Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 103, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I believe that the interest of the gentleman from Georgia and mine in this situation are very akin to each other. What I wanted to do in the colloquy I just had with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) was, frankly, avoid trying to unnecessarily get into a debate today, since we have so many other things that are going to be consuming debate time on the floor. Although I believe that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should not, under current proposals, be transferred to the Department of Justice, nevertheless, I do not think it serves any purpose to try to engage in a debate on that today. Of the 21,000 students and 223 student-weeks of training that are currently conducted at FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, only about 5 percent of that training involves agencies that, under the proposal that will be on the House this week, would be under the Department of Justice. I do not think it would make sense to have FLETC be under the Department of Justice when only 5 percent of the work of FLETC is under the Department of Justice. Now, I do not know if, under what we do later, things might remain in the Department of the Treasury or if they might go to the Department of Homeland Security; and those probably would give us some idea of what is the best solution. But I do not think that we need to have that debate today. We are going to be having debate on that, and similar things, later this week. And I think what we want to do is to make sure that ultimately we take a consistent position; that what comes out of our appropriations bill will ultimately be consistent with whatever the entire Congress and the President adopt regarding the Office of Homeland Security. So, therefore, we had the colloquy rather than engaging in a debate on the amendment over this issue today.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, as I understand it, this has to do with funding of the Office of Former Presidents, which, frankly, could open a time-consuming debate on this. Is the gentleman aware that it may be possible for him to offer his amendment at a later stage in the bill?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although I wish to accommodate the gentleman, lest we set a precedent that would keep us from considering other amendments that come before us and having to constantly reach back in the bill, I object, although I would certainly cooperate with the gentleman in the mechanics where he can do it later in the bill.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 44, line 12, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in response to the motion of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). I want to say that certainly I propose accepting the amendment. We had a line item in the bill last year regarding the Freedmen's Bureau, and I realize the preservation of the records and the history is very important to preserve the heritage of this country and particularly of the group of people that were involved in the former institutions of slavery and being freed from it. So I believe that this is something that would have been funded by the National Archives and Records Administration with or without the amendment. We have had enough conversations with them, but I appreciate the gentlewoman's desiring to be certain on this, and I support her desire for that certainty; and I certainly support and accept the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, through page 67, line 21, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I recognize that cost accounting standards and accounting propriety is something that we all support and seek and we want to make sure that it is done. The difficulty, of course, is that this particular provision has been carried in this bill since 1998 at the request of the authorizing committee, namely the Committee on Government Reform. Why? Because, as the Office of Personnel Management has told us, the accounting standards that through the CAS are sought to be applied to insurance carriers through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, as OPM told us, are in ``incompatible conflict'' with the accounting standards that are used within the insurance industry. I think that the Chairman, as well as many Members, are aware that there are accounting differences depending on the type of business, whether it is a publicly held corporation, whether it is a partnership or small business, whether it is a public utility, or in this case whether we are talking about an insurance company. The concern is this: If we adopt this amendment, we may force out of the market insurance carriers that provide coverage to hundreds of thousands of Federal workers by arbitrarily and immediately cutting them off. I do not want to see hundreds of thousands of people lose their insurance benefits or be told now they have to shop around and find a different carrier under the FEHBP just because we made a quick and not fully informed decision on the floor of the House that we wanted to take some regulation that was meant to apply to other types of companies and apply them to insurance carriers under the FEHBP. That is my concern with the gentleman's amendment. His desire to make sure that we have accounting propriety is well taken; but let us make sure that we do that in a reasoned way. Let us make sure that we go back to the authorizers, the Committee on Government Reform that originally asked for this provision to be carried in this bill several years ago, ask them to look at it, look at it in proper depth and with correct understanding of the accounting differences for different types of businesses. I have been informed that more than half of all Federal employees could have their insurance coverage put at risk if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). Members may agree or disagree that that is the case, but I for one do not want to take the chance without having a much more informed understanding of this situation. It is a very technical amendment. It is a technical circumstance. The gentleman has excellent motives, but I think it is also an excellent motive to protect the insurance coverage of half or more of the Federal workers that we have in the United States. So I oppose this amendment, but I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to make sure that whether it be through FEHBP or through any other person or entity that does business with the Federal Government or with the taxpayers, we have proper, reliable accounting standards applied.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I remind Members that we appreciate their support of this important measure. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume the 5 minutes. I certainly appreciate the passion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). It certainly is a significant problem. I am not quite sure what it will take to resolve it totally, but at this point anyway, we certainly would be willing to accept the amendment.

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. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the provision the gentleman refers to, section 504 of the bill, is one that was crafted, I believe, prior to the recommendation for the Department of Homeland Security being formed. It is certainly my intent, and I will endeavor to make sure our bill is consistent with this, that whatever is ultimately adopted by this body and by the other body, what is ultimately adopted by Congress regarding where the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should be situated, whether it be in the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security or elsewhere, whatever ultimately is the enactment as far as the Department of Homeland Security, is something that I will make sure that we have language consistent with that in the ultimate House-Senate version of the Treasury, Postal appropriation.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Certainly.

Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman will yield, amendment No. 8 is in a grouping with amendments numbered 2, 8, 12, and 18, as printed in the Congressional Record, which shall be debatable for 5 minutes each.