Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Colonel John R. Priddy who is about to retire and return to private life after more than 28 years of selfless service to our great Nation as a United States Marine. Colonel Priddy graduated from the University of Central Oklahoma, and after completing Marine Corps Officer Candidate School was commissioned a Second Lieutenant. He has served with numerous operational commands including the Third Marine Division; Second Battalion, Tenth Marines; the First Marine Expeditionary Brigade; and First Battalion (Reinforced), 12th Marines. He has served as a commanding officer three times; first aboard the USS Midway (CV-41) where he served as Commanding Officer of the Marine Detachment; next as the Commanding Officer of First Battalion (Reinforced), 12th Marines; and finally as Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps Combined Arms Training Center at Camp Fuji, Japan. Colonel Priddy is also a veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has also served with support units at Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia; Naval Amphibious School, Little Creek, Virginia; Headquarters, United States Marine Corps; and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He is a graduate of the Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies. Colonel Priddy has served as the Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellow to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and as the Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 Group. In August 2001 he assumed duties as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources, his last active duty position. Throughout his career as a United States Marine, Colonel Priddy demonstrated uncompromising character, discerning wisdom, and a sincere, profound sense of duty to his country, his Corps, and especially to his Marines and their families. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would like to recognize Colonel Priddy's accomplishments and his devoted service to the Nation. Congratulations to him and his wife Diana, on the completion of a long and distinguished career.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, today we are re-introducing the Balanced Budget Amendment for the U.S. Constitution. Although we recently enjoyed four years of balanced federal budgets, the results of 9-11, the fight against terrorism, and economic challenges have all pushed us back into a sea of red ink. Although borrowing can be justified to protect America in a time of national emergency, deficits should not be acceptable in normal times. So, unless we first set a goal of balancing the budget again, it will never happen. And recent experience once again proves that we need the discipline that a Balanced Budget Amendment provides. I'm especially happy for the support of Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and also of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Steve Chabot from Ohio. And, of course, the long-time leading Democrat on this issue, Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas. I also want to acknowledge the pioneering work done by National Taxpayer's Union, the nation's largest organization representing the interests of taxpayers, and their work with Congressman Stenholm and Senator Larry Craig who have been working on this issue for the last quarter century. It's time to set the standard, and show America what our goals are. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on. Some people complain about the deficit, and say that's why they oppose tax relief. Others complain about the deficit and say that's why they oppose spending. But everyone who complains about the deficit should support the goal of balancing the budget again. It's hypocritical to say you oppose the deficit but don't support the balanced budget amendment. With the expenses of the war on terrorism, we won't balance the budget in the next year or two. And it will take a couple of years for this amendment to be ratified by the states. We have to set our goal NOW to balance the budget again. Unless we commit to it, we'll never get the budget balanced again. First we must set the goal, then we work toward it. Our children and our grandchildren will pay a heavy price if we do not return to a balanced budget. They not only would face the high taxes of big government, but they would bear the extra expense of paying off the bills that we are running-up today. This Balanced Budget Amendment is identical to the language passed by a vote of 300-132 in 1995, as part of the original ``Contract With America,'' and then failed by one single vote in the U.S. Senate in 1997. Neither the House nor the Senate have voted on it since then. Obviously, we now have many new faces in Congress; we now have 212 House Members who have never been held accountable, because they have never had to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. We believe the time has come for every Member of Congress to address this issue head-on. The amendment includes an exemption for times when Congress declares a national emergency. But during peacetime, it would require a supermajority of Congress for the federal government to operate at a deficit. No ordinary law can restrain Congress, because Congress has the power to remove that safeguard whenever it wishes by a simple majority vote. The only real protection against deficit spending is constitutional protection. In light of the current national emergency, we need this amendment more than ever to ensure that deficit spending will end.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is always good in exchanges like this that every once in a while we try to come back to reality and discuss what the topic for debate actually is. What we have under consideration is a continuing resolution so that the Federal Government can stay open through the end of January, so that people who are expecting some sort of Federal benefit, whether it be a Social Security check, whether it is the continuation of Medicare, whether it is the processing of their Veterans Administration disability claim, whatever it may be, we are here to talk about a resolution to enable the Federal Government to keep going through the end of January. We are in that situation because the kind of bickering that we are hearing from too many people on this floor was what predominated last year and kept us from adopting any permanent appropriations legislation. Some Members are saying we do not want to talk about keeping things going, we do not want to talk anything until we can solve all of the problems and put a lot of new issues on the table. I guess they want to go ahead and let the government shut down. If that is Members' desire, and what they really want to do is mask that desire through other verbiage that they are throwing at us, I wish they would be open about it. But the resolution under consideration is to allow continuing expenditures at predetermined, ordinary rates so until we can work out all these problems things do not come to a grinding halt. We are not going to be able to have time to work on the permanent solutions to the very funding problems that Members are complaining about unless we can get things like this through. When all of the time has to be devoted to temporary stopgap measures, that takes away from the time that we need to devote to permanent measures. The American people spoke last fall in the elections. They said they want us to be solvers. They want us to be working towards solutions, not bogging down in bickering and petty parliamentary complaints. Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that we need to adopt. It is responsible. I do not hear Members complaining about it, or the other side of the aisle saying we want to shut things down instead. But they do want to throw all sorts of barriers and roadblocks that will mean the current spending authority will expire, we will have a government shutdown. We are trying to be responsible, Mr. Speaker. We should pass this resolution tonight so we can then work together on the permanent solutions and the permanent appropriations bills that need to be adopted. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I thank the leadership for bringing this up, and I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the gentleman's tireless efforts as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, never giving up and never stopping trying, even though some Members of this body and the other body would try to present him with an impossible task. Mr. Speaker, we know it is a challenge, especially since 9/11, with the increased costs of national security, of fighting the war against terrorism, of homeland security, and the domestic needs of this Nation, we know it has been a terribly difficult task to try to come up with budgets. Nevertheless, this House has risen to the occasion and has followed the law requiring us to adopt a budget and then to specify the details of how we are going to allocate the overall spending among the various subcommittees. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has mentioned, we have been responsible in doing that in this House. The bill for which I have responsibility through the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government cleared this House July 24, 2.5 months ago. The other body has yet to bring its counterpart to the floor. We cannot proceed on that bill because only one House of Congress has acted. We see that pattern, unfortunately, repeated over and over. The law requires both Houses of Congress to enact a budget so that we know how much we have to spend so we can divvy it up. This body, the House of Representatives, has done so. The other body, despite the legal requirement that it do so and should have done it back in April, still has not done it. No wonder we have gridlock and deadlock. I would call upon Members of this House that has a complaint to talk to their Member of the other body, to talk to the people who bear the title of Senator and tell them we need their help. We need them to be constructive. We need them to talk about the overall numbers. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, that is why I talk about the law, because it is certainly appropriate for the other body to follow the law, as this House has done and as we hope both bodies would. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, that is why I characterized it as being totally appropriate for the other body to follow the law. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, what we do in our everyday lives as families, we sit around the kitchen table and we say, this is how much we have, and this is what we would like to accomplish. And we make decisions, tough decisions. I would like for every Member of this House to help us in making these difficult decisions. We did not know we were going to have the attacks of 9/11. We did not know we were going to be looking at another war on the other side of the globe. We did not know that we would have the economic problems that have surfaced, and yet we are trying to do our best. But some Members, their only answer is whatever we are doing is not good enough, because the only answer is to spend more money. That is not always the answer. Mr. Speaker, we have got to have people who take a constructive look at things rather than being naysayers. We have got to have people who say, look, this is where we will have to cut back if we want to get back to a balanced budget instead of having deficits return and continue; if we want to make sure we follow the policy that the majority in this House has done for the last several years, balancing the budget without using Social Security receipts to do so. We have increased in recent years education spending some 150 percent since the majority changed in this body. Yet some people accuse us of not being sensitive toward education. That is just not so. I appreciate the efforts of the leadership of this House and the gentleman from Florida. I suggest that we should adopt this continuing resolution and have every Member of this body stop the naysaying and get constructive. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and my honor to welcome today our guest chaplain, Dr. Eric Anthony Joseph, the chaplain of Langston University in Langston, Oklahoma, which is in my congressional district in our State. Langston University is named for the first African-American office holder in American history, and of course it is one of the premier Historically Black Colleges and Universities about which we will be honoring today with a special resolution. Dr. Joseph is a man of learning, a man of experience, and a man of strong faith. He has received many degrees, including a doctorate of philosophy in intercultural education, a Masters of Divinity, a Masters of Arts in Christian education, a Bachelor of Arts in Communication, and two fine arts degrees. Dr. Joseph has used his talents in a variety of ways to help bring people closer together and closer to God. He has served as a minister, a teacher, a chaplain, as a consultant, an athlete, and as a writer. Dr. Joseph has dedicated his life to ministering to people and strengthening their faith. I join the Speaker and all of our colleagues in welcoming today Dr. Eric Anthony Joseph to the U.S. House of Representatives; and I thank him for his service, his leadership, and providing us this day with our opening prayer.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We heard from its sponsor that this is supposedly to stop people from being arbitrary; to stop people from setting some arbitrary quota, as they call it. The amendment has nothing to do with whether things are being done in an arbitrary fashion. The amendment has as its goal stopping the Federal Government from privatizing or outsourcing, or even trying to, anything that involves work that is currently being done by Federal workers. It has as its goal stopping the Bush administration's management initiative that is trying to save taxpayers significant dollars. Indeed, they project that typically, when it is proper to do so, outsourcing work can save the taxpayers 30 to 50 percent of normal cost for doing certain functions. There is a process that is established by prior legislation of this Congress, what is called the FAIR Act, what is known as the A76 process, and through this there has already been underway for months an effort to identify work that is done by Federal workers that is considered competitive in nature, where it is competing with the private sector. It may involve data processing, it may involve food services. The Marine Corps, for example, Mr. Chairman, has just contracted out hiring people to feed our Marines. Rather than having to hire them at the wage rates and the benefit rates and the built-in bureaucracy of Federal employees, they hire people who are experienced in handling food; in ordering it, in preparing it, in keeping the inventories on hand, in managing the right numbers, seeking to save the taxpayers tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars a year. We have already had a process that has identified, through the process that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) claims he supports, it has already identified 850,000 people that are on the Federal payroll, doing work that could be done by the private sector, saving the taxpayers potentially 25 to 50 percent of what we are paying now. However, the Federal employees unions, which are perhaps the strongest labor unions in the country, say we do not want that to happen. We do not care if it saves taxpayers money, we want to make sure that these are union jobs. That is what is really behind the amendment. The amendment does not say what we have been told it says. I want to read to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the other Members, what the amendment actually says. The amendment states: ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used by an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting the employees of the agency to public-private competitions or converting such employees or the work performed by such employees to private contractor performance under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.'' What it does is to try to stop cold the process of identifying government jobs that are commercial in nature that could be performed by the private sector. It is not about stopping some supposed arbitrary quota. The term arbitrary is not in the amendment. It says you cannot set any goal that involves a number. You cannot set any target that involves a number. If the goal was to save the taxpayers $1, that is a numerical goal that is outlawed by this outrageous amendment. It is so overreaching. It is not trying to stop people from being arbitrary in having private- public competition, to see who can do the job, who can do it best and who can do it at the best cost for the taxpayers, it is trying to stop the very concept. It is not trying to stop quotas. If the measure offered by the gentleman from Virginia only said we are going to stop arbitrary quotas and then defined what arbitrary quotas were, then perhaps he might have a case. But his amendment says we are outlawing any numerical goal, any numerical target. And what the Bush administration has done, through the Office of Management and Budget, after going through this process, mandated by statute, mandated by laws passed by this Congress, the process has identified 850,000 jobs currently held by Federal workers that could be done by the private sector and possibly done for as much as 50 percent less than we are paying, they have said, okay, let us try in the next year to compete 15 percent of those. That is 127,500. It does not say we are going to award those to the private sector. It is saying that 15 percent of these Federal jobs that are commercial in nature, in the next year, are going to have to justify whether they should be Federal jobs or whether they should be outsourced potentially to the private sector, and let the private sector come in and compete and tell us this is what we say we can do and how much we say we can do it for and how we can save the taxpayers money. No guarantee of who is going to win that competition. But the Moran amendment, by saying we outlaw any goal or any target that has a number, the number may be one employee, the number may be trying to save $1, or the number could be saying we are trying to save the taxpayers $100 million, it does not matter. Any goal, any target that involves a number under this outrageous, overreaching amendment could not happen. We would be locked into the current rate of spending. Now, right now I am very concerned about how much of the taxpayers' money we are spending and the Moran amendment would guarantee that we could not accomplish savings for the taxpayers. We could not try to hold the line on the size of the Federal Government. We could not try to make things more efficient. We could not let the private sector save us money when they say they can. No. By using language that I believe is deceptive to people, we are told that we cannot have any sort of numerical target because they want to say, oh, that is a quota or that is not a quota. There is no guarantee of results under the process that is underway, but there is a guarantee of results if we adopt the Moran amendment. The guarantee is taxpayers will lose money. That is the guarantee of adopting the Moran amendment. It denies opportunity to those who want to be able to perform services, whether it be data processing, delivery services, food handling, you name it. If they want to try to provide a service for less to taxpayers, the Moran amendment says ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, we ought to say ``no'' to the Moran amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I seek to manage the time in opposition.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the problem with this as part of not being what it is said to be, is that this amendment seeks to outlaw math. It says we cannot adopt a target or a goal for outsourcing jobs if there is a number involved in the goal. We cannot set a numerical target. Each agency has identified under law what they have that are jobs being done by Federal workers that are actually commercial in nature. It could be cleaning, data processing, payroll services, construction. This says the administration's goal for each agency, take whatever they have identified, and do not try to compete them all, just compete 15 percent. They say because it is a number, they outlaw it. If they are serious about this, they should say we should not try to compete more than this percentage of each agency's jobs; but they are trying to say we cannot set a goal that involves a number, which means we cannot set a goal. This effort to save taxpayers money will not do anything because they will stop that effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ISTOOK. Is it correct that as the advocate of the committee's position, I have the right to close?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 20 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I noticed the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said that the intent is to make sure that, under the laws that we have passed, there is competition for jobs that are commercial in nature so that Federal employees have the right to compete against the private employees and they are not automatically outsourced. I think that is a very valid position. It is not, however, what the amendment advocates, because the amendment by its express terms prevents public-private competitions. Any time that you set a goal, if you say we are going to have one competition between the public and private sector, it is outlawed. If you say that 1 percent of the commercial jobs in the Federal sector is going to be competed, it is outlawed. The amendment does not do what many people claim it does. The amendment stops all efforts to have public-private competitions to see if we can save taxpayers' money which typically those competitions save the taxpayers 30 to 50 percent. The Department of Defense reports that during the Clinton administration years, they outsourced some 550 different initiatives that will be saving taxpayers about $1.5 billion each year. Those efforts could not be pursued by the administration under the language proposed by the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I think the most important thing that anybody can do, Mr. Chairman, in this particular debate, or any debate when people say, well, this amendment does one thing and someone says, no, it does not, it does something else, the most important thing people can do is read the amendment. Look for yourself. The gentleman from Virginia would have people believe that this amendment is just about outlawing quotas, that it is about outlawing arbitrariness. Not at all. Nothing in the amendment says anything about arbitrary decisions. And although, yes, it does mention outlawing quotas, it goes far, far beyond that. It outlaws setting goals. It outlaws the very first steps in the process of trying to determine whether taxpayers are best served by having certain work done by government workers or by workers in the private sector. We spent a lot of time in this Congress setting up this process to compete public and private jobs, but the amendment states, you cannot establish, and I quote, any numerical goal, target or quota. It does not say we are outlawing quotas. It says we are outlawing numerical goals. We are outlawing targets. We are outlawing things in the very first stage of the process, the goal-setting stage. If you say our goal is to save the taxpayers $10 million, oh, no, can't do it under the Moran amendment. If you say our goal is to compete 1 percent of the jobs that have already been identified by the agencies as being commercial in nature and we just want to have a competition to see can it best be done in the public sector or can it best be done in the private sector, no, because you said we want to compete 1 percent. If the Bush administration or its Office of Management and Budget, should they contact an agency and say we want you to try to at least compete 1 percent of the jobs you have, or just one job, under the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, that is illegal. Nobody has any control over the Federal bureaucracy under the gentleman from Virginia's amendment except, of course, the Federal employees labor unions. That is not right. Let people set goals and have the competition. Let us see who wins the competition. Which is best for the taxpayer in each specific instance: Is it best that this work be done by the public sector or best to be done by the private sector? Do not be afraid of finding out. Vote against the Moran amendment. When in doubt, read the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired? Would you double-check that, please?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I continue to be amazed by the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. The amendment that we are asked to approve does not outlaw just results, it outlaws the competition. The amendment states you cannot set a goal for what percentage of jobs or how many or what dollar targets. You cannot set a goal for how many jobs you will compete. We are not talking about a guarantee of the results of the public- private competition. They want to stop the competition from ever happening. A couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, we in Oklahoma were so proud that the Oklahoma Sooners had a chance to play for the national championship game in football against Florida State in the Orange Bowl. But under their scenario each side could say, ``You know, we have got the better team,'' but you could never play the game. They outlaw the competition under this amendment. They say you cannot play the game. So it does not matter what else they may say about it or what else they may include in the amendment. The killer in their amendment is you cannot set a goal for what you are going to subject to competition. The Bush administration is not setting a goal saying you must transfer so many jobs from the public sector to the private sector. They are saying of the jobs that you have already identified as being commercial in nature, take 15 percent of the jobs that you identified and find out. Have the competition between the public sector and the private sector, but do not outlaw the game from being played. You cannot set a goal, you cannot set a target, without including a number. They say any goal, any target that has a number in it, is illegal. That is wrong. That undercuts the reforms that this Congress has adopted trying to save the taxpayers money. The Department of Defense says they are already saving about $1.5 billion each year because they have followed this process. We have the potential for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of savings to Federal taxpayers by saying, Federal employees, compete against the private sector for activities that are inherently commercial in nature. Let it happen. Play the game. Find out who is right or wrong. Do not stifle competition. Do not outlaw competition, like the Moran amendment does. Vote no.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although I have, frankly, a great amount of sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and I think there is a need for us to do something regarding the accounts of former Presidents, I do not believe this amendment is the way to do it, because I believe we need to lay a groundwork and to do whatever we might accomplish through an understanding between the Congress and the offices of the former Presidents. These accounts were established, of course, back in the years when former Presidents did not have a stipend, did not have very huge speaking fees and other sources of revenue, and played a very different role than they do today. I think there are some things that we can accomplish in having some savings, but I believe that comity between the executive and the legislative branches requires that we try to do that in an orderly fashion and lay a groundwork with former Presidents, rather than try to change the ground rules that we have followed for many years arbitrarily. So, therefore, despite my sympathy for it, I do urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, before taking time or pressing a point of order, I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, rather than my consuming the time and pressing the point of order, I would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio if he is willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Despite my great sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), I cannot support it. This particular bill, were it subjected to across-the-board cuts, would find that we have significant cuts and reduction in homeland security efforts which are the major focus of the bill. We have already identified in the subcommittee and the committee several places where we have applied significant cuts, for example, the Bureau of Public Debt, some $23 million. Bureaucracy within the Office of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in excess of $10 million. The First Accounts Program with the Treasury Department, approximately $6 million say from what we had last year and yet improve the program, I believe. These are certain examples and there will be others. We have what we have done, Mr. Chairman, in this bill is to try to accomplish savings every place we can and plow those into the front lines of homeland security. Border security, in particular with the Customs Service, where we have significant increases in the air and marine program, the investment and information technology, in the research and developments to use better levels of technology to secure our borders, the Container Security Initiative, trying to protect us from having something brought in within the $8 billion daily of commodities that come into the country as part of the international trade. I do not think we could accomplish an across-the-board cut without jeopardizing those. I do agree with the gentleman about the need for significant cuts overall in Federal spending. Unfortunately, because of the extreme needs of homeland security and national defense and the as yet unwillingness of people to make some sacrifices in some other places in the government, I do not think it is a practical amendment at least certainly not in this particular bill. I do want to work with the gentleman and everyone else in this body to try to identify more specific cuts that can be made in all of our bills, but I cannot support this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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