Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my amendment which is at the desk. If there are no further speakers, I believe it is proper to proceed.

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I wish to speak on my amendment and to offer the amendment for consideration.

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chair, I would if I had a terminal right here.

Mr. ISTOOK. But it is a good point. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great American, former Adjutant General of Oklahoma, previous Director of the Army National Guard, prior Chief of the National Guard Bureau and past Executive Director of the National Guard Association of the United States. Lieutenant General Weber, a native of Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, was the first Three-Star General to head the National Guard Bureau. He held that post from August 1974 until August 1982. He continued his service at United States Forces Command until his retirement on June 30, 1984, which concluded 42 years of military service with the United States Marine Corps, the Marine Corps Reserve and the Army National Guard. Lieutenant General Weber served in the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II. After the war, he joined the Oklahoma National Guard's 45th infantry division. His unit was called to active duty September 1950 and then Captain Weber was soon serving as a Company Commander, and later the Operations and Training Officer. During a combat tour in Korea, he was promoted to the rank of Major a month before his release from active duty in June 1952 when he returned to National Guard Status in the Oklahoma National Guard. He graduated from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in December 1955 and was assigned as assistant intelligence officer, 45th Infantry Division. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel on May 15, 1959, and in April 1961 was assigned as Chief of Personnel, 45th Infantry Division, and served in that position until November 1964. He became Chief of Staff, 45th Infantry Division with his promotion to Colonel on November 18, 1964. On March 8, 1965, he was promoted to Major General, concurrent with his appointment as the Adjutant General of Oklahoma. He served in that position until his appointment as Director of the Army National Guard, in October 1971. On June 29, 1979, the Chief of Staff U.S. Army promoted him to Lieutenant General, the grade at which he would retire in 1984. He was appointed as the full-time Executive Director of NGAUS effective July 1, 1984. In the past few years, he had been a consultant on national defense matters. Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn today, let us do so in honor of and respect for this great American--Lieutenant General Lavern Weber.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Republicans in the House and the Senate on our pledge not to spend Social Security. To that end, I recommend the reading of the following article by Tod Lindberg, which appeared in the November 8th issue of The Weekly Standard. House Republicans Are Winning One The budget battle of 1999, hard to believe but true, has featured GOP cunning (By Tod Lindberg) Republicans both inside and outside Congress have been pleasantly surprised by how well they are doing politically in this year's budget fight with President Clinton. Ever since Clinton squashed the Republican Congress over the government shutdown in 1995-96, the autumnal rites of appropriation have been a time of dread for the GOP, an exercise in wondering who among them will be a human sacrifice come the next election as a result of drawing the wrath of the Democratic administration. This time, simply put, they are not getting killed. In fact, thanks to their tireless reiteration of their unifying theme--namely, that they are going to protect every last dime of Social Security from marauding Democrats--and thanks to the money the GOP is spending on advertising in select congressional districts repeating the point, poll numbers show the Republican message taking hold. It looks like Republicans have at last found an incantation with the same black magic power as the Democrats' ``Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment.'' Now, there are those who might say that the real secret of the GOP's success, such as it is, has been timely surrender, appeasement, and subterfuge: that Republicans have whole- heartedly agreed to substantial increases in government spending. The spending caps theoretically imposed by the balanced budget agreement have in effect been blown to smithereens, and the appropriations bills themselves are, in the aggregate, full of budgetary gimmickry and self- aggrandizing assumptioneering. This, snort some, is what a Republican Congress does? Crank up spending and cook the books to hide it? Well, up to a point. Those who see a smaller, more limited federal government as the sole test of conservative success will rightly be disappointed. At the end of the appropriations process--which is to say, before final negotiations with the White House--domestic discretionary outlays were scheduled to grow by 6 percent. The increase in outlays will surely outpace the growth of the economy in 2000. In absolute and relative terms, government is not shrinking but growing. But this raises the question: By how much? And compared with what? In judging the Republican performance, it's only fair to take account of political reality--in particular, the terra incognita of budgeting in an era of surplus. A better term for Bill Clinton's ``Third Way'' governing philosophy might be ``balanced-budget liberalism.'' For years, Republicans ran against the federal budget deficit, while Democrats only paid lip service to the concept (though they were always prepared to raise taxes in the name of deficit reduction). With their new majority after the 1994 elections, Republicans felt obliged to attack the deficit head-on. Politically, they ran into the Clintonian buzzsaw. But in the end, thanks in no small measure to a surging economy, Clinton was happy to grant Republicans what they had always claimed was their fondest wish: a balanced federal budget. One should, of course, be careful what one wishes for, lest one get it. Before Republicans saw it, Clinton understood the political implications of a world of budget surpluses. If your main argument against federal spending is ``the deficit,'' then surpluses translate into more spending. The GOP leadership on Capitol Hill disagreed. Many of them still wanted to cut spending or at least restrain increases. But for the first time in their political lives, the budget deficit was no longer at hand as an easy argument against spending. And Clinton would not go along with a tax cut acceptable to Republicans, so no budget restraint would be imposed by depriving the government of tax revenue. This is the box Republicans found themselves in at the beginning of the 1999 budget season, with the additional headache, after their 1998 election losses, of only a whisker-thin majority in the House. What's more, impeachment- related political tumult had claimed first the Gingrich speakership and then Bob Livingston's, resulting in the elevation of the amiable but untested Dennis Hastert of Illinois. This looked for all the world like an environment in which Clinton could fragment the House Republicans and dictate the spending levels he wanted, up to the limits of the budget surplus. Indeed, this was the calculation the House leadership made at first. They were inclined to abandon the budget caps early and make an expensive peace with the White House, thereby avoiding the nightmare scenario of another government shutdown for which they would be blamed--and the end of their majority in 2000. But there was serious resistance in the ranks to the idea of popping the caps. So they hung on and looked for some other survival kit, and found an unlikely one. They decided to make Social Security their friend. For years, the fact that government took in more in Social Security taxes than it paid in benefits, $99 billion in 1998, was irrelevant to the big picture on the deficit. In other words, government ``spent'' the Social Security ``surplus''-- that is, the deficit for running the rest of the government, apart from Social Security, would have been higher by the amount of the Social Security surplus. No one seriously objected to this ``raid'' on the ``Social Security trust fund.'' These are arbitrary accounting distinctions. Then, in a series of head-scratching staff meetings devoted to the question of how not to get killed, Republicans finally hit paydirt--a line they could articulate simply and clearly, with potential for public resonance, and around which they could keep their slender majority united, against all odds. It was ``Stop the Raid'' on Social Security. At a stroke, they were able to declare some $147 billion of the federal budget surplus for 2000 off limits to new spending. And they were able to hold that line. In accounting reality, this Social Security surplus figure is not less arbitrary than the budget caps supposedly still in force. But in the real world of politics, the fact is that budget caps were too abstract to hold Republicans together. Social Security is real. Clinton's rhetorical case against a tax cut hinged on protecting Social Security, for example. Without necessarily setting out to do so, the GOP leadership essentially created a very useful artificial deficit, the size of the Social Security surplus. This ``deficit'' now serves as a restraint on federal spending-- and will continue to do so. The Social Security surplus is estimated at about $155 billion in fiscal 2001 and $164 billion the year after. If Republicans win this point, it's likely to work for them in future budget rounds. The story of the fiscal 2000 budget, then, is not the story of gimmicks and gewgaws. That's the story of the budget every year. The story is how a perilously thin and nervous GOP majority under an untested leader managed to change the subject in such a way as to forestall scores of billions in additional government spending at a time when the government had the money. Dennis Hastert turns out to be the most underestimated politician in Washington since Bill Clinton in January 1995.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This, of course, is the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, as has been mentioned. I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, with the Members of the appropriations staff and certainly with the delegate from the District of Columbia, the mayor of the District and the members of the council, as well as many other people who have been involved in this. We received on Monday a letter from the President's office, from his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying that the contents of the District of Columbia appropriations bill, as it was included as a portion of the bill received by the President last week, that the contents of that portion of the bill, all the things relating to the District of Columbia, were acceptable to the President, and the President would sign it if it were presented to him as a separate bill. Of course, we know that it was presented as part of a package. This bill before us, however, is a separate bill. It has the identical language which the President advised us Monday would be acceptable to the White House with only one variation. The only variation is in the section that has to do with injection of illegal drugs by needle. The bill that passed last week and that the President said was acceptable to him stated that no public funds, neither from the Federal Government, nor from the District of Columbia, no funds could be used on a program of providing free needles to drug addicts. The only difference between that and this is this bill also has the additional phrase that says you also do not provide those funds to an entity that operates such a program of providing needles to drug addicts. Even though that is different from the bill that we had last week, and that is the only difference, it is identical to the bill that was signed into law by the President last year. So the only change, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) earlier referred to it as a minuscule change, the only change is to continue the restriction under which the District and the Federal Government already operates that says you cannot operate a program of giving needles to drug addicts to inject themselves with illegal drugs and still qualify to receive government funds. That is it. Now, I should point out that the other things in this bill remain constant. This is what I think is important to the District of Columbia, because, see, we are trying to assist the District in its crackdown on drugs. We do not want a mixed message. We do not want people on one hand saying we are cracking down on drugs and then on the other, wink, wink, we are helping people to run a program that gives needles to drug addicts to shoot themselves up. No, we have in this bill a total of $33.5 million, money the Congress is under no obligation to provide, but money that we think is important to attack the link between crime and drugs in the District of Columbia, $20 million for drug testing, drug treatment, drug crackdown, because the District has a pervasive problem with the link between crime and drugs; and we want to crack down on it and break that link. We also have the provisions in this bill for the $17 million college assistance program for students in the District. We have $5 million of incentives to adopt foster children, to get thousands of kids in D.C. that are stuck in foster homes and have been for years adopted into safe, permanent, stable, loving homes. We have the provisions in this bill for the cleanup, several million dollars for the cleanup of the Anacostia River, payment to assist the infrastructure build-out of the Children's National Medical Center. We have provisions in this bill to assist the new mayor in one of his major initiatives of right-sizing the government in the District, $18 million to assist them in reducing the size of the number of employees they have, reducing the number of employees doing contract buyouts and so forth. There is a lot of stuff in here that has great value to help the District of Columbia recover. Unfortunately, there are some people that say all that matters to them is giving away free needles to drug addicts, and nothing else matters; all we are trying to do on that issue is preserve the status quo. Now, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), if he wishes, may offer an amendment to this bill through his motion to recommit. He has that leeway. If there is some adjustment that he considers minuscule that he wants to make, he has the ability to offer it. But we believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have important measures in here for the future, the vitality, the growth, the public safety, the value and strength of the schools and education, the infrastructure, things that are important to people who live and work and solicit here in the District of Columbia. I would certainly hope that, if some people want to take an extreme position toward giving away needles to drug addicts, they would vote their conscience, but not use that as an excuse to vote against such an important measure to help with the improvement of the District of Columbia. The provision in this bill is identical to the provision signed into law by the President last year. Every other provision in the bill is identical to what the President advised us he wants to sign into law regarding the District of Columbia. I think we have a common sense approach here. If people wish the debate to center around the question of giving needles to drug addicts, then they should openly say so. But there is certainly no other excuse for anyone to vote against this bill unless they want to take that extreme position. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03NO99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03NO99.002 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the bill (H.R. 3194), making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who has been very active and consistent as a leader against the drug problems of the country.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we close the debate on this bill, I can imagine that some people might have been confused listening to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). For example, they might have thought that somehow this amendment came out of the blue or that this amendment permits funding from public treasuries for needle exchange programs. No, the amendment is what says public funding cannot happen. The amendment was not inserted in the conference committee. It was not inserted in the committee at all. It was voted on on the floor of this House July 29. The identical language of which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) now complains was approved by this House of Representatives in a freestanding vote, no other issues, on July 29 by 241-187. And 40 Democrats, Members of the own party of the gentleman, were among the 241 Members of this House who voted for it. The language is identical to what was signed into law last year by the President of the United States. It is identical to what the District of Columbia operates with today. It says they cannot operate a needle exchange program and still receive District of Columbia money or Federal Government money, nor can they use District of Columbia money or Federal Government money to operate a so-called needle exchange program where they give needles to drug addicts so they can shoot themselves up. They perpetuate their habit. They help them. They enable them. They give them drug paraphernalia. We have got laws on the books against drug paraphernalia. We are just saying they should not be encouraging that. Is there a needle exchange program in the District of Columbia? Yes, there is one. Does it operate with any funds that come from the Government? No. Does it operate with an entity that receives Government money? No. It is a purely private operation. The gentleman says needles cost nothing. Well, that particular program operates on a budget of somewhere in the general neighborhood of $300,000 a year. Now, I admit that is not millions and millions or billions of dollars. But it is not nothing, either. When we talk about protecting babies, I do not want to see more babies born addicted to heroin because somebody was helping their mother to continue shooting up while she was carrying that child. I do not want more people robbed, I do not want more people killed because somebody was stealing to protect their drug habit. They may have gotten a free needle, but they still had to buy the dope and they were still involved in it. If we want to get them off, let us get them off. Let us not give them the means to destroy themselves and to destroy other people, as well. Now, Mr. Speaker, I heard it contended that somehow this bill was being held hostage. My goodness, just asking to continue the language that the President approved last year and that this House has adopted in a separate vote is not holding anything hostage. We are only here because the President vetoed the original bill. He vetoed that September 28. Why did he veto it? He gave seven reasons in his veto message. One, he wanted to permit public money to be spent on this needle program. Two, he wanted to permit the District of Columbia to legalize marijuana, supposedly for medicine, but under extremely loose standards that, frankly, were a joke. It was not medical marijuana. But he wanted to permit it. Three, he wanted to allow higher pay for the District of Columbia Council members. Four, he wanted higher legal fees for attorneys that were suing the schools of the District of Columbia. Five, he wanted taxpayers' money to be spent to finance a lawsuit trying to make the District of Columbia a State. Six, he wanted to overturn a rider that has been on the bill for, I think, about 9 years now and that he has approved a number of times before saying we do not treat people who are living together the same as a married couple. And last, he did not want to accept a provision that has been a part of this bill for over 20 years, limiting public funding of abortion so it does not apply in cases other than rape or incest or the life of the mother being involved. That is what the President said his veto was about. Every one of those were things that have been a part of this bill before. They were things that the President had signed into law before, with the exception of the District of Columbia Council members' salaries. Now we have made a couple of adjustments in the salary provision, in the legal fee provision, and made clear that the City's attorneys can keep them advised of lawsuits. But it is the President that picked these social issues. He picked the fight over old issues that have been decided in this Congress before. He vetoed the bill. He made us come back multiple times with this bill. We have not punished the District. We have not come back and said, my goodness, if these things mean so little to them, we are not going to help their kids go to college, we are not going to help with cleaning up the Anacostia River. We have not punished the District. We have a special constitutional responsibility. Article 1, section 8 says this Congress is responsible for the laws of the District of Columbia. We recognize that it is the Nation's capital, it is not just another city. Now, I was sorry to hear, Mr. Speaker, the delegate from the District of Columbia demean the efforts that we have undertaken to honor and respect and assist the District of Columbia by saying that things in the bill were ``small change.'' We did not touch the budget that the District wanted. We have applauded them. With the help of this Congress, they have achieved a balanced budget in the District of Columbia. We want to keep it that way. They have passed and we have approved the most significant tax cut that they have ever had, a bipartisan effort by the local government here in the District of Columbia. We have endorsed that. And we have done things we were not obligated to do. The $17 million to help kids in the District go to college, I do not consider that small change. The efforts to help them with charter schools so they have choices and are not trapped in a dead-end school, I do not consider that small change. The environmental clean-up, millions of dollars to clean up the fouled Anacostia River, I do not consider that small change. The Nation's largest drug testing and drug treatment program to break the link between crime and drugs, $34 million, I do not consider that small change. The $5 million in incentives to help kids be adopted into stable, safe, loving homes instead of being shuttled around in foster homes, I do not consider that small change. There are many things in this bill I do not consider small change and I do not think the residents will consider them, either, Mr. Speaker, the people who see it brings them lower taxes, better schools, more efficient government, a better environment, less crime, and less drugs, a city government that is more responsive. I do not think it is small change. I think it is important. I am sorry that some people think that what is more important is giving away needles to drug addicts. They can have all the private programs that they want to. They just should not try to mix those up with taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill. I thank the many people that have worked so valiantly and especially the cooperation that I have received working with local officials here in the District. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I think that is perfectly acceptable. I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the message of the President and the bill be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 3194.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we have heard people try to present a partial look, only a partial look at what CBO has said. A request was sent to them saying, if you do not count the adjustments, is there money coming out of social security? They said, if you do not count it. But if you count the adjustments, then it is in surplus. That is like asking your banker, Mr. Speaker, to send you a bank statement that tells you about your withdrawals but leaves out reference to the deposits. Of course it would show a negative. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), another member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.