Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Hastings) amendment. I understand his concern with having more Federal funds for voter reform and voting systems reform in the country. We have the money of course in the bill, which frankly we have treated as inviolate. We have not sought to diminish the amount or invade the election reform dollars for the purpose of transportation or any other function. However, if we open up that Pandora's box, I think we would find a great many Members who would be interested in saying we need transportation more than we need to be subsidizing some States that have not reformed their system on their own. The gentleman's amendment opens up that box. I am not trying to take the money we have in the bill for election reform and move it out elsewhere, but I think the money we have in the bill for the modernization of the IRS, for Department of Transportation, and for the National Archives should not be invaded to put money into the election reform pot to be sent around to States. With the funding provided in the bill already, Congress will have appropriated $2 billion to date for reforming the election system in this country. I am well aware it is not the same as the authorized level, but $2 billion is still an enormous amount of money. Nearly 99 percent of that money has gone or will be going directly to the States for the improvement of voting systems, including the purchase of up-to- date, reliable ballot equipment; $650 million of that money has already been obligated. The gentleman, though, wants to accelerate that process. In doing so, it eliminates the $45 million for the Department of Transportation headquarters, reduces by $165 million the critical and already long- overdue reform of the IRS information systems accounts so taxpayers can get honest, accurate, timely, reliable information about their tax status in this country, and the $22 million that he wants to pull out of the National Archives with their important preservation of the heritage of the country. The Committee on Appropriations has decided to fund these programs at the levels which we have after very careful consideration and working closely with the authorizers. We have funded at the level that was mutually agreed upon. I have not sought to invade that for transportation needs. Similarly, I would not want to invade the other portions of this bill for the election reform. I do not want that carefully crafted compromise to fall apart, as I believe the gentleman's amendment would cause it to do. I know that the gentleman offers the amendment in good faith in an honest desire to improve more rapidly the election reform systems in the country, but we should not be hampering the modernization efforts of the other parts of government which are equally critical to every taxpayer in the country. So I appreciate the gentleman's effort, but I do oppose his amendment.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do make my point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ISTOOK. As long as my point of order is reserved, I have no objection if the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would like to strike the last word.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I certainly appreciate the good intentions of the gentlewoman from Oregon; however, I cannot support the amendment. We already have, through the National Highway Safety program, a great number of efforts with States regarding their drivers license programs. There is funding already there. We do not need another $500,000 study. In fact, a number of States have already adopted provisions. For example, my State of Oklahoma has moved to biometric identifiers, fingerprints, on that. Other States have acted through their legislatures. I think we would be behind the curve if we spent $500,000 of Federal money on another study at this point. States are already doing this. We already have money working with the States through appropriations in this bill on their drivers license improvement programs. And furthermore, we should not take money from the Office of Management and Budget, which has already been cut by $14 million in this bill from the fiscal year 2003 level. So I think, frankly, that the amendment is behind what is already going on in the country. It is good, but a study is not going to make things happen any faster than they are already happening in the States, and it will cost $500,000 of Federal money we do not need to be spending. So I appreciate the efforts of the gentlewoman but rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey and his focus on this issue. I regret that I cannot agree to the amendment, because I know he has devoted a lot of time to it, but for a couple of reasons. One, of course, is that the National Park Service customarily has its appropriations through the Interior Department Appropriation bill. As much as some people may consider it mass transit in Yellowstone, I do not think that fits the normal definition of the work of the Federal Transit Administration. But I look forward to working with the gentleman to learn more about the issue and see what we might be able to improve on it and consider his request in whatever is the appropriate committee. I also feel compelled to point out, it has come to my attention, an article reported today through the Los Angeles Times News Service, and I will just read the first sentence of that particular article, which says, ``A new generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone National Park after being promoted as cleaner and quieter, emit more pollution than models produced 2 years ago, according to test data from the Environmental Protection Agency.'' I do not know on the particular vehicles that the gentleman is promoting whether they are actually covered by this particular study or not, maybe they are, maybe they are not. But I do not know the ramifications of it all, and I certainly would not want to be shifting around within a bill that has such tight funding as we have, $2 million to go out of the general transportation purposes and into a specialty use in Yellowstone National Park, although I think that is a good question for the Interior Committee. But I am interested in learning more, working with the gentleman, and I think the whole House needs to consider his interest. But I cannot agree to support the amendment, unfortunately.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do insist upon my point of order, because the amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of rule XXI. The amendment modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Houston and her arguments. However, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If a referendum is scheduled in Harris County, then if the voters in Harris County approve it, they have satisfied the requirements of the language in the bill. However, if we remove the language in the bill and the voters say no, then they are not protected from anyone seeking to do an end run. The language in the bill merely assures that the will of the voters will prevail. If the voters have a referendum and the referendum says yes, they have satisfied the conditions in the bill, and there is no limitation. However, if the voters have a referendum and they say no, then all that the language in the bill does is to give meaning to what the voters said and to give assurance that the will of the people will prevail. I oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas and ask that it be defeated.

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

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Yes. Of course, there might be other further business before the House in addition to that. I do not know the exact schedule.

Mr. ISTOOK. I was just so advised that the gentleman is correct.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2989 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 351, no amendment to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; the amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 6, 11, 14 and 24; the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes; the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 15, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding OMB Circular A-76, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; one proper amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding a district court memorandum and order addressing IBM's pension plan, which shall be debatable for 1 hour; an amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding the Help America Vote Act; an amendment by Mr. Van Hollen regarding OMB Circular A-76, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; one proper amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Cuba travel, which shall be debatable for 1 hour; an amendment by Mr. Honda regarding San Jose light rail; an amendment by Mr. Cooper, Ms. DeLauro, or Ms. Kilpatrick regarding tax law enforcement, which shall be debatable for 1 hour; an amendment by Mr. Davis of Florida regarding educational exchanges with Cuba; an amendment by Mr. Mica regarding the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; an amendment by Mr. Farr regarding locality pay; an amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding essential air service program. Each amendment may be offered only by the Member designated or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee; shall be considered as read; shall not be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the intent, we will proceed tonight for approximately 1 hour further, after which time any votes that have been rolled will be held. After that time consideration of this bill would cease until next Tuesday, when we would complete consideration of the bill under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. ISTOOK. Tomorrow, not being in charge of the schedule, I can only tell you my understanding. It is my understanding that tomorrow we would proceed to the District of Columbia appropriations bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. That is correct.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The error rate we are discussing regarding the EITC is not an old number. This was something that a special task force was formed within the IRS and the Treasury Department, and their most recent comprehensive survey was January of last year, January of 2002, where they established the EITC error rate is between 27 and 32 percent. If we compare that with other major social benefit programs, such as temporary assistance to needy families, food stamps, Social Security, disability, and Medicaid, they have the error rates below 10 percent, whereas the EITC error rate is 27 to 32 percent. Three times as many mistakes. Why? Because we do not have any checking up on people. And we are not just checking up on this program. We have, in the IRS budget, an increase of $160 million going after upper-income taxpayers, people that may be scofflaws and trying to bend or twist or distort our tax laws. We are trying to go after this across the board, but we need to have verification and documentation for people that expect the taxpayers to be doing this for them. Under the EITC, a person can receive a check from the Federal Treasury for as much as $4,204. That is above and beyond whatever they might or might not have paid in income taxes. On average, for these 19 million people, on average they receive $1,705 above and beyond what they paid in income taxes. Is it asking too much for someone that expects the taxpayers to write them a check for an average of $1,700 to do a little bit of documentation in 20 percent of the cases to show that they actually qualify? That is not asking much. In fact, it is not picking on the poor either, because more than a third, about 35 percent, more than a third of the EITC recipients exceed the poverty guidelines in their income. This is a program that goes beyond just helping the poor because it has become so easy for people to falsely or fraudulently, and, yes, sometimes mistakenly get this money from the Federal Treasury. We should not close the door on efforts to try to stop a wrongful outflow of $10 billion a year out of the Federal Treasury. We should oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has represented, I am agreeable to accepting the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, on my vote just recorded I voted ``no.'' I have a pair with the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, who is at a funeral, and desire to change my vote and be recorded as ``present.'' ``Mr. OTTER and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, this bill will hasten the day when Medicare will go bankrupt, and it also threatens to unravel our children's future. Medicare is already on shaky financial legs, and this will add enormous extra expenses that will make it worse. Do we expect our children to pay a lifetime of higher taxes, and still find there's nothing left for them when they retire? That is what we face. I would like to add prescription drug benefits, but it's wrong to promise something we cannot pay for. I want to preserve what's good about Medicare, not destroy it by making extravagant promises for political gain. The enormous extra spending under this bill will be far more than projected. Because today's Medicare is a huge price control system, many doctors already refuse to see Medicare patients. In just a few years this will make it worse, including price controls that will destroy the incentives for companies to create new medicines. What should we be doing? Since 76 percent of seniors already have drug coverage, we could focus on helping those who don't. But this bill undoes the coverage for those 76 percent, and puts them in a confusing new medical experiment. We should be stabilizing Medicare, so it can keep the promises already made, not making new promises that we don't have the money to keep. We should address the reasons why drug prices and healthcare costs are so high. By banning re-imported drugs, we're forcing Americans to subsidize far-lower drug prices in other countries. We should change our policies so Americans only pay the lower world price, not a higher price. We should end the 130,000 pages of federal regulations that have driven the costs of medicine and healthcare through the roof. On average, for every hour they spend with a patient, doctors and nurses spend another half-hour doing government paperwork. We should stress personal responsibility in healthcare, just as we did in welfare reform, so government resources are focused on those who cannot care for themselves, not on those who can. Bit-by-bit, Congress is undoing the principles of welfare reform, and undercutting basic American principles in the process. Both political parties are making extravagant promises today, trying to outbid each other to win votes. Unfortunately, they are bidding with taxpayers' own money, and our children's hopes will be crushed by the bills they will inherit.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, this bill will hasten the day when Medicare will go bankrupt, and it also threatens to unravel our children's future. Medicare is already on shaky financial legs, and this will add enormous extra expenses that will make it worse. Do we expect our children to pay a lifetime of higher taxes, and still find there's nothing left for them when they retire? That is what we face. I would like to add prescription drug benefits, but it's wrong to promise something we cannot pay for. I want to preserve what's good about Medicare, not destroy it by making extravagant promises for political gain. The enormous extra spending under this bill will be far more than projected. Because today's Medicare is a huge price control system, many doctors already refuse to see Medicare patients. In just a few years this will make it worse, including price controls that will destroy the incentives for companies to create new medicines. What should we be doing? Since 76 percent of seniors already have drug coverage, we could focus on helping those who don't. But this bill undoes the coverage for those 76 percent, and puts them in a confusing new medical experiment. We should be stabilizing Medicare, so it can keep the promises already made, not making new promises that we don't have the money to keep. We should address the reasons why drug prices and healthcare costs are so high. By banning re-imported drugs, we're forcing Americans to subsidize far-lower drug prices in other countries. We should change our policies so Americans only pay the lower world price, not a higher price. We should end the 130,000 pages of federal regulations that have driven the costs of medicine and healthcare through the roof. On average, for every hour they spend with a patient, doctors and nurses spend another half-hour to a full hour doing government paperwork. We should stress personal responsibility in healthcare, just as we did in welfare reform, so government resources are focused on those who cannot care for themselves, not on those who can. Bit-by-bit, Congress is undoing the principles of welfare reform, and undercutting basic American principles in the process. Both political parties are making extravagant promises today, trying to outbid each other to win votes. Unfortunately, they are bidding with taxpayers' own money, and our children's hopes will be crushed by the bills they inherit.