congress so we can sit around it and actually have to balance things. I certainly hope that if the people that are here in the 110th Congress don't do anything else, bring back the balanced budget amendment. It was the number one item in the Contract With America in 1994, and it is a sad travesty that it hasn't even been voted on in this body in some 11 and a half years. We have been entrusted with the power to govern, and where much is given, much is expected. We have to be more in tune with the American people, and we have to talk to the American people about correct principles. Too often we hear there is a problem; therefore, government needs to step in and be the solver of problems rather than the creator of problems. What was the Ronald Reagan line, too many people that if something moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. We have seen that too much. We need to stress personal responsibility more than government programs. That is what we have gotten away from. The most important thing that each of us will do happens with our families. I am so grateful for my wife, Judy, and for my five children, Amy, Butch, Chad, Diana, and Emily, and what they mean to me. But no wife could have been more supportive than my wife Judy has been. I am eternally grateful to her, and want her to know how very much I love her. You see, I believe the most important work I ever do, or any of us will ever do does not happen within the halls of Congress but within the walls of our own home. We need that principle. We need to remind Americans that they are given God-given blessings. As was stated in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. What did they say: Government exists to protect the rights that were given to us as a gift from God. We need to remember that truth. We need to follow that principle. We need to abide by that as the Founding Fathers taught us to do. So I am grateful for the people in this body who hold true to those beliefs, who believe in the capabilities, the dynamic abilities of the American people. I believe America rests upon four pillars that we must keep strong and solid: Freedom, free enterprise, faith, and family. It is my prayer that we will each strengthen each and every one of those pillars. Thank you for letting me speak this evening.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. Congress should not dictate that American ballots must be printed in multiple languages. Over 30 States, including Oklahoma, are now required by Congress to print bilingual or multilingual ballots in at least some parts of those States. In Oklahoma, it is required in Marmon County and Texas County. I have a sample of the ballots that will be used there on July 25, and this is for State and local races, not Federal elections. The candidates for county commissioner will be surprised that they have been relabeled as candidates for ``comisionario del condado.'' Instead of this confusion, we need the unifying force of an official language, English, which is the language of success in America. To become an American citizen, we require people to read, write and speak in English. That is to help them to assimilate in our melting pot, truly to become Americans. We mock that when the cherished right to vote does not involve English any more. My father was the son of immigrants, and he grew up bilingual, but English is what my father taught me and what he spoke to me. America's strength is not our diversity; it is our ability to unite around common principles even when we come from different backgrounds. We have too many laws that undercut our unity. Today we can fix one of those laws, and we should. Please join me in doing what the American people want and expect us to do. Support this amendment and support the unifying force of a common language, the English language.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all concerned parents who have made an enormous commitment. All parents are teachers, but these parents have accepted total responsibility for their children's learning, by schooling them at home. Of course I am talking about the successful home school movement that has taken root and is rapidly growing throughout the United States. It is not easy to be a parent. I should know since I'm the proud father of five children and seven grandchildren. But adding ``teacher'' to the list of responsibilities parents face every day illustrates their incredible determination to ensure that their children get a solid education. It has been said that in order to understand the future we must first look to the past. That is being done here. Thousands of present day students, like many of our Founding Fathers, are being taught at home. The motives of these parents vary, many parents don't like the curriculum being taught to their kids, or are wary of the threat of peer pressure or the presence of drugs or violence lurking in too many of our schools today. In a world where it is common to pass the buck, tens of thousands of families have adhered to the principle set forth by former President Harry Truman, saying that ``the buck stops here'' when it comes to their children's education. The home schooling movement has proven it works and the numbers show. According to a recent report from Reuters News Services, between 1.7 and 2.1 million children across the country are taught at home. This is a 29 percent jump from the number of home schooled children in 1999. When they are asked to compete against children from traditional schools, these students do quite well. One illustration is how often they show up in the finals of national spelling competitions. If you ``google'' the words ``home schooled'' and ``spelling bee'' together you will see page after page after page of success stories from places like Albuquerque, New Mexico, Oswego, New York or Fayetteville, North Carolina--as well as the national competition here in Washington DC. There are other examples too. I would especially like to congratulate Braden Juengel from Edmond, Oklahoma who was recently notified that he is one of only 39 people in the United States to receive a perfect score of 36 on his ACT test. Branden has been home schooled since the second grade. He is also a National Merit Scholar Finalist and plans to either attend Oral Roberts University or my alma mater, Baylor University, next fall. I congratulate him and his parents Mr. and Mrs. Randy and Luann Juengel. These children are living proof that the ``one size fits all'' approach to education is not necessarily the only or the best way for our children to learn. This is not a knock against traditional schools. My wife and I chose for all of my kids to be taught in the Putnam City public school system. But let's remember that the first and most important teachers that children have are their parents. We show them how to eat, help them to walk and teach them to communicate. The Reuters news article also helps dispel the mistaken myth that home schooled kids are socially inept because they supposedly have less social interaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Home schooled children frequently combine for many purposes--and they interact well. The growth of the home schooling movement means that more and more children are learning together, just not in a traditional classroom. For example, a group of 70 home schooling families living in a Washington suburb organize regular group field trips and extracurricular activities for their home schooled children. They also come together for music lessons, soccer and basketball games and for art classes. These are all ideas and events planned by parents, not school boards. Students are transported by mom or dad driving mini vans, not school buses. Home cooking beats school cafeteria food any day of the week. Education begins at home and I applaud the parents who recognize that they--not someone else--must take responsibility to assure that their children are well educated. I remind everyone: Whether you school them at home or send them to school, you as a parent have the responsibility to make sure they learn and behave. Teachers and principals may help, but parents are the ones who must accept responsibility. I congratulate all the parents out there who made a commitment to put their children's education first. These are parents that our Founding Fathers would find worthy of praise.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, my absence from the House chamber for today's votes and any held this weekend is due to my attending my daughter's wedding in Salt Lake City, Utah. The wedding was scheduled months ago, when the House was not expected to be in session during December.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although I cannot be present for the final vote, I support and have co-sponsored H.R. 4437, to improve America's border security dramatically. I am absent so that I can be at my daughter's wedding. It was scheduled long ago, when nobody expected that the House would be in session at this time. As the grandson of immigrants, I have a deep and personal appreciation for the desire and courage it takes to leave your home in search of a new and better life. My father's parents were born in Hungary and they came to America legally through Ellis Island. I welcome and embrace those who come here and who do so legally. But entering our country illegally is different--very different. It is difficult to obey the laws of this country when your very first act is to break them. Illegal immigration is an affront to those who wait patiently for the chance to come here legally. Illegal immigration drains the resources of our schools and of our social support network. It encourages disrespect for the laws which are necessary for a good and orderly society. This bill represents the first serious effort in decades to address this immense problem which has constantly worsened due to a lack of resources, a lack of resolve and a lack of enforcement of our laws. When our borders are not secure against illegal immigration, it means they also are not secure against drug-smuggling or against terrorists. This bill adopts a unified approach to border security that protects us against all those threats. It also deters illegal entry by helping us to detect the millions who are already here wrongfully. It enlists employers in the common-sense effort to deny work to Illegals, thus motivating them to return to their own country. Everyone sympathizes with those who lack opportunity in their home country and who hope to find it here. But the long-term solution is not to have the whole world arrive at our doorstep. If other nations would adopt America's principles--including free-enterprise, constitutionally-protected freedoms, and government by the people--they could create prosperity in their own lands. Those countries need hard- working citizens who will change their societies, and we should help them with policies that encourage reforms in their countries. Meantime, the American people expect and deserve that we will protect our Nation by passing this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, my absence today from the House chamber is due to my traveling to New Orleans and Oklahoma City to assess the damage and relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. My return to Washington, DC is not possible until after conclusion of today's legislative business. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security I am involved in the direct funding of our government's efforts in saving lives, stabilizing this devastated area, restoring order, mitigating still uncertain conditions, and beginning the rebuilding process that can assist in returning prosperity and making people whole. During my visit to New Orleans, I will witness firsthand the scope of the devastation, observe relief operations, and meet with some of the more than 2,100 members the Oklahoma Army National Guard serving in New Orleans. My trip concludes with my traveling to Oklahoma City to meet with hurricane evacuees and relief workers. Since Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast August 31, Oklahomans have been at the forefront of relief efforts. Since August 30, the Oklahoma National Guard has supplied four U860 Blackhawk helicopters, airlifted tens of thousands of pounds of food and water to New Orleans and supplied much-needed security and rescue efforts in the midst of looting and flooding that followed the hurricane's landfall. Oklahomans have also opened up their homes and businesses to help the relief effort, and have worked with the Red Cross in opening shelters for those evacuees throughout Oklahoma.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for producing a solid bill under very challenging circumstances; but rather than talking about the entirety of the bill, I want to address myself to one particular process. During the amendment process, there will be an amendment offered to add more funding to public broadcasting. I will oppose that amendment. We should recognize two things: first, Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own; and, second, Americans have access to a wide variety and multitude of educational, cultural, and children's programming that are provided by a vast variety of diverse networks that we have today. Public broadcasting has developed a major base of private donors, corporate donors and licensing fees and royalties from programs. Because of this, Federal funding is only 15 percent, $1 in $7, of the budget for public broadcasting; and this bill only reduces a fraction of that 15 percent, about a 4 percent overall reduction for public broadcasting's budget. This will not jeopardize any program or any station, because they have ample resources already on hand to make up that difference. Public broadcasters have accumulated major financial resources, hundreds of millions of dollars that they have invested in stocks, bonds and other securities, in addition to owning their broadcast facilities. In other words, Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own. But there is another factor. Public broadcasting is not the only place to find education, cultural, historical documentaries and children's programs. We have achieved variety and diversity, thanks to networks that do not ask for Federal money. C-SPAN carries the proceedings of Congress to the world without a Federal subsidy. We have the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, Nickelodeon, the Arts and Entertainment Network, Lifetime TV, Family Channel, Food Network, Science Channel, and so forth. We do not need a nationwide subsidy either to reach a few targeted households. I heard somebody say, well, we need public broadcasting to provide TV for the poor. Let us understand what we call poverty in the U.S.A. is not like poverty in Bangladesh, the Sudan, Haiti or anyplace else. In the United States, not only does almost every poor household have a TV, but two-thirds of them have cable television with full access to a vast diversity of programs. It is getting harder and harder to distinguish public TV from the rest of broadcasting because other broadcasters, a great many, carry the same type of programs today, and each year public broadcasting looks more and more like other networks. Public radio has even moved away from classical music and more toward talk radio that is common to the profit sector. Much of public TV has the same movies and old TV shows that we see on other networks, even as those other networks are adding more documentaries and more special programs. Madam Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has said, we have higher priorities than subsidizing one segment of America's broadcasters. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has made tough decisions about those priorities, and we should support his decisions.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as we heard earlier, a major reason that we have skyrocketing energy prices in the United States is because this bill has been used for a vehicle for 30 years to restrict the ability to explore in the Outer Continental Shelf. When those restrictions were first adopted, America was importing 28 percent of its oil from foreign shores. Today, that has risen to 58 percent and it continues to climb dramatically each year. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, says it is about time that we create a commonsense trigger. At such time as two-thirds of our energy consumption is coming from overseas, then we will lift the moratorium in the area that has the most promise, which in this case is the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I know the big issue to people is, is it environmentally safe to do so? I realize that is the concern and I would like to focus on that. America has not had any major spill from an offshore oil well since 1969. Why? It is not because we are not drilling offshore. We are getting 25 percent of our oil from offshore, actually 30 percent of oil and a fourth of the natural gas. But we are not allowing drilling in most of the areas. Ninety percent of the coastal areas in the lower 48 States are closed by these moratoria. To drill offshore, however, you have to obtain 17 major Federal permits. You have to obey 90 sets of Federal regulations which have been put in place during the years of these moratoria. All of those are designed to protect the environment. They have been 99.999 percent effective in keeping the environment safe. Less than one one-thousandth of 1 percent of the oil that is produced offshore has been spilled. Who else has a safety record like that, 99.999 percent? We also are able to produce it from fewer offshore platforms because we have horizontal drilling that allows multiple wells to be drilled from a single location. And of the oil spills, the very few that have happened, 97 percent are of less than one barrel of oil. We are talking about drilling at least 10 miles offshore in Federal waters. In most of these cases, we are talking about drilling 100-plus miles offshore. There is enormous potential for this. The official estimate says there is 76 billion barrels of oil and 406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. But 90 percent of these resources in the lower 48 have been placed off-limits. This is not about the oil or gas industry. This is about our national security. This is about the fact that we are spending $180 billion a year to bring in foreign oil when we ought to be producing so much more of that here and employing hundreds of thousands more people in the United States, bringing about better availability, lower prices, more jobs, and all in a way that we have proven through the offshore production that is happening, we have proven it can be done in an environmentally safe manner, it is being done in an environmentally safe manner. The amendment says it is time to say, this is not a perpetual ban. When we reach a point, which we will in a few years, that two-thirds-- two-thirds--of the oil and gas we use is coming from foreign shores, is it not about time that we find a commonsense approach to lift the bans and have environmentally clean and responsible ways to produce this energy America needs? Mr. Chairman, the recent steep rise of energy prices has convinced consumers that America needs more energy, and we need to be producing it ourselves. We don't want to rely on supplies halfway around the world, and we don't want to ship tens of billions of American dollars overseas each year to buy foreign oil. We're spending $180 billion dollars each year to buy foreign oil. If we could spend those billions right here in the USA, to produce more of the energy we use, we could add hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs. Why aren't we doing this? Unfortunately, some well-intentioned concerns for the environment have grown into ungrounded fears. Rather than balancing environmental issues with our need to produce more energy, we've let things get out of kilter. One of our biggest failures is that we've placed so much of our oil and gas reserves off limits. We've done that by including provisions in this Interior appropriations bill--provisions we've had in it now for decades--that have banned drilling in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. What's worse, we have failed to review and adjust those provisions, to recognize that things are different now than when we first adopted those restrictions. There is no longer a conflict between our ability to protect the environment and our ability to produce energy by drilling offshore. We're talking about areas at least 10 miles offshore, and usually much farther offshore, 100 miles, even 200 miles and more. Our failure to review and adjust these offshore drilling bans is now costing this country dearly. Every time you pay your utility bill or buy gasoline, remember that these prices would not be so high if Congress had simply used common-sense, years ago, to let us drill more offshore areas in an environmentally-responsible way. Instead of promoting safe ways to drill, we've totally banned that drilling in most of our offshore areas. My amendment doesn't lift the ban immediately, but creates a way for us to plan ahead. It establishes a tipping point for ending the ban in the most promising area--the eastern Gulf of Mexico, saying that the ban will end if imports rise to two-thirds of the oil we use. We're at 58% today, and going up at the rate of 1% to 2% each year. environmental safety People naturally ask, ``Is this environmentally safe?'' The answer is ``Yes.'' America has not had any major spill from an offshore oil well since 1969. Why is this? It's not because we're not drilling offshore; it's because we have succeeded in protecting the environment while we drill. Oil and gas operations in the Outer Continental Shelf are among the most tightly regulated economic activity in the world. Despite the moratoria that has closed many areas, America still produces almost one-third of its oil (30%) and almost one-fourth (23%) of its natural gas from offshore wells. There's a lot of coastal drilling, and it is safe drilling, and it would be just as safe to drill in the areas where it's being banned. To drill offshore, you must obtain 17 major federal permits and obey 90 sets of federal regulations, all designed to protect the environment. Most of those went into effect in 1975, and they have been 99.999% effective in keeping the environment safe. That's because less than \1/1,000\ of 1% of the oil produced offshore has been spilled. What other industry has a safety record like that--99.999%! We also produce more from fewer offshore platforms, thanks to horizontal drilling that allows multiple wells to be drilled from a single platform. Technological advances during the past 30 years allow us to extract more resources with less impact on the environment. And most of them are tiny--97% of the offshore spills are of less than one barrel of oil. ocs background The Outer Continental Shelf is composed of lands generally beyond the 3-mile area of state jurisdiction and 10-mile area of state jurisdiction in Florida and encompasses about 1.76 billion acres. About 25% of the oil and gas produced in the United States comes from the OCS. But there's a lot more potential than that. About 60% of America's remaining oil and 41% of our remaining gas resources are in the OCS. The official estimate is that there are 76 billion barrels of oil and 406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the OCS. But we have placed about 90% of the areas offshore the lower 48 states off-limits, banning drilling in those areas. Imagine that--as Americans pay high prices, Congress says that 90% of this huge resource is off-limits, and drilling is banned. So we pay sky-high prices because we depend on foreign oil, and we ship hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, along with tens of billions of dollars each year. Congress has restricted drilling in the OCS for over 30 years. During this time, the percentage of net imports of petroleum has risen from 28% to 58% today. foreign sources And what does it mean if we don't have those resources? Domestic energy independence isn't just about the energy industry. It's about our national security. Currently, about 58% of our net petroleum imports came from foreign sources. During the past ten years, this percentage has risen by one percentage point on average each year. So ten years ago we imported about 48% and today it's about 58%. The Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2025, dependence on petroleum imports is projected to reach 68% of net imports. economic security This not only affects our national security, it also affects our economic security. Last week, consumers were paying an average $2.18 for a gallon of motor gasoline. That's a 62 cent a gallon increase in just five years! Natural gas prices have been even more devastating for consumers. Residential prices have doubled in the past four years. Commercial and industrial prices have tripled. 90,000 jobs in the chemical industry have been lost along with $50 billion of business because of natural gas prices in the U.S. When we talk about the need for domestic energy production, or independence, it's not just about the energy industry. It's about all of us. If we want gasoline prices to stop skyrocketing we must act. If we want to stop losing manufacturing jobs, we must act. We all know that China, India, and other countries' economies are expanding and their demand for oil and natural gas worldwide will continue to grow. As the demand for oil grows globally, the United States cannot be left behind by limiting its supply. Conclusion Why aren't we pursuing this offshore oil and gas? It's because this appropriations bill has several provisions banning offshore drilling. Not just one ban, but a whole series of them. And we've been including these bans in this bill for over 30 years. This amendment would protect our national security. This amendment would only open up a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and only when the Energy Information Administration publishes data showing that more than two-third of net imports of crude oil come from foreign sources. My amendment singles out only one of these many areas where drilling has been banned, namely the eastern Gulf of Mexico. That area is selected for two simple reasons: First, it has the largest oil land gas deposits. Second, it's the farthest offshore, away from the coastline and the beaches. In all cases more than 10 miles offshore, land in most cases more than 100 miles offshore. It is not in state waters. It is in federal waters. Congress has restricted activity in the OCS for over 30 years. During this time, the percentage of net imports of petroleum has risen from 28% to 58% today. Our constituents all feel the pinch that higher energy prices bring to their budget. Let's use common sense and create a plan to end the moratorium in an environmentally sound way, as I've proposed in this amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). (Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I read the National Academy of Sciences' studies very differently. In fact, they say that two-thirds of the oil in the oceans is natural seepage and very little of it comes from the drilling that we are describing. To those who say we never want to drill in these offshore areas, they should be honest with their constituents, and they should say ``It is fine with us for you to pay the skyrocketing energy prices. It is fine with us to spend $180 billion a year to bring most of our oil across the oceans overseas and bring it to America and send American jobs and American money over there in their place.'' It is environmentally safe. We have made so many advances since people made these moratoria, and yet people do not want to look at those. It is time we take an honest look at it. We should not say that these areas are off limits forever. As the oil import problem rises, we should be looking at drilling in these offshore areas.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time. I very much appreciate his service on the bill that he has produced, and I support this bill, and I appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, and the staff on the committee. However, there is a part of this bill that the country needs to be aware about. All across America we are confronted with skyrocketing energy prices, whether at the gasoline pump or our utilities at home or the manufacturing sector or the feedstock to produce fertilizer (which, therefore, affects agriculture). What is the connection between that and this bill? This bill has language in it that perpetuates more than 30 years of misguided policy. It has provisions that continue a ban on drilling in most of the outercontinental shelf, offshore drilling that could be occurring in the United States of America. And 60 percent of America's oil reserves are in that outercontinental shelf. Forty percent of our natural gas reserves are in that outercontinental shelf. Yet, for more than 30 years this Congress, each year, has perpetuated a ban on drilling in most of those areas. What is the consequence of that? It is the high prices. The consequence is the high prices we are experiencing. The result is that each year America is spending $179 billion to buy foreign oil and bring it to the United States of America. Rounded off, it is $180 billion, that we could be using to produce energy safely, in an environmentally friendly and clean fashion here in the United States. But because of language that this Congress has put into this bill for over 30 years, we are not doing that. Right now, almost 60 percent of the oil and gas that we consume in the United States is imported. We need to fix that. We will have several amendments to address this that are offered on this bill. We will probably hear from people saying, oh, my goodness, we cannot do that; we have got to protect the environment. But we can do it by protecting the environment. The offshore drilling that does occur right now in the United States produces a fourth of the oil and gas that we have in the U.S. What is their environmental record? The amount of oil that is spilled is \1/ 1,000\ of 1 percent. That is all--because we have made so many advances in environmentally friendly methods to handle this drilling. That means we are using methods that are 99.999 percent safe and friendly to the environment. We need to revisit those provisions that limit offshore drilling, and I hope we will do that today.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. House Resolution 184 recognizes a National Week of Hope. Some people might be surprised to think that we are commemorating an incident that took 168 lives, and we are talking not in terms of the lives taken, but we are talking in terms of the hope that has been generated. It was 10 years ago yesterday that, intentionally, domestic terrorists exploded a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One hundred sixty-eight lives were lost, including 19 children. Eight hundred fifty people were injured; hundreds of buildings were damaged in addition to the destruction of the Murrah Building. Thirty children were orphaned; 219 children lost at least one parent. And yet despite all this, all this, we talk about hope because the response of Oklahoma City has shown that not only are we not deterred by acts of terrorism, but the best qualities of our community in Oklahoma City are brought to the forefront by that. We are grateful for the thousands of people who came from across America to assist in the disaster relief efforts, but we are more grateful for the thousands of Oklahomans who since that time have pitched in to remember what happened there and to use it as a foundation for making better lives. The children of those who were killed, all through private donations, have college funds guaranteed to them. We have now the national memorial built on the site of the former Murrah Building where yesterday we had services with Vice President Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, the governor and former governor of Oklahoma, myself and many others, speaking to commemorate and remember the lives lost and the lives changed forever in that building. The Murrah Building housed regional offices for a number of Federal agencies: Secret Service; Social Security; Drug Enforcement Agency; Housing and Urban Development; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Armed Services Recruiting and many others. But where once it was a symbol of the Federal Government, now it is a symbol of people who, because of tragedy, turned to their faith, turned to caring for one another, caring for the victims, caring for the survivors, caring for the rescue workers. We want to commemorate that with a National Week of Hope, to know not only will we not be deterred by terrorist acts, but also we are resolved to make it known that even among hate there is a people and a community of faith in the United States of America. That is the community of Oklahoma City, and hope can exist in the midst of violence. God endures in the world, even when bad acts are committed, and there is a way to resolve differences other than by resorting to terrorism or violence. Because of that, a museum was established that promotes hope. The Murrah National Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism has been established, and we are grateful to the entire Nation, not only for the outreach of people that came for rescue operations and have helped in the rebuilding, but for the thoughts and the prayers, and we want to remember that with the National Week of Hope.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, as is evident a great many people responded to this situation. Over 12,000 emergency workers, rescue workers and volunteer workers, were at the site within a matter of only a couple of days. They came from all over America, for which we are grateful and will always remember. I want to add some additional thanks to some people that have not been mentioned that I, as someone who shared representation of Oklahoma City with Congressman Lucas at the time, and as someone who now represents that specific building site, I want to express appreciation for those with whom we also worked. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I worked directly with former Chairman Bob Livingston, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster in making sure that we fashioned the correct Federal response. And, in fact, something in the neighborhood of $200 million flowed in to reimburse law enforcement and safety expenses, to pay the cost of rebuilding hundreds of damaged properties, to establish a permanent revolving loan fund for the redevelopment of the area, the area that surrounds the former Murrah site, to build the new Federal building and campus, which was opened just over a year ago, and of course to establish the national memorial, museum, and the antiterrorism institute in Oklahoma City. We are grateful for how the country reached out to our community and to our State, and as has been made clear by everyone who has spoken, we are most grateful of all for the wonderful nature, character and spirit of the people of Oklahoma that have taken disaster and used it as something to build upon and make a stronger America, with stronger faith and a stronger Oklahoma. Comments by Congressman Ernest Istook at April 19, 2005, 10-Year Anniversary Commemoration of Murrah Building Bombing, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Today we gather to remember and renew our strength and our bonds as Americans and as Oklahomans. Tomorrow, the U.S. House will designate this week as a National Week of Hope, to carry across the Nation the message of hope that we share today. In this resolution, we state that we join with this community in hope and prayer in a national week of hope and ask the Nation to join us in the wish that we will all learn these 3 lessons stated in the resolution: that hope can exist in the midst of political violence, that good endures in the world even among those who commit bad acts, and that there is a way to resolve our differences other than by resorting to terrorism and violence. The resolution states that the Congress congratulates the people of Oklahoma City for making tremendous progress over the past decade and for demonstrating their steadfast commitment to these three lessons. It applauds the people of Oklahoma City for standing as a beacon to the Nation, and a beacon to the world, attesting to the strength of goodness in overcoming evil. How proper it is that it says that Oklahoma City stands as a beacon. So often I heard the words of former President Ronald Reagan saying America needs to be a shining city on a hill. Those looking for a shining city need look no farther than Oklahoma City. We will adopt the resolution because America has learned from what has happened here. America has learned from our actions, not from our words, that have touched the soul of the Nation. I want to mention 2 symbols; one not far away from here sits atop the dome of the state Capitol. It is a special symbol, a statue crafted by Enoch Kelly Haney called `The Guardian,' an Indian brave with a tall spear, its end planted in the earth. That statue is a way of saying `Here we stand. We shall not be moved.' That thought says a lot about the spirit of Oklahoma, and the spirit of Oklahoma City, and our refusal to be deterred by the obscenity of terrorism. But being steadfast and immobile, we recognize here is only a virtue if we are already in the right place and doing the right thing. If we send a message that we will not be moved, then we must make sure we are standing firm for what is good and for what is virtuous. Fortunately, this is a place that aspires to stand for the good, and we have fertile soil for virtue. Oklahomans know that it is not enough to inherit great blessings; blessings have to be shared. We have to make this a better community and a better land than we found it, better for our children, better for our grandchildren. And the key is to this found in the other symbol the enduring emblem of this memorial, an American elm know as the survivor tree. The survivor tree was damaged. It was scarred. It was denuded. Almost, but not quite, it was killed. Why did the survivor tree withstand the blast and the shock? The answer is quite simple, as President Clinton mentioned, it is the roots; the roots preserved it. Despite all that it suffered, its roots were deep, and they preserved it. And that is why this city endures and prospers, despite the blast, the deaths, the injuries. Here we stand, and the reason we shall not be moved is because our roots go deep, and they are planted in the proper soil. And that is the soil of faith the eye that sees the foliage gradually return concealing some of the scars as we see in the lives of so many survivors. Those scars and the progress may be visible but what is not visible is the roots. The roots were not created by any public official, not any organization of survivors, not by the many who so willingly came here to give aid. The roots of the survivor tree were made by God, and this city's roots are planted deeply in the faith in God. It is God who has inspired the enduring faith that has mended hearts, sparked outpourings of generosity, and provided sheltering arms for people to shed their tears in that embrace. As one person expressed it to me, `our faith is greater than their sin.' So often, we invoke the words, `God bless America.' We need to remember, God has already blessed America. God has already blessed Oklahoma. God has already blessed Oklahoma City. Instead of only asking for God's blessings, maybe we need to spend more time with us blessing God, and praising him for our lives and our land, and praising him for the faith that sustains the city. Without God, this city, this state, and this Nation have no roots. With Him, our roots are solid and they nourish us. We have many great symbols here in the city and in the memorial, but it is God who has provided the greatest symbol of all-- the Survivor Tree. We could never do that, for only God can make a tree. Thank you for being the people of faith, and may America bless God.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 94 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the assistance of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the actions of the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 1134. My home State of Oklahoma in the last 15 years has received some $60 million in mitigation grants to help people avoid potential injury from tornadoes through the construction of storm shelters and safe rooms. It is important that they not be told now that those are subject to taxation, when they are being told or had been told throughout this time that, no, this is not taxable, this is to protect you, because, after all, we know that although you can move out of the flood plain, you can move away from the coast, you can stay clear of an earthquake fault line but tornadoes hit everywhere and they have wind speeds of up to, in fact, in some cases over 300 miles an hour, twice as much as the wind speed you have in a hurricane. They occur in Oklahoma, but they also occur in Massachusetts. They occur in Wisconsin and Illinois and Missouri and Alabama and Ohio and Texas. You cannot mitigate in advance by moving someplace where you know that it cannot happen. It is important that we not improperly subject people now from the construction of these shelters to taxation on them. Thousands of them have been constructed in Oklahoma and I do not want them to be subjected to taxation. It is important that we understand that although this bill says, from henceforth these are not going to be taxable, it is my understanding that the Treasury Department says that this change in the tax law will give them the authority to go back and declare the prior grants not to be taxable, also. We are expecting that letter from the Treasury Department after the passage of this bill, and I look forward to that. I thank the gentleman from Florida for this legislation and I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in passing H.R. 1134.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. The mistake it corrects was actually caught before the appropriations bill left the House, and a commitment to correct it was made before the House ever voted on that bill. It wasn't necessary for House Members to return to Washington for this vote; the mistake could have and would have been corrected almost 2 weeks ago under a unanimous consent request. That would have been simpler and better, and would have involved less political posturing than we've heard. I'm satisfied it was an honest error, although a significant one. Those who claim this is part of some sinister plot to snoop into tax returns are just wrong; they're pushing one of those ``black helicopter'' conspiracy theories. Of course, we never should have had this problem. We can and should take these three steps to avoid any recurrence: (1) Get the other body to help us to move the spending bills on- schedule, so we can avoid the big omnibus bills that generate problems. (2) Avoid the late-session rush to get out-of-town, which also pushes decision-making into the wee hours when people are weary, and more prone to make mistakes. (3) We should always be able to trace clearly the authorship of every provision in every bill. Every committee should enforce a requirement that no congressional staffer should take it on themselves to insert any language--even supposedly minor language--that has not been cleared by the appropriate members of the House. Certainly that violates the standing orders that I have always given to staff; I've always directed that each and every provision must be brought to my personal attention. Things like this should not be blamed on one person. Multiple congressional staff, in both parties and both houses of Congress, had the opportunity to catch this and to fix it. But when haste and weariness set in, the error wasn't caught until after the bill had been filed with the House clerk. Yes, this was a sad and embarrassing event. But the problem was caught and it's being fixed before that provision could ever become law. What would be sadder and more embarrassing is if we failed to learn lessons, to make sure that something like this never happens again.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Oklahoman who has served this country and his fellowman for over 40 years. It is not often that we are privileged to honor someone who is considered a Living Treasure, but today we indeed are able to do so. Dr. Edward N. Brandt, Jr., received the Oklahoma Health Center ``Living Treasures Award'' in 2002, a distinction reserved for ``Individuals Who Embody the Light of Compassion, Caring and Creativity in our Community, Schools or Work Places.'' Dr. Brandt is indeed a Living Treasure who has served his community, his state, and his country with tireless dedication, true compassion, remarkable self-effacement, and persistent good humor for over four decades. We are delighted to join with his colleagues, family and friends who are honoring him with a day of activities in his honor on Friday, November 12, 2004, jointly sponsored by the College of Public Health and the College of Medicine of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He is also being honored by the establishment of The Edward N. Brandt, Jr., Student Endowment that will sustain activities Dr. Brandt has carried out for students over the years. Dr. Brandt began his affiliation with the University of Oklahoma over 50 years ago as an undergraduate. He earned three degrees from the University of Oklahoma, starting in 1954 with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Mathematics from the Norman Campus, and followed in 1960 with a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) and in 1963 with a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Biostatistics from The University of Oklahoma Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He also managed to spend time in Stillwater and earn a Master of Science (M.S.) in Mathematics from the Oklahoma State University in 1955. Dr. Brandt joined the faculty of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center in 1961, beginning as an Instructor and rising to Professor in the School of Medicine and School of Health. He also began his long and distinguished career in medical administration, serving as Associate Dean of the School of Medicine and as Associate Director of the Medical Center from 1968 to 1969. Dr. Brandt then left Oklahoma to become a leader in academic medicine and a major figure in health policy in the United States. He spent 11 years in Texas, beginning at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, where he was Professor in the School of Medicine and Graduate School and Dean of the Graduate School from 1970 to 1974, Dean of Medicine from 1973 to 1976, and Executive Dean from 1976 to 1977. He then took over responsibility for the University of Texas System, based in Austin as Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs from 1977 until 1981. In 1981, Dr. Brandt answered the call of his country and of President Ronald Reagan, and went to Washington to become the senior health official in the Department of Health and Human Services, serving as Assistant Secretary for Health until 1984. In that role he was responsible for overseeing the development of many critical health policies, including the emerging problems associated with AIDS. He worked closely with Secretary Richard S. Schweiker and Secretary Margaret Heckler and with the Congress on these and other health and healthcare issues. Dr. Brandt was also the U.S. Representative to the Executive Board of the World Health Organization from 1982 until 1984. Dr. Brandt left his leadership position in the federal government to become President of The University of Maryland at Baltimore and Professor in the School of Medicine, where he served from 1985 until 1989. Returning home to Oklahoma in 1989, Dr. Brandt has served the Health Sciences Center as a distinguished and well-loved member of the faculty. He was Executive Dean of the University of Oklahoma Medical College from 1989 until 1992. In 1992 he was appointed Professor of Health Administration and Policy in the College of Public Health, and since 1996 has been honored as Regents Professor. He has been the Director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Development since 1992 and was Chair of the Department of Health Administration and Policy in the College of Public Health from 2000 until 2002. Dr. Brandt has remained a central figure in health policy in this country. He has been an active member and often the Chair of some 160 major health committees, task forces, and boards, including at least 88 national, 44 state, and 30 local ones. These include positions such as Member of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine from 1985 to 1989, Chairman (1987-89) and Member of the Governing Council of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (1986- 91), and Vice-Chairman (1987-91) and Chairman of the Medical Schools Section of the American Medical Association (1979-81). He has been a leader in the state of Oklahoma with the Oklahoma State Medical Association, serving as a Member of the House of Delegates since 1992 and Chair of the Council on State Legislation and Regulation. He has been a long-time Chair of the Oklahoma State Trauma System Advisory Board. Dr. Brandt has received some 82 substantial awards during his career. They include the Outstanding Alumni Service Award for ``Outstanding Contribution in Academic Medicine,'' from the Alumni Association of the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in 1997, the first such award ever given. In 1981 he was elected to membership in the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and was also named ``Territorial Marshal'' by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma. In 1984 he received the Distinguished Leadership Award, Department of Health and Human Services, and in 1987, the Distinguished Public Service Award, U.S. Department of Defense, both of which were the highest awards made by those Departments. In 1989 the National AIDS Fund established the Edward N. Brandt, Jr. Award in his honor. In 1994 he was elected as Fellow for ``Leadership in Academic Medicine and Public Health, and for Outstanding Service in the Federal Government'' by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He received the 1997 Leadership Award for ``Extraordinary Service and Leadership in Injury Prevention'' from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the Joan K. Leavitt Outstanding Achievement Award from the Oklahoma Hospital Association. He was recognized by the National Institutes of Health Office of Research in Women's Health with the ``Visionary in Women's Health Award'' in 2000 and by the University of Oklahoma with the ``Golden Scalpel'' Award for Contributions to Trauma Care in 2001, and was selected to be a ``National Associate'' of the National Academy of Sciences also in 2001. This year he was elected as Fellow for ``Leadership in Academic Medicine and Public Health, and for Outstanding Service in the Federal Government'' by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is to be honored as a Distinguished Alumnus of the College of Arts & Sciences of the University of Oklahoma in 2005. In addition to his many professional accomplishments, Dr. Brandt and his wife of 51 years, Patricia Lawson Brandt, raised three sons, Patrick James, Edward III, and Rex Carlin Brandt. They have four grandchildren, Rex Carlin Brandt, Jr., Jeremy Scott Brandt, Justin Schwartz and Karina Schwartz. This Fall, Dr. Brandt will ``retire.'' In fact, he has become Regents Professor Emeritus and continues to teach, advise students and otherwise remain active in many activities of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. I am pleased to join with the citizens of the great state of Oklahoma and of this nation in thanking and recognizing Dr. Edward N. Brandt, Jr., for his long service and many contributions to our society. We are proud to have a gentleman, scholar, and citizen of his caliber in our midst.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, in favor of limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, in favor of the overwhelming opinion of the American people, and against the unelected judges that want to reshape our country, even if they destroy democracy in the process. Families and children deserve the protection of the Marriage Protection Amendment; the best home for kids is one with a mom and a dad. Single parents work valiantly to raise their children, but it is a struggle whenever a child does not have both a mom and a dad at home. Our laws should recognize and promote stability in our homes. But when judges usurp the work of legislators, when they twist State and Federal constitutions, as they have on this issue, then they are attacking more than marriage. They are attacking the principles of democracy and undermining our republican form of government. They are attacking the people's ability to govern ourselves. No wonder it is hard to raise children to respect and obey the law when our judges do not. Those who do not respect the law should never be appointed as judges, and judges who do not respect the law should be impeached. But today, we have the opportunity to stand up, both for marriage and for the people's right to govern themselves. It is sad that a constitutional amendment is necessary; but without it, we will be under endless assault by those who want to destroy traditional marriage even if they destroy the rule of law in the process. Even if you do not respect the institution of marriage, I hope the Members of this body will respect the principle of government of the people, for the people, and by the people. This amendment preserves what has always been the law of this land, and it preserves the principle of government by elected representatives, not by unelected activist judges. I urge every Member to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from voting on the Conference Report on H.R. 1308, the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003. This bill represents important tax savings to our hard working American citizens. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this bill.

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.