Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the study the gentleman and so many others have made in the time since. Even though we requested hearings in Congress, we were denied those by the chairman of the particular committee and, thus, we are here, because we know that the problem is accelerating. If you look, Mr. Chairman, at the total amount, for example, the State and local governments rely on motor fuel taxes, it is $25 billion a year. Mr. Chairman, if we can sell gasoline for 25 cents a gallon cheaper, and if the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which currently has hundreds of thousands of acres of requests pending, continues to transfer property at patchwork, prime real estate, high-traffic locations, it does not take long for the motorist to say, my goodness, it is 25 cents cheaper over here, I am going to buy my gasoline there, not understanding that they are dealing with a merchant that is marketing tax evasion. They are not trying to develop marketable skill. They are not trying to build legitimate businesses. They are trying to take advantage of the failure of this Congress to act as the U.S. Supreme Court has said clearly we have the authority to act. It is not violating sovereign immunity, it is not violating any treaties, it is merely reinstating fair play. Mr. Chairman, this is a very significant amendment. And if we believe that we want to help tribal members with legitimate businesses, instead of having false delusions that the way to get ahead in life is to find and create tax loopholes and profit off of them, then we need to support this amendment. This is recognized as a threat to the ability to provide care for people in public hospitals, to provide roads, to provide education.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would note this amendment is offered on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] and myself, and again I ask unanimous consent that total debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes, to be divided equally 15 minutes per side.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, for clarification may I inquire of the Chair, is it correct that the point of order is sustained even though the amendment is the same as last year because of a revision in the House rules from last year to this year?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would note this is the identical amendment that was offered and withstood a point of order last year on the House floor and was enacted by this House 212 to 206.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. As a member of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, I know firsthand our defense budget is inadequate. Training for our men and women in uniform, purchase of modern weapons systems, research and development to hold our technological knowledge in the military, proper facilities for our troops, all these and more are underfunded. Every dollar for defense is precious. So when the General Accounting Office reports that we will pay an extra $468 million each year if we fail to do both of two things, if we fail both to close those depots in Texas and in California and also transfer the work to the surviving three depots, if we do not do both of them, we lose the $468 million a year. The work has to be shifted. Why? Very simple: Three overheads are cheaper than five. And if we do not transfer the work, we are paying for more overhead multiple times. If we pass this amendment, we are playing politics and more, wasting 468 million badly needed dollars for defense. What does it mean? For example, each year it is 18 F-16 fighters we cannot buy. Each year it is 58 M-1 main battle tanks that we cannot upgrade. Each year we cannot get the upgrades of 56 Kiowa Warrior helicopters. We cannot buy those. We cannot upgrade other military facilities. We cannot take care of the troops. We cannot supply proper facilities, all because people wanted excess overhead and undercut our military's ability to get the most bang for our buck. Mr. Chairman, it also means less training, less preparedness and less readiness for national defense. A vote for the amendment is a vote to waste this money. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote no.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the fathers who do it right. A good father should first be a good husband and show his children by example the love and respect that their mother should receive. A father is one who is there, who quietly and faithfully sees needs and fills them. From diapers to bicycles to homework to growing to adulthood, fathers must be powerful forces of leading by quiet example. Fathers keep things strong and solid, but they keep it simple. My father set an example for hard work. He came home for dinner. He stayed with the family in the evening, but he had his own business to build and he went back to work late and would work until midnight and then be back home. He set an example. My father helped me through college, the first to my knowledge in my whole family tree, to get a college degree. When I married, my wife's father took it on himself to stock our kitchen and our pantry with its first set of food and supplies for us. Simple but significant. I hope and pray that I will be as good a father to my five children as my father has been to his five children and someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute being offered by the conservative action team and against the underlying bill. If the budget is not going to be balanced until 2002, why in the world would we want more money to be in the hands of government when it could be in the hands of families, it could be in the hands of those to stimulate the economy and create jobs by having greater tax cuts? That is what this substitute does. If my colleagues vote for the underlying bill, what they are saying is they want to throw away the progress that we have been making for years. If we look, Mr. Chairman, since 1992, every year the deficit has been coming down $40 to $50 billion a year, and suddenly, realizing that we will have the budget balanced within 2 years from now, people say, no, let us have one last spending spree, let us start spending more, let us wipe out the progress and not start making spending cuts or getting serious for another 3 years, until after President Clinton finishes his term. Mr. Chairman, we should not delay. Finish balancing the budget. Do not put it off. Do not have a last spending spree.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was absent at rollcall vote 133. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gekas

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Gekas amendment. Many of us are saying we do not want to use any threat of shutting the Government down. Now we hear people saying, ``Oh, you have got to try to do it.'' That does not make sense. Some of us, and I am one of them, want to reduce spending in the Federal Government. Some people want to increase the size of Government and increase the amount of spending. These are very difficult to resolve when we are tens of billions of dollars apart. We are saying while we try to work things out, we would agree we would just freeze spending while we try to work in good faith. They say, ``No, don't, you've got to shut government down instead.'' How ridiculous. It cost taxpayers $1.5 billion the last time around, workers being paid for a month that they did not do the work. The taxpayers were hurt heavily in the process. Federal workers were in jeopardy. Why go through such a thing? We are trying to say we do not want to have such a threat hanging over things. We want to work together in good will. Why in the world would some Members say ``No, we don't want to do it?'' Support the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume 5 minutes. I do think it is worth noting to people that not only is this a matter of saying that no relief money is stricken by the Neumann amendment, but because of the language adopted previously in the Gekas amendment, as of October 1 there will be further funding available for FEMA that is guaranteed to make sure that at that time, if there are further disasters occurring, there is money available to FEMA. So advanced funding for disasters that have not happened yet is not necessary because of the Gekas amendment which we already adopted that guarantees funds will be available October 1.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the constitutional amendment for uniform national term limits: 12 years for a Member of the House, 12 years for a Member of the Senate. The only way to establish term limit parity among all States is to pass the amendment. The one we are voting on creates uniform national term limits, placing no State at a disadvantage. I am committed to that prospect. Some support a 6-year term limit for Members of the House, allowing Senators, however, to serve 12 years. They call it 3 terms versus 2, but it is 6 years and 12 years. That is lopsided. If Senators could serve twice as long in the Congress as Representatives could, it means more power for the Senate and less for the House. Is that what we want? Senators only face the voters once every 6 years. Members of the House face the voters once every 2 years. Which one is more responsive to the voters? We want uniform service by those who are most responsive, not placing them at a disadvantage by saying they can only serve twice as long. Now, some who promote term limits in fact are promoting a shift of power. We believe in the principle of term limits. We have it on Presidents. We have it in State legislatures. We have it in city governments. We have it on many governors. The proposition has already been established in this country. It is dominantly supported by the people. The real and proper question is to ask, what is the right way to go about it? If the voters want to change a President, they can only do so every 4 years. If they wish to change a Senator, they can only do it once every 6 years. A Federal judge is there for a lifetime. A professional bureaucrat is there for who knows how long. A Member of the House serves every 2 years and is held accountable every 2 years. Why would we say we want them to be the weakest among all of the elected persons in Washington? It makes no sense. I support 12 and 12, uniform national term limits, and urge their adoption.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I like Jim Lightfoot. I am very glad that in his working career he got to spend some time in Oklahoma. We are grateful for that, so we can consider him at least to some extent an adopted son of the Sooner State. Essentially, when I was a freshman on the Committee on Appropriations and especially serving on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Jim Lightfoot more than anyone else took me under his wing, helped me to understand what was going on, comparing it with what should be going on instead. I have always been grateful for that and enjoyed the chance to serve with him on the full committee and on that subcommittee. Jim has very patient with me, which is not always easy, as he well knows and a lot of other people do. He has been very attractive as well and interested in wanting to help listen to and act on other people's ideas. It is nice to have something in common. Jim loves flying. I started flying lessons about the time I got into politics and never got to finish, so I am jealous of that. He served in law enforcement. I had a brief law enforcement stint. It is over. I am glad, though, that he for many years as a farm broadcaster was up early in the morning because in my years in broadcasting, I only lasted a few months when I had to start a shift at 3 a.m., and he went on for years. So I am grateful for Jim Lightfoot. The final thing that I think anyone ought to say about him, because I understand this is your birthday today, Jim, your 58th birthday. After all the years with him, when some people were trying to claim that he did not care about senior citizens, Jim's mother made a commercial saying she knows you can trust her son, Jimmy. By golly, after 58 years if his mother says that Jim Lightfoot can still be trusted and is still an obedient, dutiful son, if it is good enough for mom, it is good enough for me. I am proud of Jim Lightfoot.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in opposition to the Serrano amendment. point of order

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. Frequently, I am asked what kind of name is ``Istook''? People say, Is it Indian? Is it Estkimo? No, it is Hungarian. I am proud of my Hungarian ancestry. My father's parents came to the United States during the first quarter of this century. They Americanized the name. Originally Istook had one ``o.'' When they became U.S. citizens they marked the occasion, they marked the change by adding the second ``o'' as it has now. They came through Ellis Island. They are a part of the immigration saga of America. And when they became U.S. citizens, they received their certificate of naturalization, which my father had framed and now displays proudly in his home. My father grew up speaking two languages: Hungarian at home, but every place else, English. How glad I am that his parents, my grandparents, did not isolate my father by denying him the training and encouragement to focus upon English rather than focusing upon Hungarian, even though he spoke that at home. Like so many people, I am proud of my ancestry. The part of Hungary where we came from is the Transylvania region. A lot of people do not realize it is a real place. Transylvania now is part of Romania. I get a kick out of telling people that I am literally by blood half Transylvanian. It is fun. There are lots of great things about our heritage, fun and serious. But the important thing is, I am not hyphenated American. None of us really are. We are all American. If we believe that we are Americans, if we believe that what binds us together is what we have in common, then it must include the common language, and that common tongue is English.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. I rise in support of this appropriations measure, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has taken on some exceedingly difficult tasks. I know there has been a lot of work by all the members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], formerly chairman of the subcommittee. This has been a most difficult measure, especially because of the situation regarding the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Chairman. The IRS, as a body, is one about which we all make jokes. We talk about the problems it inflicts upon us. We do not like it. We mail in checks to it. We do not like how much we have to send. Yet we realize that people that work within the service are frequently our friends and neighbors, people with whom our kids go to church. I am sorry, people with whom our kids go to school, people with whom we go to church, or should be. But it is an agency with a great many problems. Especially the chairman and the members of the subcommittee have made a quite difficult decision with not providing some $700 million or so that the IRS said it wanted to help in upgrading its computer systems. This has been a multiyear project, Mr. Chairman. It has already involved spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, but the system is not working properly. It is not designed. There is not an overall plan. The IRS does not have sufficient expertise. It has not delegated responsibility to contractors and vendors who had that expertise. As a result, we have had hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars wasted. Until the IRS is in control of that situation and has it moving on target, where it can provide better services to the taxpayers, where it can give the efficiency, the up-to-date information that taxpayers expect and deserve regarding the payment of their taxes, until that time we should not be giving the IRS the leeway which it desires. So the money that is in this bill is fenced. There are hundreds of employees in the Internal Revenue Service that will no longer be employed upon that project. Some may find work elsewhere within the agency. Others will not. It is a difficult decision. The subcommittee, however, has come down with a decision that it must be done because we cannot countenance the continued waste of taxpayers' money through the inefficiency of the IRS. Especially the higher the tax rates have become in recent years, the more natural opposition there is for taxpayers to comply voluntarily with the tax laws. Therefore, if we expect the taxpayers to submit their money to the Federal Government, we had better be making sure that that money is properly spent, especially within the agency that collects it. I applaud the chairman for his efforts on this. I know there will be further revisions to how we are handling that as the process moves through the House and the Senate. Especially, Mr. Chairman, within the context of this overall bill, we realize the importance of holding the line in reducing Federal spending. I wish that I could say that this bill overall represents an actual reduction in overall spending. Within the context of a $23 billion spending measure, the increase from last year's authorized spending is $51 million. Frankly, it would not even be that were it not for mandatory payments to Federal retirement accounts. If we left out the Federal retirements, we would actually have an $80 million reduction in this bill from last year's spending. So it is certainly holding the line and we wanted to be able to go even further so that when taxpayers have to send in their hard-earned money, at least they will recognize that somebody here is trying to make sure that it does more good for them. I ask Members' support of the bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about $1.3 billion extra in Federal spending. No matter where we say the money is going to go, where is it going to come from? We asked the proponents, and they say we will take it out of the money that we were planning to spend next year. Where do we get the money next year? Well, from the year after that and the year after that. Kind of reminds me of the husband who wanted the boat. He says to his wife, ``I am going to get a boat.'' ``Where are you going to get the money?'' ``I will take it out of the mortgage.'' ``How will you pay the mortgage?'' ``I will take it out of the electric bill.'' ``How are you going to pay the electric bill?'' ``I will take it out of the clothing budget.'' ``How are you going to buy clothing?'' ``I will take it out of the grocery budget.'' ``How are you going to buy groceries?'' ``I guess we will have to borrow.'' That is what this is about. This is about increasing the amount that we are going to borrow. From where do we intend to borrow this $1.3 billion? Well, there are many different ways. We could write a check, if we had one. We could put it on a MasterCard or an American Express or a Visa. But ultimately it means we are talking about borrowing that money from our children. I have five of them. I do not want them to be buried in debt before they are even grown. I keep a chart in my office. It is on the wall. People come in and they can see every day what is the national debt: $5.1 trillion, $5,154,104,500,603 as of today, the share of each of my children, $19,329, and going up. Where is the money going to come from? They want to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow and put our kids in hock for it. This is not for the kids. This amendment is for the bureaucrats, to preserve 760 Federal programs in the name of education, and 95 percent of the education budget in this country comes from the communities and the States. It is not dependent upon the Federal Government. What depends on the Federal Government is bureaucrats, 760 Federal agencies spread out among 39 departments. Department of Defense. I do not even know the names of some of these. Department of Energy. I do not know what ATBCB is or AG. I know what EPA is and HHS and HUD. But 760 Federal programs? How many bureaucrats are we trying to support on the backs of our children? That is what this is about. If we believe in responsibility, if we believe that our children come first, then we should not pretend we are helping them by borrowing more money and putting more debt on their backs. Oppose the amendment. Let us keep some sanity. Let us get away from the notion that has dominated this body for so long that the American people are sick of it. Quit borrowing, let us keep the budget solid and keep on the path towards getting in it balance.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment that is being offered and express my support for the committee position in the bill and ask that Members vote accordingly.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this vote is going to show whether we believe in families and family responsibility or in Government taking over the major aspects of what we teach our children. President Clinton says: Government does not raise children; families do. I say to my colleagues, Then show you mean it. I know a friend who came to me. He has a 16-year-old daughter. He found out that she had been going to a title X clinic for a couple of years. He did not know anything about it until she ended up pregnant and had had an abortion. He said, ``Can the Government do this to our family? I could have helped, but I could not because I did not know.'' As parents, my wife and I know our approval was necessary if our girls wanted to get their ears pierced, when one of our five children went on school field trips, if they simply needed aspirin at school, or even to handle many medical emergencies. Yet Federal law say kid don't need anyone's okay to get birth control, family planning counseling, or even medical treatment, so long as it relates to sex. Title X--Title Ten--of the Federal Public Health Service Act provides birth control, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and family- planning counseling to adults and minors alike. Created in 1970, the intent was to serve poor families, but that has changed. Federal regulations now let a minor child, or a woman, be considered as a family of their own, so they're eligible regardless of how high their household's income may be. It all costs taxpayers almost $200 million a year. Today one-third of title X's clients are teenagers. This means 1.3 million youngsters each year get special support directly and fully from Federal tax dollars, just for their sexual activity. Current law not only lets teens escape parental consent; it also lets them prevent even a simple notice to their parents of what is going on. Even for those with no stable home life, the law likewise evades their guardians and other family members. Supporters of title X claim it reduces out- of-wedlock and teen pregnancies. But Federal statistics prove that the out-of-wedlock birthrate for American teenagers has doubled since title X began in 1970. Our Federal safety net has induced teens to believe that premarital sex is safe and that its consequences are avoidable, until they later learn otherwise. But forget statistics. Is it right for Government to help teens evade their parents regarding teenage sex and its consequences? This hits the heart of America's values. This most intimate moral issue is the crucial link leading to welfare dependency, single-parent homes, school drop-outs, juvenile crime, and a vast array of social problems. Why has our Government spent 26 years helping teens to avoid their most loving and helpful counselors--their parents? It's been far too many years since Congress has addressed this issue. But I'm offering a crucial amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and spending bill--under which title X is funded--to reinstate the principle of parents' role and responsibility regarding their children. The amendment simply requires minors to obtain consent from a parent or legal guardian, as governed by each State's own law on such issues, before they can receive federally financed contraceptives, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, or related counseling. Each State legislature can then define the scope of when parental consent is needed or not--just as States do on other parent-child issues. President Clinton has said ``governments don't raise children, but parents do.'' Yet he and too many others have not supported parental consent regarding title X. If he and others really believe in and trust families, it's time for Government to quite separating our children from their parent's love and guidance, especially on key moral issues such as teenage sex.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that no vote is taken at this time on the underlying amendment because first the substitute must be disposed of then, after a recorded vote and after the disposition of the substitute, there will be the disposition of the underlying amendment on which we have been debating?