Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman, and I would be pleased to work with her to address this issue with report language as we go to conference on this bill.

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we are both very supportive of the media campaign, and we wish for it to continue; but what I want to make sure that we clarify through the colloquy is that despite what may be the concerns that some may have with the language, the intent of this amendment is not to shut down the media campaign.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand the intent of the amendment is to allow further competition to make sure that other capable media firms are able to compete for the public funds to buy time for this important antidrug campaign on different media outlets.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I do understand and I sympathize with the concerns of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). I want to make sure that the gentleman understands that the purpose of this is to ensure that this program continues in a proper fashion, that the ad campaign is not disrupted, and that only those who properly should be handling it are involved in contracts for this matter. I ask the gentleman, will he be willing to work with us during conference to modify the language as I expect will probably be necessary to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from this amendment, and that there is no disruption of this very important national antidrug campaign?

Mr. ISTOOK. How much time, may I inquire, remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's efforts to make sure that this contract that comes under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee for this national antidrug campaign is handled responsibly. The reason we have these questions is because there has been a GAO inquiry into the prior performance of this same contract by the Ogilvy firm and there has been a major fine assessed for improper charges and handling and abuses in their performance of that contract. That is why we have this language, to make sure that we can have it reviewed to make sure that that contract is handled properly. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this was a proper occasion for people to try to bring up extraneous matters that have not been the subject of such investigation. We have not been here talking on the floor about, for example, Global Crossing and tens of millions of dollars--or was it hundreds of millions of dollars--obtained by insiders and obtained by Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman; we have not been bringing up the allegations of abuses related to Enron and the possible involvement of Citibank chaired by the former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin from the Clinton administration; and I do not think it was appropriate for people to try to bring this up as an opportunity to take shots at other people in the debate here. We have plenty of time to focus on each misdeed as we learn of it and to make sure that we hold every person in America fully accountable under our laws. That is what we want to make sure that we do in this particular contract with the people that are involved in performing it. We do not need to go far afield as I heard some people do earlier and as I did myself only to point out that this is inappropriate. We are here talking about the drug contract. We are here talking about the firm that abused their position as a contractor with the taxpayers on this and to make sure that abuse does not happen but that correcting that abuse will not disrupt this important national drug effort.

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

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing these concerns to our attention, and certainly I am open to working with him. I am compelled to add, however, that the wage-grade issue is exceedingly complex, and I would want to be very careful about any proposals that may be advanced. I should also add that the authorizing committees have jurisdiction over this issue and, therefore, it is necessary that they should be involved in any proposed reform that might involve this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 5120. This is the fiscal year 2003 appropriations measure for Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. I believe we have a good bill, Mr. Chairman, one that puts the proper focus on homeland security and Federal law enforcement, on securing the borders and protecting our homeland. I am pleased to say this bill has the support of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member. I know that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as many of us, continues to have concerns about different provisions in this bill. That is common, and I am committed to resolving the concerns of all Members as we wind our way through the legislative process. Briefly, I would like to explain something about the overall numbers in this bill. We have received certainly a fair, a very good allocation from the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), on our subcommittee's portion of this year's appropriation. Our committee's allocation is a total $18.5 billion in discretionary resources for fiscal year 2003. In the charts that accompany the report, some indicate that the level appears to be below the President's request by some $207 million. Although that certainly appears attractive to fiscal conservatives such as myself, I would like to point out what appears to be a reduction is the consequence of scorekeeping adjustments related to the fact that the President's proposal had some accrual accounting in his budget proposal for fiscal year 2003, accrual accounting that was not included in the actual bill. Therefore, there is something like a $745 million difference caused by those score-keeping adjustments. If we exclude that accrual accounting and we just compare apples to apples, programs for fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2002, we will find that when compared to last year's fiscal year 2002 enacted level, it is above the President's request, above fiscal year 2002 by $149 million and above the President's request by $538 million. This is not the result of extra spending that we wanted to accomplish except for that which is necessary for homeland security. Instead, it is because we have a special provision in this bill for $200 million in support of reforming election administration through the country to enable the purchasing of up-to-date, modern election equipment so we do not have the difficulties in future Presidential elections that we saw happen in 2000. Secondly, in the base operations for the U.S. Customs Service, which is charged with overseeing some $8 billion worth of goods that come into the U.S. each day and making sure those are not a conduit for bringing in a weapon of mass destruction or for bringing in someone else that might be a threat to our homeland, to fund those operations and continue the level of increases in border security that this subcommittee has been proposing in the past, we have $250 million that the President wanted to have offset by fee increases. We are not increasing the fees that are generated by the Customs Service, but we are handling this increase by direct appropriation. Again, that is the other key reason why there are differences between our numbers and those in the President's proposed budget. As reported by the committee, this bill provides a total of $4.2 billion for securing our homeland. This includes not only funding for the Office of Homeland Security, which is currently part of the Executive Office of the President, but it also includes funding for the U.S. Customs Service, for the Secret Service and for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which is having to provide the training for the increasing number of Federal law enforcement officials that we have needed and been putting in place ever since 9/11 and, indeed, which this subcommittee was increasing even before 9/11. This bill also includes a total of $246.4 million for the HIDTA program. HIDTA is high intensity drug trafficking areas. This is providing special funding for Federal, State and local coordination to combat the scourge of illegal drugs. The HIDTA money is an increase of $20 million above the current year's funding. Although nominally the bill reduces funding for the national youth anti-drug media campaign by $10 million, it actually increases the amount that is going to be applied to the national campaign, the advertising campaign, to discourage the use of illegal drugs by our young people. What we have done is to take the difference out of the bureaucracy that had been growing within the Office of National Drug Control Policy and mandate that they increase the amount that is actually being expended on actual advertising. The bill also provides some $646 million for the construction program of the General Services Administration which, of course, is the landlord for the Federal Government. That includes site acquisition, design and/or construction of some 11 courthouses, trying to take care of the overburden that currently is being placed upon our judicial system. The bill has major funding regarding information technology. A lot of that is related to trade and to homeland security. The bill includes $439 million for the Customs automation program, including a total of not less than $317 million for modernizing the automated commercial system, the ACE program. Mr. Chairman, it is this modernization program within Customs that I believe will ultimately form the information backbone for the forthcoming Department of Homeland Security, because this database ties in not only Federal law enforcement but some 58 Federal agencies, giving them the interfacing and the access to sharing information that we have seen is so sorely lacking today among Federal agencies. Not only is this an initiative our subcommittee has been accelerating, but it is something that has laid the groundwork for the forthcoming Department of Homeland Security. In regard to information technology, we also include $436 million for the business systems modernization of the Internal Revenue Service, so taxpayers will no longer have the waiting game and the wondering game that they sometimes have right now when trying to get their complex tax situations straightened out with the IRS. And we fund $5 million for the President's e-government proposal as well. In regard to legislative items, we have a number of historical provisions that are a part of this bill. One of them is maintaining the current law that prohibits using funds to pay for abortions through the Federal employees health benefits plan which is the insurance program for Federal workers. This is a provision that has been a part of this bill for a number of years, as is the continued requirement that FEHBP providers include coverage for prescription contraceptive services under certain circumstances and limitations. We also have a number of other measures in this bill that, frankly, Mr. Chairman, will probably consume most of the debate time, even though they are not the focus of this bill. The focus of this bill is the Treasury Department, the White House, the Executive Office of the President, Federal law enforcement, almost half of which is funded through this bill, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Customs Service with its significant role regarding border security and homeland security. However, probably most of the debate time will be consumed in debate, such as travel to Cuba, which I know is a subject of interest to a great many Members. It is not the thrust of this bill, but it is probably a debate that we will get into, nevertheless. Because we have so many amendments that Members wish to offer to this bill, mostly to the general government provisions, I hope we do not consume the entire hour that is allocated for official debate on the bill itself so that we might move into the opportunity for Members to be presenting their amendments. But, of course, we will try to take the necessary time to cover those issues. Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY02.027 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 Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The committee intention is, as stated, to support the private sector and not to fund the conduct or administration of this program by government employees other than issuing the grant itself.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

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

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to answer the questions posed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), yes, I think we can definitely work together to address his concerns about postal service in the Bronx. The gentleman is correct that we have included report language at the request of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) concerning the Post Office in Morris Park. We have recommended that the Postal Service investigate this situation and report recommendations for corrective action, reporting that to the committee. When we go to conference with the Senate, we can and will work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to come up with additional report language to take care of the issue regarding the Postal Service in the Bronx, presuming, of course, that the distinguished ranking member of the committee has no objections.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a member of our subcommittee who has done excellent work on this measure.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his remarks. I do fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem facing the citizens of his district, and I realize both its magnitude and its complexity. I hope that he and others understand that, therefore, we are trying to move circumspectly to see if we might be able to resolve it. The gentleman is correct in stating that I do have some concerns over the approach that he has proposed, although I recognize the need for a solution that is timely. I look forward to working together and continuing our dialogue in hopes that the problem can be resolved in an acceptable manner.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman will once again yield, No. 18 is included in the request and is debatable for 5 minutes.

Mr. ISTOOK. I understand that that is the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio has filed.