Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Colorado, and despite my great sympathy with his amendment, I cannot support it. The amendment seeks to make across-the-board cuts in this bill, which we have carefully crafted to try to balance priorities. That means that had we received an allocation of lesser numbers, such as the gentleman effectively would create, we would have changed priorities, not done an across-the-board cut. I certainly appreciate his desire, but let me state that what we have done in the bill is to go through and tighten and clamp down on everything that it was in my power to do, Mr. Chairman. In doing so, we have tried to put as much money as possible where I believe we have some of the greatest need in this country and where the taxpayers have been paying through their fuel taxes at the gasoline and the diesel pump, namely, the highway construction program, which has a great backlog. It, unfortunately, would be affected most heavily by the gentleman's amendment. Some $428 million from highway construction programs would be lost under the gentleman's amendment. That would greatly diminish our ability to work upon the $400 billion backlog that we have throughout the country, the tens of thousands of dangerous bridges that we are trying to address through the funding in this bill. There are other impacts upon other agencies, but most especially, it would affect the highway program which we have gone to great lengths to adjust priorities in this bill to try to give the taxpayers something for what they have been paying at the gasoline pump, namely, some improvements in the road situation that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in lost income and in delays due to the heavy amount of congestion and difficulty they have in traffic. So I have great sympathy for the proposal that the gentleman offers, but I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would not claim the time in opposition because I do not oppose the amendment. As the gentleman indicated, I support it. I appreciate the Members that have worked together to transfer funds among some things that are all involved in the Bay Area of northern California and I know, as the gentleman and I have visited together about this, that there is a huge amount of local financial support that predominates far and away over any Federal funding anticipated. I support the shifting of funds, and I appreciate the cooperation of Members toward this effort, knowing that it is all part of that interrelated Bay Area system as well.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the pending Maloney amendment No. 14 to H.R. 2989 on the grounds that this provision violates clause 5 of House rule XXI because it proposes a limitation on funds in a general appropriations bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. The gentlewoman from New York is seeking to change existing law and prohibit taxes from being collected on payments made to those affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks. While, Mr. Chairman, we certainly all have tremendous sympathy for those who suffered losses from this tragic event, we should not be using appropriation bills, or seeking to use them, to establish new tax policy concerning payments to them or to any other individuals.

Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, knowing no other Member to do so, I will claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak on the amendment myself, but I will claim it for the purpose of yielding to any other Members that may wish to do so.

Mr. ISTOOK. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the great passion, and it is passion that is well-placed, when we talk about the issue of pension plans for workers and trying to make sure that there is stability and some surety in those plans. So I appreciate that, and I realize that this is an issue that is being hotly contested in court. Now, I do not know enough about the intricacies of the argument to know whether I agree or disagree that the judge has properly followed the law or not. I do know, however, that it is really going to be questionable whether this amendment will accomplish the intended objective. We have seen several amendments on this bill like that, Mr. Chairman, where people offer an amendment and they tell everybody this will be the effect of my amendment. But that does not make it so. If you look at the text of the amendment actually offered, it says, and here we are talking about the Transportation and Treasury appropriation bill: ``None of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained,'' and then it recites this court order that was issued out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in this particular case regarding the pension plan of IBM. Now, when the amendment says you cannot use funds from the Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill to assist in overturning the judicial ruling, what does that mean? Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, it is the Department of Justice that is involved in representing the government in this litigation. The funds that are used to potentially file an appeal of this ruling are the funds of IBM, and they are the funds of the Justice Department. It is not the Treasury Department directly that is involved in this, although obviously anything that has to do with pension plans and tax rulings has implications for the Treasury Department. But this amendment is not going to control what happens in that case. I realize it presents an opportunity for different Members to stand up and say what their position is about that particular ruling about pension plans, but I do not think this amendment is going to bring about the result that people desire. This amendment does not control what the appellate court may or may not do with the order issued in this case. That is beyond us. We are not here to dictate to a court that this is what you must find. We are here to determine what the law is. The courts interpret the laws. If they do not do a good job, sometimes we will change the laws or do something related to that court. But this bill is not ultimately going to control the disposition of that lawsuit. It ultimately will not control whether the underlying law is going to be changed or not. As the Committee on Appropriations, we do not make the tax laws. We do not make the pension laws. We have other committees in this Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, have roles in part of this. But it is not going to be decided in this bill. So I think it is important for Members to understand that whether this amendment is adopted or not adopted is not going to control what the underlying pension law of the United States is. It is consuming time for the House to take up the debate, but we will take it as Members want to. There may be other Members who want to come down to the floor and talk about the amendment, to oppose it, just as we have some Members that have come to the floor to speak in favor of it. But I would not want anyone to think that we are actually deciding what will be the pension laws or the outcome of that particular litigation when we vote on what will happen with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, having said that by way of explanation, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. If my colleagues want to try to kill the bill, and all that it does for transportation in the United States, sure, go ahead and vote for the amendment because the amendment will be the reason for a veto of this bill if that amendment is part of the final product. The statement of administration policy issued concerning this legislation reads as follows: ``The administration understands that an amendment may be offered on the House floor that would effectively shut down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. If the final version of the bill contained such a provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' This bill is too important for that, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who does not think they are serious should look at the current dispute over the aviation reauthorization bill where there is much of the same issue, where people that are Federal employees want to guarantee that work that does not have to be performed by Federal employees nevertheless must be performed by them, and we are having fights over that. That is unfortunate because the taxpayers save money every time we go through the competitive sourcing process. Typically, most of the time, the Federal employees get to keep the work, but they have to agree to do it in a manner that gets around some of the normal red tape that makes everything cost more typically when it is done by the Federal Government. This is our chance to get around that, but the amendment that is before us will kill that opportunity. It will kill the savings for taxpayers. And if this bill were to be vetoed because the amendments exceed it, bulldozers across the country would stop. Transportation projects would come to a halt if we did not have this bill done in time to have those continue. Effectively, this amendment would kill competitive sourcing. The President's initiative will have real cost savings to the taxpayers. Recent A-76 competitions have resulted in savings of 20 to 30 percent. The Department of Defense alone expects to save $11 billion between 1997 and 2005 as a result of these competitions. There are more savings like that in other agencies, but most of the Federal workforce will not ultimately be affected by these things, but we need the chance for the savings for the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we just went through much of this same debate. Whether you are saying you are totally restricting it or partially restricting it, we are really talking about the same thing on the competitive sourcing process, the A-76 process. First, the amendment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) offers is not going to become law, because if it is in the bill, the President will veto the bill. We have gone through this argument before in prior years. This is a very important initiative to the administration and to the taxpayers of the United States to allow the opportunity for government to be more efficient; to allow competitive sourcing that tells the private sector and the government sector, each of you sharpen your pencils and find the most cost-effective and efficient and successful way to do the work. And typically we are not talking about things that are inherently governmental. We are talking about everything from food service contracts to building maintenance contracts, the kind of work that does not require someone to be a government employee either for issues of performance or safety or security. We are not competitive sourcing jobs that involve those areas. If we want the taxpayers to save billions of dollars, if we want the typical savings of 20 to 30 percent, we should not be trying to restrict competition. Government too often claims a monopoly. We do this because we are the government and nobody has a chance to find a better way to do it. Give people that chance. Give people the opportunity. We should be defeating this amendment and allowing the administration to go forward with what is a very modest effort to improve the competitive sourcing process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his support for his State and its needs, but financial resources, as the gentleman knows, are indeed tight. The committee, hopefully, may consider additional appropriations for this project in the conference committee should additional funds be made available to us at this time because I know of the great growth in his State and the significance of this project. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to my attention and will continue to work with him on it.

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order as extended as the Chair has stated to the entire paragraph.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that it applies to the entire paragraph, namely, from line 1 on page 12 through line 2 on page 13, to that extent, applying to that entirety, we would concede the point of order, but only to that extent.