Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the same as the gentleman's, that indeed the last vote on this bill tomorrow will be at noon and that we will complete consideration of this bill this following Tuesday.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, the committee report on the Labor-HHS bill includes language that encourages the National Institutes of Health to adopt a policy that would make available to the public without charge the scientific journal articles that report the results of research that has been supported with NIH funding. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been very concerned for a number of years that the public is not always able to access the results of that research, federally funded research, unless they had a university library nearby or could pay often very large subscription fees of the journals, costs that are beyond most families' budgets. The NIH, in response to language in the bill, has acted quickly to respond to our guidance. It posted the draft policy last Friday, September 3. Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, took care to seek comment from the various stakeholders involved in the issue, seeking comment from publishers, for-profit and nonprofit groups, from scientists, and from advocates for curing different diseases; and he has held three public meetings. Dr. Zerhouni heard some powerful stories from patients and family members who were struggling to learn as much as they could about treatment for serious diseases that affect them and their loved ones and had previously been unable to access some of the key information that could help them. Dr. Zerhouni has produced a draft proposal from NIH that carefully balances the interests of these groups; and, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it moves NIH in the direction of making more research available to the people who financed it, namely, the American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I see the action by the NIH to date as being consistent with the language in our bill, and I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, like millions of Americans, I want to pay tribute to President Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States. I have shed many tears this week, because I loved Ronald Reagan, and I know how much he loved this country and the American people. President Reagan inherited a country disillusioned and with serious economic problems, yet when he left office eight years later, it was truly ``Morning in America.'' This was more than an economic boom. President Reagan restored pride and dignity to the United States and to the office of the presidency. He advocated personal responsibility and limited government--government that gives a hand up, not a hand out. He deserves more credit than anyone else for the collapse of communism and the fall of the Iron Curtain, bringing freedom to many millions of people. He spoke proudly and freely of morals and principles, of right and wrong, of good and evil. He believed in the goodness of the American people, and he helped us believe in ourselves. Recently, my wife and I made a special trip to visit the Reagan ranch near Santa Barbara, California. The humble and simple nature of his beloved ranch home reflects the genuine basic values that he cherished and lived by. America is a better place because of Ronald Wilson Reagan, who greatly loved our country and who championed our ideals.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4193 that we are considering today, while making some simple changes to the tax code, would provide considerable positive impact to our low-income and distressed areas for years to come. I strongly support this measure, which would inject much-needed wealth into low-income and poverty-stricken areas through the creation of jobs and opportunities, where few now exist. I am grateful to the Majority Leader, to the Ways and Means Committee, to its Chairman (Mr. Thomas) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for bringing H.R. 4193 to the House floor today. Scheduling conflicts prevented them from bringing it to the floor during the last 3 weeks as was originally planned, so it's important to act today. Avoiding delay is the reason for acting today even though I must be absent, due to my long-standing commitment to deliver the commencement address to the graduating class of Oklahoma State University in Oklahoma City. But I am confident H.R. 4193 will be approved without any need for my presence, and thanks to the help from these other Members. I want to draw your attention to section 2 of the bill, which provides a much-needed correction to the tax code for dealing with what's called the New Markets Tax Credit. This credit is designed to encourage taxpayers to invest in economically-distressed communities that have been designated as Empowerment Zones. Unfortunately, the tax code as it currently stands actually precludes some of the worst hit areas from taking advantage of the New Markets Tax Credit, which we have the chance today to begin to rectify. Empowerment Zones were created to rebuild communities in America's poverty-stricken areas through incentives that would entice businesses back to areas that experience high unemployment and shortages of affordable housing. In the words of HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, ``This critical partnership between the public and private sectors will give local businesses in distressed neighborhoods an economic boost to help drive revitalization, provide jobs and ultimately build a foundation for stronger communities.'' Currently, there are 30 areas designated as Empowerment Zones, whose status provides the community with a framework of tax incentives and bond financing that offers a significant inducement for companies to locate in designated distressed areas and to hire additional workers. The New Markets Tax Credit permits taxpayers to receive a credit against their Federal income taxes for making qualified investments in designated Empowerment Zones, which totals 39 percent of the cost of the investment over a 7-year period. Unfortunately, the current tax code contains a ``Catch-22'' regarding Empowerment Zones and the New Markets Tax Credit. The credit is administered according to the poverty level of each census tract in an Empowerment Zone. To be eligible for the credit, a census tract must have a 20 percent or greater poverty level assigned to it by the Census Bureau. The ``Catch-22'' is that if a census tract has no assigned poverty level then it is not eligible for the credit. Such a case exists in two census tracts of the Oklahoma City Empowerment Zone because they either have no population or an extremely low population. These are census tracts 1027 and 1031.02, which contain large amounts of space with no residences, even though they are in an urban setting (which is not unusual for a city in America's west). Although the rest of the Oklahoma City Empowerment Zone is New Markets Tax Credit eligible, the federal statute precludes these two census tracts from eligibility as they must have a 20 percent or greater poverty rate. That is an obvious impossibility when there is no population or such an extremely low population that the Census Bureau will not assign a poverty rate. Yet these two tracts face the same compelling economic needs as the rest of the Zone. These two census tracts are in essence donut holes within the Empowerment Zone. They are surrounded by other census tracts that do qualify for the New Markets Tax Credit. Omitting them from that program makes no sense; it is a bureaucratic accident that would defeat the program's purpose. But like a donut, they have none of the tasty dough that makes a donut appealing. I have worked with the Department of Treasury to try to overcome this obstacle to New Markets Tax Credit eligibility, but existing Federal statute does not grant the Treasury Department the discretionary authority they need to correct the injustice. Therefore, a legislative fix is required. Section 2 corrects this problem by amending the tax code so that census tracts with a population of less than 2,000 are eligible for the NMTC. The 20 percent poverty criteria requirement is waived if the census tract is located in an Empowerment Zone and is contiguous to at least one other low-income community. Downtown areas often serve as commercial, industrial, and office centers, which consequently have a limited residential population. Ironically, the lack of housing precludes these areas from tax incentives that would help inject affordable housing and energize their economies with activity for the very people these programs are trying to serve. The Oklahoma City Health Sciences Center area serves as one such example. This medical complex is adjacent to downtown Oklahoma City. It includes the Presbyterian Foundation and Research Park, the University of Oklahoma Health Center, and the Oklahoma Blood Institute among other health care providers. These, along with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation and the Children's Medical Research institute, are part of a rapidly-developing area of bio-medical research and treatment facilities that is removing blight and serving a wide ranging constituency. But because the census tract that it is located in, as of the 2000 census, had only 72 residents, it was excluded from this program. The Census Bureau will not publish poverty and income information for a census tract such as this, whose source population is so easily identifiable, thus the Health Sciences Center area has no assigned poverty rate and is not New Markets Tax Credit eligible. Enacting H.R. 4193 will encourage development of much-needed affordable housing in this area, and provide job opportunities that will benefit people of all income and skill levels anchored through the growing bio-medical industry. Another example of a blighted project that would quickly benefit from passage of H.R. 4193 is the Skirvin Plaza Hotel, located in Oklahoma City's inner city. This beautiful 1910 building, which is an important example of early art deco design has been closed since 1988 and is awaiting a developer. Because its census tract has zero population, the hotel is not New Markets Tax Credit eligible. Although its revitalization would greatly contribute to the quality of life in downtown Oklahoma City through the jobs and economic activity that its reopening would bring. The simple fact that affordable housing does not exist in this census tract denies an estimated $9 million in equity that could otherwise be raised for restoring and reopening this now empty, abandoned hotel. I have been advised that Oklahoma City is not alone in this situation. Chicago, Detroit, East St. Louis, and New York are also empowerment zone cities each containing census tracts with no population, for a total of 14 zero population tracts. I have to wonder how many other census tracts in empowerment zones also have extremely low populations. I cannot speak to the specifics of each city's case, but I know that Oklahoma City is not alone in its situation. Although this legislation has particular importance to Oklahoma City, I believe that many federally-designated Empowerment Zones will benefit from its passage. I strongly encourage all members to vote yes for H.R. 4193.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the TEA-LU highway authorization bill today, which will significantly reduce Oklahoma and many other states' share of highway funds over the next 6 years. For years, I've been fighting to reverse Oklahoma's donor state status. Instead of helping, this bill will cause Oklahoma to slide backwards, becoming more of a donor state than we already are. Under the formula adopted by TEA-LU, Oklahoma will receive $2.8 billion over the next 6 years--which is about $250 million less than it would have under the formula provided in the TEA-21 6-year authorization that it replaces. People should not be confused by talk that this bill ``preserves'' any state at a 90.5 percent funding guarantee. It applies that guarantee against a significantly-lowered base number, which has now been set at 90.5 percent of 84 percent, rather than 90.5 percent of 93 percent of highway funding provided in TEA-21. The House of Representatives had a chance today to ensure fairness for all states in this bill when my good friend Johnny Isakson of Georgia introduced his amendment that would restore the base number to the 93 percent level. I strongly supported that amendment and encouraged others, especially in the Oklahoma delegation, to do so as well. Unfortunately, it was not the will of the House to support Mr. Isakson's amendment and provide the funding fairness that mine, and other states, deserve. Consequently, I cannot support a bill that takes one step forward and two steps back. I worked to make sure the bill funds important projects for my district, like $34 million for the Oklahoma City Crosstown Expressway. But I also worked toward fair treatment for all of Oklahoma. In the long run this bill hurts Oklahoma more than it helps us by changing the formula and costing Oklahoma hundreds of millions over the next 6 years.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I include in the Record a copy of the letter from the Executive Office of the President of the Office of Management and Budget in opposition to this resolution. We hear people say, well, we have Federal civil service workers that go in harm's way. The vast majority do not. But for those who do, what we have to do is avoid this across-the-board increase that consumes $2.2 billion so that we can target the extra assistance where it is needed. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, March 30, 2004. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House of Representatives begins consideration of a resolution on Federal pay policy, I strongly urge the House to support the Federal employee pay policy reflected in the President's FY 2005 Budget. The Administration believes this approach, rather than the one reflected in the proposed resolution, is the most effective way to achieve the desired result: to recruit, retain, and reward quality employees. The President's Budget proposes to increase compensation for civilian employees by 2 percent, or by over $2 billion, targeted to address specific needs and opportunities. The proposal includes: a 1.5 percent across-the-board pay increase to maintain civilian employee buying power; $200 million spread across the agency budgets for use in addressing specific recruitment and retention needs; and, $300 million for the Human Capital Performance Fund, which agencies can use to reward their highest performing employees. The resolution under consideration would instead support the same across-the-board increases for civilian workers that the President has proposed for military personnel. The Administration strongly supports the proposed resolution's goal of providing sufficient compensation for civilian and military employees to support our critical efforts to recruit, retain, and reward quality employees effectively and responsibly. The Administration, however, does not believe that providing the same across-the-board increases for civilian workers that the President proposes for military personnel will help us achieve this goal. If added to the President's proposal for $2 billion in pay increases for civilian employees, the additional cost of providing every civilian employee with the identical across- the-board raise proposed for the military would be about $2.2 billion. Because Congress cannot provide this funding without exceeding budget limits or shifting money away from higher priorities, this increase essentially acts as an ``unfunded mandate'' that agencies must cover within existing funds. Federal civilian employees have enjoyed cumulative annual pay increases of 45.1 percent since 1993. For the last five years, Federal employees have received raises that exceed overall private sector wage growth. State governments, by contrast, have provided smaller increases for their employees when faced with similar resource constraints. In the past four years, many States have frozen pay completely at various points in time, and we are not aware of any State that in 2004 gave its workers as large an across-the-board raise as is being proposed for Federal workers this year. In addition, Federal employees receive other types of pay increases. In 2005, we estimate the value of within grade and quality step increases as 1.3 percent, the value of promotions as 1.2 percent, and the value of cash awards as 1.3 percent of civilian payroll. While not everyone will receive these increases, with the 3.5 percent across-the- board pay increase that the proposed resolution supports, overall Federal employee compensation in 2005 would increase by about $5 billion. Federal employee benefits are also increasingly more attractive relative to those available in the private sector. These include a defined benefit annuity and lifetime health benefits for as little as five years of service, as well as transit subsidies, long-term care insurance, preferential tax treatment of health insurance premiums, and flexible spending accounts for dependent and healthcare expenses. The Federal civilian benefits package increasingly stands out as one of the most comprehensive available anywhere. Both civilian and military employees perform crucial functions on behalf of the American public. The Administration believes, however, that giving every civilian employee the identical raise proposed for the military does not support the goal of providing compensation to effectively and responsibly recruit, retain, and reward quality employees. Advocates for providing identical pay raises to civilian and military employees cite recruitment and retention problems, but we have no evidence that the Federal Government has widespread recruitment and retention problems. With respect to retention, the voluntary attrition rate is at a near historic low of 1.6 percent. Only in relatively few occupations are recruitment and retention problems an issue, and President's pay policy gives agencies the tools and resources to address these concerns. The President's pay proposal provides sufficient pay not only to recruit and retain needed workers, but also to reward the government's highest performing employees. The Administration is implementing better agency performance appraisal systems that will be able to distinguish superior performance. Such systems will enable agencies to reward employees with funds from the Human Capital Performance Fund. These incentives will produce improved performance and results for the American people. Our civilian and military employees are vital to the success of the Federal government in meeting its commitments to the American people. Federal workers should be rewarded with a pay policy that most effectively recruits, retains, and rewards quality employees. The Administration believes the pay policy included in the FY 2005 Budget supports those goals. While we recognize that the proposed Sense of the House resolution has no binding effect on either the budget or appropriations processes, we urge Members to oppose the resolution. Sincerely, Joshua B. Bolten, Director. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we had some interesting discussion about, well, why have we not gone to this system of saying let us reward people based upon their performance. Let us target, let us target funds, as the President wants to do. And the gentleman asked, well, why was it not done in the appropriations bill last year? That program has not been created. There is no program to fund. We could not put it in the subcommittee mark. The gentleman from Virginia chairs the committee that has the ability to bring the legislation to the floor, to promote what the President wants to do. Let us not undercut. If the gentleman agrees it is a good idea, I agree it is a good idea, if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.Tom Davis) agrees it is a good idea, and certainly the White House promotes it, then instead of doing this one-size-fits-all across the board, why do we not support the President's proposal and bring that Human Capital Performance Fund, that is what he calls it, why do we not bring that legislation to the floor? But, for goodness sakes, do not pass this resolution soaking up the resources that would have to go to pay for performance. The ball is in the court of the committee of the gentleman from Virginia. I know he is sympathetic toward the President's approach, but I am sure he would not want to adopt a resolution that defeats his ability to move the Federal Government to be more responsible, to say, we know that not all employees perform equally, not all are placing themselves in the same level of risk as others are, and we ought to be able to make distinctions. Do the cost-of-living adjustment, the 1.5 percent that is proposed, that is already in the budget, but do not pass this resolution to take away the ability of pay for performance. Do not say that just because we have retention problems in the military and they are so poorly underfunded that, therefore, we have to do the same for the Federal civil service. The Federal civil service, in the last 7 years, for every dollar increase in the cost of living, has already gotten $1.66 in increases, faster than anybody else. It is time to have a year where we say, let us hold back. Let us only do the cost of living adjustments, but, at the same time, put the pay for performance in place. We do not need this. The turnover rate for Federal employees is at virtually an all-time low. There are spots where we need to be able to keep people with specific skill sets, and the President's proposal would let us address those. But we do not do it by giving a pay raise to the people that we do not have a problem retaining and then not be able to retain the people that do have the special skills. Do not pass this resolution. Do not try to handcuff us and prevent us from reforming the Federal civil service process. We are being more than fair with the 1.5 percent. We do not need to go overboard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Certainly everybody always wants to be better paid. I do not know anybody that is an exception to that particular rule. So there is always tension between what people would like to be paid and what an employer can afford to be able to pay. The employer in this case is the taxpayers of the United States of America. This is not necessary to give what this resolution proposes, that would be supersized raises, jumbo COLAs, to the Federal workforce. We have been very generous with the Federal workforce. In the last 7 years, for every $1 increase in the cost of living index, or for that matter in the cost of living adjustments to Social Security, for every $1 that the cost of living has gone up, Federal workers have gotten a raise of $1.66. They have gotten raises two-thirds higher than the actual inflation rate. In fact, in the past 4 years, Federal workers have gotten raises at twice the rate of inflation. The President's budget proposes that the across-the-board raise for the Federal civil service should be 1.5 percent, consistent with the actual cost-of-living adjustment. This resolution, however, says that they should get 3.5 percent. Why? Well, they say it is because we are going to give the military a larger raise and therefore we have to give the Federal civil service a larger raise, too. I do not think that is accurate. People that work at civil service jobs are not taking the same risks on behalf of their country as people that are working in our Armed Forces. We do not have the retention problems in the civil service sector as we do in the Armed Forces. There is a letter that has been submitted by the administration, by the Office of Management and Budget, opposing this resolution and points out that we are almost at a record low on the turnover in the Federal civil service. About 1.5 percent a year, that is the whole turnover of people in Federal civil service jobs. This is not a matter of retaining people. This is a matter of giving extra raises to people that, frankly, the taxpayers do not have the money to afford. This would cost us $2.2 billion this year and a similar amount next year and the year after and in perpetuity to give these extra large raises rather than holding the line as we should. For State workers, the average pay raises in the last 4 years have been only about a third of what the pay raises have been for the Federal workers. The private sector is significantly behind what we have already done for Federal workers. This is not the time when we have record deficits to be giving more than a cost-of-living adjustment to the Federal civil service. Mr. Speaker, we have been overly generous. It is not needed to retain people; and, frankly, the taxpayers are the ones that are being asked to foot this multi-billion dollars of expenses. This is the taxpayers' money. We are being fair. We should stay that way. The supposed pay gap, people say Federal workers are 32 percent underpaid. Actually, that particular survey does not calculate all the factors. It does not calculate the locality pay that boosts Federal civil service workers, which cuts that gap in half; and it does not cover the benefits they receive under which that gap evaporates. We are being fair, and we should oppose this resolution on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, were we to adopt this policy of across-the-board raises, we would prevent the ability to prioritize for those people who actually put their lives at risk and put themselves in harm's way. I have worked in local government, I have worked in State government, I have worked in the Federal Government. Typically we make a distinction between people, whether they are police, whether they are fire, whether they are law enforcement, whether they are in the military. We make a distinction between those who put themselves in harm's way when we consider what we need to do in employment. But if all the resources are consumed on saying, no, we have got to give everybody an across-the-board increase, then we cannot target our efforts towards those people who do put themselves in harm's way. That is what the President's proposal seeks to do, have an adequate across- the-board cost-of-living increase, so that you therefore retain the resources to target the additional assistance where it is most justified. This resolution wipes out that approach. This resolution says, no, somebody that works at a desk, and maybe doing a very important job at that desk, has to be given the same increase as someone who puts their life in harm's way. That is a wrong approach. The people that we have a challenge retaining are those who do put their lives in harm's way. But across-the-board, they virtually never had as little a retention problem as they do now in the Federal Government. A 1.6 percent attrition rate. That is it. This is not a matter of keeping the Federal employees in general. This is a matter of conserving the resources so that we can target them, as the President's budget proposal wants to do, to where it is most needed. I wanted to cite from the letter that the White House sent over: ``If added to the President's proposal for $2 billion in pay increases for civilian employees, the additional cost of providing every civilian employee with the identical across-the-board raise proposed for the military would be about $2.2 billion dollars. Because Congress cannot provide this funding without exceeding budget limits or shifting money away from higher priorities, this increase essentially acts as an unfunded mandate.'' The letter goes on to state: ``The President's proposal is for targeting resources to where it is most needed, rather than taking this across-the-board approach that prevents us from making sure that we retain the people who have the specialties that are in highest demand and for whom we must compete with the private sector.'' This is a sop to people who wanted to treat everyone the same because perhaps they are part of the same employee organization. That is not what we need to do. We go to great measures to protect Federal employees. As the Representative of most of Oklahoma City, come out and see the new Federal building that is being dedicated in about a month's time and look at the extraordinary security measures that we have put into place to protect our Federal civilian workforce, because we know their value, we know their importance. But that does not mean that we treat everyone as though they were putting their lives in harm's way and, therefore, undercut what we do to keep the good people that do put their lives in harm's way on behalf of the citizens of this country. We do not have the extra $2 billion for the across-the-board increase this resolution seeks to do. We have got enough problems with the deficit already. I ask people to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that we did not have the money to fund it because the very across-the-board language that you propose today had already been put in and soaked up the money?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that people should vote for this resolution based upon someone's claim that, well, it really does not do anything, because the language, the very last phrase, makes it clear that it calls for the compensation for the civilian employees of the United States to be adjusted at the same time and in the same proportion as the rates of compensation for members of the Armed Forces. If the Armed Forces, as is proposed and as we know is going to happen, get 3.5 percent, then the Federal civil service would have to get 3.5 percent as well, rather than the 1.5 percent that is proposed. Again, this has been looked at by the Office of Management and Budget, and I quote once more from their record about what this would cost. They say, ``It would be about $2.2 billion, and because Congress cannot provide this funding without exceeding budget limits or shifting money away from higher priorities, this increase essentially acts as an unfunded mandate that agencies must cover.'' We are talking about a vote to spend an extra $2.2 billion. That is what we are here about this morning. We are here because some people in the House insist that that ought to be the case, and they want to use this vote to leverage the appropriations process and everything else. But the taxpayers are looking over our shoulders. They know that the Federal workers have gotten twice the cost of living over the last 4 years, and they have not. Federal workers have had their pay improved far beyond what has happened in the private sector. It is not out of line to say, let us just hold it down to inflation this year, but let us make sure that we hold back the resources to target, to target pay where we most need it for recruitment or for people who are putting their lives at risk. That is what we ought to be doing. We should not be voting for this resolution. I ask my fellow Members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in opposing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I rise in support in particular of the section on transportation, treasury, and independent agencies, which is included as division F of this bill. This is the first time that this body packaged together this particular grouping of agencies, including transportation, the Treasury Department, the executive office of the President, and independent agencies, such as the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. I am pleased to say that with the help of my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and with good staff and with the good cooperation of the Senate, we have met the challenges of that particular grouping. This is a good effort, Mr. Speaker. This portion of the conference report contains $89.8 billion. That is just 3.7 percent above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003. Nondefense discretionary spending is below the President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003 level. However, we are able to establish important priorities. In particular, Federal aid to highways will receive a $2 billion increase. Even within the overall constraints, a $2 billion increase for highways, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. That addresses the most critical transportation needs in the entire country. It also provides much-needed jobs and will assist in relieving congestion in the overburdened highway system. In addition, it provides significantly more money for the IRS tax law enforcement programs. The return to Treasury on the investment in law enforcement is enormous; and we have given it, appropriately, a top priority. Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue operations but not enough for frills. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important for transportation in the country, whether we are talking about road, rail, mass transit, or any other system. I appreciate the effort to work together cooperatively with both sides of the aisle on that, and I ask that this bill be approved. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, which is included as division F of this bill. This is the first time this body has had to package together the funding priorities of the Transportation Department, the Treasury Department, the Executive Office of the President, and independent agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration. Dealing with fundamental financial and personnel policy issues while trying to provide for the Nation's infrastructure has proven to be a formidable challenge. But I am proud to say that, with the help of my hard-working colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, and with the good cooperation of the Senate, we have met that challenge. This is a good Transportation and Treasury bill, Mr. Speaker. Within very tight fiscal constraints, it strikes a good balance between the programs of those departments. It provides for critical, core programs but trims back new initiatives. That portion of this conference report contains $89.8 billion in budgetary resources. That is just 3.7 percent above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003. Non-defense discretionary spending is below the President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003 level. However, this part of the bill does establish priorities. In particular, the federal-aid highways program will receive a $2 billion increase, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. This addresses the most crucial transportation issue in America. This will provide much- needed jobs around the country, and assist in providing congestion relief on our overburdened highway system. In addition, the bill provides almost $350 million--9 percent--more for IRS's tax law enforcement program in the coming year. Given the budget problems facing the Nation, every additional tax dollar the IRS collects is critical. The return to the Treasury on this investment is enormous, so we have given it a top priority. Let me make special note of one of our most critical grant programs, the election reform grants authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002. These grants go out to all States, to help them meet Federal deadlines for upgrading voting machines. Given their budget situation, many States will have a difficult if not impossible time meeting the deadline without Federal help. This bill provides $1.5 billion for those grants, which is $1 billion above the House-passed level. The funding in this bill will bring total assistance for election reform to $3 billion. Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue their operations throughout the year, but they won't have enough for frills. The IRS's operating budget would rise by 3 percent. The FAA's by 7 percent. The Executive Office of the President receives an increases of only 1 percent. The essential air service program receives $102 million, which will sustain their current operations. The Airport Improvement Program is at $3.4 billion, which is also the FY 03 level. Amtrak, which requested $1.8 billion, will receive $1.225 billion, essentially the same amount as in the current year. The bill has a number of important oversight initiatives that I'd like to highlight as well. For Amtrak, the bill continues the strong oversight provisions first included in last year's appropriations bill. In addition, we have added a new provision authorizing the Surface Transportation Board to continue commuter rail service if Amtrak ceases operations, and providing $60 million to the Secretary for these purposes. In FAA, the bill provides additional resources for contract audits of major procurements and fences the funds only for that purpose. According to the IG, FAA has been negligent in performing these valuable audits. With major new acquisitions facing the agency, the bill requires FAA to do a better job at reviewing contractor proposals and bid prices and gives them money for that purpose. In the Federal Transit Administration, the bill directs FTA to ensure that alternative modes or alignments are analyzed as part of the planning process for new starts, and that they fully support the mode chosen by weighing all viable alternatives and using quantitative measures, rather than pre-ordaining expensive light-rail as their choice for transit. We need to make sure that, when the Federal Government is asked to pay 50 percent or more of the money, local communities have done their homework in studying alternatives that will most effectively deal with the problems. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good compromise. It involved some give and take by both sides, but we were able to preserve the most critical aspects of the House-passed bill. It deserves every Member's support.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees, of course, is not binding upon the conferees. It is intended, I know, by the gentleman from Massachusetts as an expression of intent. Although I would not pretend to agree with all the priorities that he seeks to express in it or to bind us, but in the spirit of advancing this issue through the House, the bill, in the spirit of comity, I am willing to accept the amendment. Then we will do the best we can on that and other priorities in conference. I should point out, of course, that if we do as the gentleman from Massachusetts suggests and guarantee that there be over $100 million additional for new starts, that money might come out of highways. I do not know how we are going to work through these things, but I do believe that it is best, rather than fight over things on the floor, to accept the amendment and let the conferees do the best they can in working on this and on the other priorities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2989, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. I believe it is a common sense amendment. Amtrak says that with the allocation we have for them in this bill, they cannot operate at their current level. It is only common sense that they should look at the routes where they lose the most money, routes that cost them to run that do not have local support and do not have State support sufficient to justify the operation. That would enable them to focus their operations on the areas of the country where things make more sense. So I certainly support the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate his offering it.

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 consideration of H.R. 2989, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.