Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I realize we are very much opposed on the legislation as a whole, and we certainly do anticipate going forward with it. But this does, through the technical correction, make sure that we are addressing some concerns. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. I think I can anticipate that, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I want to express appreciation for the comments of the gentleman from Colorado. I realize he opposes the thrust of the legislation and has his own concerns about that. As the gentleman correctly said a moment ago, even though he does not like the bill, at least in his opinion it is an improvement. This is certainly intended to clarify the intent and to correct the scrivener's error that was made when things that were in the actual amendment as offered in appropriations were inadvertently left out in the bill printing process. We have certainly tried to be responsive to the concerns of the Members on the other side, and the corrective amendment I think certainly addresses those. I appreciate what modicum of favorable comment the gentleman was able to make in candor. I thank the gentleman. If there is no other debate on this, I would urge adoption of this technical correction.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the public is demanding that the Congress reduce Federal spending. The message from the elections was clear, the constant messages we receive from our constituents are clear; they are demanding that we do so. They realize that we have built a gigantic Government bureaucracy of social programs and Government handouts that are cruel. They are cruel because they are killers of initiative, killers of self-reliance, and destroyers of the family. Do the American people lack compassion because they want to bring down the size of Government? Of course not. Do Members of Congress, whether they be on this side of the aisle or on that side of the aisle, lack compassion because they see the necessity to reduce Government spending and to do it in social programs? Of course not. Mr. Chairman, we all prove our individual compassion by what we do with our own time, our own efforts and our individual dollars. We do not prove we have compassion by reaching into the wallets of the American taxpayers and extracting, under force of law through the tax system, more and more money. That proves that we believe in taking from other people, not that we have personal compassion. Compassion is measured by what we do individually and what we help people to be able to do for themselves, not with the Government programs that destroy initiative, that have brought down this country, that have generated the national debt that will be the ruin of the next generation of our children and our grandchildren, if we do not bring spending under control and do it now. Mr. Chairman, this bill, compared to the task before us, is easy. The spending reductions in this bill are about $6.5 billion below what was spent last year and about $10 or $11 billion below what the President wanted to spend. But even after the reductions are made, the budget will still be almost $200 billion out of balance in the next fiscal year. Even after these cuts that some people think will make the sky fall, it is still going to take years and years of effort to be able to meet our target of balancing the budget by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, any Member who thinks that this bill contains tough decisions should not come back for another term in the next few years, because the decisions will only get tougher. It is a choice: Cut spending now or visit ruin upon our children with a bankrupt Federal Government and a Federal Government that, according to figures released by the Clinton administration, would insist upon taking 83 cents out of every dollar that our children make in their future, over their lifetimes, in the amount of taxes they have to pay if we do not get spending under control, if we do not balance the budget. The overall spending reductions in this bill, Mr. Chairman, are only 11 percent. Yet, we are told it will be the ruin of American civilization. That is hogwash, and people know it. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want is a system of more personal dependency upon Government bureaucracy. I disagree with them on that. I believe the American people disagree with them. I applaud what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has done on this. The gentleman has things in this bill that frankly he does not want to do. The gentleman has programs that he likes, that he thinks are good programs. Yet, for the good of the entire country, he has been willing to put them forward to reduce and even zero out programs that he individually likes because he recognizes the scale of the problem. I applaud the fashion which the gentleman from Illinois has handled it, the fairness to all sides on the issues. I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full committee, and I note, for the benefit of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the very charts that he has had published in the report show that the State of Louisiana will have almost $100 million less coming to it in Federal spending under the bill already. In fact, if my rough figures are correct, I believe Louisiana takes a greater dollar hit than the State of Wisconsin does under this bill. Mr. Chairman, that is not the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations trying to protect people back home; it is the chairman working for the common good of the entire country, and I applaud those efforts. It is tough, but it is going to get tougher. This bill is important toward balancing the budget, toward correcting mistakes that have been made in the growth of the Federal bureaucracy and the duplication. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this entire bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Livingston and Smith language and in opposition to the Greenwood language. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Greenwood amendment, and support the proposals of Mr. Livingston and Mr. Smith. The current title X programs hurt America's families; they undercut America's families and our values. How? Because current title X programs promote teenage promiscuity and other sex outside of marriage. American history since title X was adopted shows that abortions are up, and out-of-wedlock births are also up dramatically. Why? Because the Federal Government, with taxpayers' money, is subsidizing sex outside of marriage. Let's look just at the teenagers who are subsidized by title X: One- third of those who use title X are juveniles. Minors. Children. Teenagers. Over 1 million young people each year, who the law says are too young to vote, too young to enter a contract, often too young to have their ears pierced without a parent's permission, can go to a government family planning clinic, without knowledge of parents or family. There they don't get instruction in the moral and other consequences of sex outside marriage. Instead, they get free birth control pills, condoms, and other contraception, and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases: AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other forms of venereal diseases. And their parents are never told. No wonder America's families find it hard to guide their children, when the government offers their children an end-run around the family on this, the most intimate of family issues. As a father of five, I don't want government using my tax dollars to undercut what I teach my children about morality. And these teens are not all poor, not by a long shot. That's because title X ignores the family's income, and looks only at the teenagers'. Thus, even children from wealthy families qualify for private government help in maintaining their sexual conduct. Our tax dollars are used to by-pass Mom, and by-pass Dad, and by-pass the entire family. In their place, a federally-paid worker tells our youth it's OK, you can sleep around all you want with your boyfriend or girlfriend, regardless of what your family has taught you. The Federal worker won't focus on the fact that it's wrong. They don't give you love and moral guidance. They just give this young person more birth control, and treatment for V-D if they catch something. Title X in this insidious fashion undercuts America's families and promotes teenage promiscuity. Is this what we want to do with $193- million a year of our tax dollars?? I do not believe this is what America wants, or what our families want. I urge defeat of the Greenwood amendment, and adoption of the Livingston and Smith language.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that some people object now, saying that we should not do other things on appropriations bills. I looked at last year's version of this very same piece of legislation when the other party was in power and there were in excess of 30 examples of what we call authorizing language on the appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, this is nothing new or unique; it is something that is common. But what is not common in this place, Mr. Chairman, is the type of outcry that we have heard from the special interests, because they realize they are threatened by this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation defunds special interests. This bill is to stop the system of patronage, that has gone on through so much of the government bureaucracy, that hands money out to allies of the governing party and uses them to come back and lobby the taxpayers. We have steps, not only by reducing the level of spending in this bill, but we have what we call the grants reform language, the stopping of welfare for lobbyists that goes to the heart of the problem. Mr. Chairman, we will never get spending in this country under control if we do not stop using taxpayers' money for advocacy of political positions. This bill contains the language to correct it. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], my friend, say, ``Oh, this is going to create a national database.'' My goodness, I hope the gentleman realizes that lobbyists already have to register. There is already a database. There is a database of grantees. There is nothing new in that. Mr. Chairman, perhaps some people want to hide from public view the amount of money that is going to special interest groups. The President of the United States, yesterday, decried the special interests in Washington. Here we have a bill to take money away from them to make them stop taking advantage of the taxpayers and people treat it as though the sky is falling. Mr. Chairman, this bill on so many fronts addresses the problems with how Washington operates, the way that taxpayers' money is used to fund giant bureaucracies in the private sector, as well as the government sector. This bill is to put a halt to that. Mr. Chairman, the Obey amendment tries to gut this piece of legislation. It needs to be defeated and the bill as a whole needs to be passed.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent from voting on rollcall Nos. 596, 597, 598, and 599. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on all of them.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the bill does not have any mention of NIPER. It only mentions it during the report language. The report language has specific line items for the institutions in West Virginia and in Pennsylvania. The language is only reflective of what the Committee on Science has already established, what the Department of Energy has already established. It is not creating anything. Frankly, the amendment does not specify where any cut would be made. It is trying to attack oil funding in general to protect coal.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to establish that this was put out for bid. It was bid only just about a year ago. So this is the product of bidding. Furthermore, this institution has been involved in privatizing and reduction of the number of government employees and the research is at the government-owned institution.

Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, NIPER is not mentioned in the legislation.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to understand here that what happens in fossil energy research is that for every one dollar that is being spent on oil research, and that is all that the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Wisconsin want to attack, is oil research, for every one dollar in oil research, there are two dollars in coal research under this piece of legislation. I think it is significant to understand that. For example, for the gentleman from Massachusetts, we looked it up, and currently Massachusetts is receiving over $51 million from the Department of Energy for coal research. Mr. Chairman, I submit that had the purpose of the gentleman from Massachusetts been to try to be even-handed at anything, then he would propose that for every one dollar you cut in oil research, you would cut two dollars in coal research, and I am certain that he would volunteer that that should come from the State of Massachusetts, were that his objective. Mr. Chairman, the only reason that $5 million was added back in committee was to maintain that same two-to-one ratio, two-to-one in favor of coal research, which has been the ratio for many, many, many years. So that is all that is sought to be done with this legislation, and it is important to understand that, you know what, Mr. Chairman, under this bill research money for oil is being reduced. It is being reduced by over $12 million. And yet, for the gentleman from Massachusetts, that is not sufficient. He wants to protect coal, but make further reduction in oil. Now, I realize people in Massachusetts may not care about oil. They may not care about the energy independence that is important to the country. But it is important, Mr. Chairman, to the rest of us. So I would certainly ask Members to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Oppose the attempt to attack one industry while protecting a different one that is important to the sponsor of the amendment. And finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill does not have any sort of line item in favor of NIPER or Bartlesville. In fact, if you look at the report, the only specific line items with specific funding going to specific institutions are for West Virginia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, when it comes to that fossil energy research. So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote. Let us keep the funding as it has been proposed. It is an absolute reduction. It maintains the historical ratio between oil and coal. it is no disadvantage to either one of them. I would ask that my colleagues join in voting ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the bill speaks for itself. It is a reduction in the funding. It maintains simply the two-to-one ratio in favor of coal with oil. It is clear that it is $12,914,000 below last year's. It is not increasing anything. And the amendment did not line item $5 million for NIPER.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, Congress is aware that several downtown churches were severely damaged as a result of the April 19, 1995, terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Among these are first United Methodist Church, First Baptist Church, St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral and St. Joseph's Catholic Church. These churches assisted in the emergency relief effort immediately after the bombing and one was even used as a temporary morgue for victims of the blast. These religious institutions have been informed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that under current regulations they are not eligible for any Federal disaster assistance for the repair and reconstruction of their facilities. However, Congress recognizes that the Oklahoma City bombing is a unique case. The bombing was a single, man-made assault directed against our National Government. These churches, like the other businesses and residences in the damaged area, were innocent bystanders to a violent attack on the Federal Government. This special instance is therefore distinguished from other kinds of disasters in which religious buildings may be damaged. Congress thus agrees that religious institutions in Oklahoma City should be eligible for the Federal assistance provided in this bill in the same manner as nonprofit organizations providing public services.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, please include the following remarks in the Record regarding ``Political Advocacy with Taxpayer Dollars.'' Political Advocacy With Taxpayer Dollars Violates the Rights of All Taxpayers (Testimony of Representative Ernest J. Istook, Jr., June 29, 1995, before the House National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee) It is time to end taxpayer funded political advocacy! Over 40,000 organizations receive over $39 billion in Federal grant funds directly. Preliminary examination of the problem makes it apparent that grant abuse is rampant and needs to be addressed with systemic reform. Systemic reform must not be targeted at any particular group nor any particular political philosophy but must allow the U.S. Congress to perform its fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer. That responsibility requires the Congress to track Federal Budget dollars to their usage point. I feel strongly that these Federal dollars represent the hard work of many Americans who deserve the assurance that when they are compelled to pay taxes, that these tax dollars are being used appropriately. Using tax dollars for political advocacy not only violates the principles of free speech and free association. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1977) that compulsory union dues cannot be used to fund political activity, so, too, compulsory taxes should not be used for this purpose. The legislation several of us are working on is but one step, though a major step, in stopping some of the fraud, waste and abuse that plagues the Federal Budget. The various attempts at addressing taxpayer-funded political advocacy problem have proven to be inadequate. Were this not the case the problem would not continue to be a significant problem. The IRS Code restrictions on many of the non-profit organizations and the Byrd amendment in 1990 have all proven to be inadequate. Though it is technically illegal to use taxpayer funds for lobbying, schemes have been created to circumvent the law. These include automatically sending a certain percentage of grant money to cover overhead for the lobbying arm, and subgranting funds to other organizations, in which case the audit trail ends. Sometimes the laws that exist are so vague and unenforceable that they are not satisfactory. An example of this is the lobby registration and reporting requirement for Congress. Lobbying is not defined in the law, so lobbyists only report time and expenses for time on Capitol Hill, not time spent in the office studying the issues, making phone calls to prepare for visits, etc. The Byrd amendment never defined appropriated funds, so funds are no longer considered appropriated after they've been deposited into the organization's checking account. The goal is not and never should be to restrict free speech. Instead, the goal is to avoid the use of tax dollars to subsidize the private speech of those who have political connections or who rely on taxpayers' money to advocate their political views. Upon examination of this problem, I feel the following principles must be put into law regarding the usage of Federal funds by Federal grantees: a. The term ``lobbying'' is too narrow to be useful for this purpose. The broader term ``political advocacy'' should be used and defined under the law. This definition would extend to Federal grantees engaging in political campaigns, lobbying the legislative or executive branch agencies from the Federal to the state and local level, and engaging in efforts to influence general and specific public policy through confirmations, referendums or judicial action. b. No federal funds should be used for political advocacy. c. No grant funds should be used to provide support to other organizations who, in turn, conduct political advocacy. d. No organization that receives a federal grant should, in turn, grant those funds to others, except as provided in the authorizing law that created the organization (i.e. the Institute of Peace, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc.) Such grantees should be under the same obligation as if they received the Grant directly from the Federal government. Current law does not require this. This will not include state and local governments, but would include any private entity which receives federal grant funds, passed through to them by state or local governments. e. Any Federal grantee should be subject to an audit, at the government's request, and must prove ``by clear convincing evidence'' that any funds used for political advocacy did not come from Federal funds. Grantees are expected to use ``generally accepted accounting principles'' (GAAP) in keeping records. This provision will not require any unusual accounting methods, and will deter, in fact, ``creative'' or otherwise lax accounting. f. The federal dollar should be followed to its point of use. This will insure Congress is able to insure each taxpayer dollar is appropriately used for its intended purpose. g. Information about all of these grants should be available to the general public. case study: the nature conservancy We have already heard testimony today about the Nature Conservancy's use of Federal taxpayer dollars to crush local opposition to a nature sanctuary. This action, even if it were authorized by Congress, violates the rights of the citizens of that county in Florida. The Nature Conservancy, from what we know in this case, used at least $44,000 from the Department of Commerce to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), plus $75,000 (most likely Federal funds) from other organizations' subgrants. In the Nature Conservancy's ``NOAA Performance Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 1993,'' they discuss 21 items, 19 of which are clearly political advocacy under the definition I expect to outline in my proposed legislation. Items included preparing testimony for people to testify before Congress and ad campaigns. Please notice their item 17, which states that they spent money for this effort: Developed and directed plan to counter opposition's push for a county-wide referendum against the establishment of the Sanctuary. Recruited local residents to speak out against referendum at two Board of County Commissioners hearings. Organized planning conference call with members of the Center for Marine Conservation, the Wilderness Society, and the Nature Conservancy to discuss plan. Plan was successful in blocking referendum (a 3-2 vote), and generated many positive articles and editorials using many of the messages discussed in plan. They blocked a public vote on their plan. This is raw political activity. It does not deserve a subsidy from the voters who they sought to silence. The issue is not which organization was bigger, more organized, etc. I would be just as disturbed with any other group Federal grant dollars and using those dollars to crush local opposition to their members' goals. We have the right to freely associate with those who espouse principles that we endorse. The key word here is ``freely.'' When tax dollars are used for political advocacy, this is not, by any definition, a free speech or free association. first amendment protection Some opponents have a general misconception that it is unconstitutional to prevent organizations, especially non- profit organizations, from engaging in political advocacy with taxpayer dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, unconstitutional to permit recipients of federal funds from engaging in political advocacy with those dollars. In the case of Rob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court noted that, ``When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions, all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or the deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious `donors'.'' In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that it was unconstitutional to require teachers to contribute to a union where the dues were used to support ideological causes the teacher opposed. The court said that taxpayers should not be required, either directly or indirectly, ``to contribute to the support of an ideological cause [they] may oppose.'' Where recipient organizations receive both a tax exemption and government funding and then use government funds to engage in political advocacy, it is clear the government, and hence the taxpayers, are both supporting the political views advocated by the recipient organization. The Supreme Court noted several years ago in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that where governmental action ``suggests an attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing the views to the people, the First Amendment is painfully offended.'' Thus the right of free speech also includes the right not to speak. It includes the right not to support causes or ideologies with tax dollars. No taxpayers should be compelled to support ideological causes or political points of view with which the taxpayer disagrees. This is very important because taxes compulsory, not voluntary. Thus the federal government has a special duty to protect free speech and prevent, whenever possible, the infringement of the free speech of all taxpayers. This position is clearly supported by the Supreme Court. On May 23, 1983, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right of the Federal government not to subsidize the lobbying activities of private, nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations. In the case of Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 51 U.S.L.W. 1588 (1983), Taxation with Representation of Washington (TWR), a nonprofit corporation organized to promote what it conceived to be the ``public interest'' in the area of federal taxation, applied for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS denied the application because a substantial part of the organization's activities consisted of lobbying activity. TWR sued based on First amendment and equal protection under the fifth amendment. The court rejected TWR's contention that the government may not deny their application for tax-exempt status. The Supreme Court stated: Both tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. . . . Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity but has simply not chosen to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. . . . A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe on that right and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny. It was not irrational for Congress to decide that tax-exempt organizations such as TWR should not further benefit at the expense of taxpayers at large by obtaining a further subsidy for lobbying. . . . We have held in several contexts that a legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right. . . . It is also not irrational for Congress to decide that, even though it will not subsidize substantial lobbying by charities generally, it will subsidize lobbying by veterans' organizations. . . . Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. . . . Congress--not TWR or this Court--has the authority to determine whether the advantage the public would receive from additional lobbying by charities is worth the money the public would pay to subsidize that lobbying, and other disadvantages that might accompany that lobbying.'' (Regan v. TWR) 461

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the other members of the committee, the Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], the other members of the Oklahoma delegation, our mayor of Oklahoma City, Ron Norick, the Governor, Frank Keating, and all others who have worked together to try to fashion some relief for our city, which was so unfortunately damaged by the bombing on April 19. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely important to Oklahoma City. It has $39 million of relief to assist people, businesses, property, in the damaged area and in the downtown area of Oklahoma City, including an unusual provision, unique for this special purpose, to assist downtown churches, one of which was immediately across the street from the blast, so that they too, to the same extent as any other nonprofit group, might receive the assistance to rebuild at least what we can rebuild since the lives that were shattered cannot be put back together. The churches, for example, rendered emergency assistance and even provided the facilities for the morgue that was necessary when 168 people died in that catastrophic explosion. Mr. Speaker, this bill is also important because it has funds to rebuild or repurchase a new Federal building; for the demolition of the building which has occurred; the ability to turn the site over to the city of Oklahoma City for a permanent memorial, which is to be constructed; to provide emergency funding for housing of Federal agencies; and of course money for [[Page H 6636]] antiterrorist activities, including $2 million as necessary for the prosecution of the despicable individuals that committed that atrocious act of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this is important, and I ask every Member to join me in expressing appreciation and in asking support of this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, please include the following remarks in the Record regarding H.R. 1501, The Student Loan Privatization Act. Statement of the Honorable Ernest Istook Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak with you today regarding the federal student loan programs. I congratulate you on holding this hearing on an area of federal policy so important to America's future. I am one of over four dozen members of the House of Representatives who have come to the conclusion that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program enacted two years ago is a mistake and that corrective action needs to be taken. The direct government loan is being implemented too quickly. Federal funds and the educational opportunities of students are being placed in jeopardy. [[Page E1212]] My bill, The Student Loan Privatization Act of 1995 (H.R. 1501) calls for a phase-out of the Federal Direct Student Loan Program. This approach reflects an unambiguous vision of the direction in which federal student policy should be moving. I would like to explain why I, and my colleagues, believe we should move immediately to terminate the direct loan program. There are three principles that I believe should guide our consideration of student loans and other federal education policy: First, the Federal government should only carry out those responsibilities that cannot be performed by the private sector. Second, programs should be structured to minimize federal employment, whether that employment is direct--as reflected in the number of bureaucrats at the Department of Education-- or through government contractors; and Third, the opportunity for private sector participation in federal programs should be structured to promote innovation and efficiency. Mr. Chairman, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Student Loan Program violates all three of these principles. That is why I propose eliminating this cumbersome federal program. The Direct Loan Program was enacted as part of the Clinton Administration's massive budget bill in 1993. It was not subject to any in-depth examination or hearings and, in my view, would not have been enacted if it had not been buried in the larger budget legislation. It was adopted less than a year after Congress passed legislation to test direct government student lending in a pilot project in 1992. That was unfortunate. Direct lending is nothing more than a government-run, multi-billion dollar consumer loan program. It is premised on three assumptions: Sole-source government monopolies are more efficient and customer-oriented than the private sector; (This has yet to be proven true, given our experience with Public Housing, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other government monopolies.) The federal government is an efficient collector of loans (We have problems collecting other debt owed to the government.); and Centralized administration of a program is consistent with assuring accountability and continued innovation (This flies in the face of all that the private sector is currently experiencing with their rightsizing and decentralization efforts made necessary by international competition and information technology). Mr. Chairman, we have heard much over the last few months about the initial success of the direct loan program and the savings it has allegedly produced. These claims would be amusing if they were not being used to justify the massive expansion of the federal government now underway at the Department of Education. First, we hear that schools like direct government loans. Let us examine this. I was unaware that anyone on Capitol Hill doubted the federal government was efficient in giving away money. Unfortunately, it is this aspect of the direct loan program that is getting the rave reviews from schools and others-- schools are getting student loan funds to their students with less paperwork and less hassle than before: That is the crux of the success story for direct loans. In fact, there are numerous higher education organizations opposing direct lending. My own Board of Regent in the State of Oklahoma is on record as opposing this takeover. But what about the repayment process? Can anyone here show me a federal loan program where getting loan recipients to repay their loans has not been a problem? Loans made under the direct government loan program are only now entering repayment. Only after we get significant feedback on the repayment process will any meaningful statement be possible on the ``success'' of the program. At this point, all we can say is that the Department of Education has proven again it is good at giving money away. The real test will be whether they can convince students to repay. Second, we hear that the program ``saves'' more than $12 billion over a five year period. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education itself has admitted that the current Credit Reform Act fails to account for the administrative costs associated with direct government student loans. Ironically, in criticizing Chairman Goodling's bill, the Department itself admits that the amendment proposed to the Credit Reform Act in that bill does not increase federal costs, but merely the point in time at which they are recognized. This is a $4.5 billion distortion over 5 years that the direct lending program is not showing as a cost of the program. It is thus impossible to compare one program to the other under current credit reform rules. Given the budget scoring distortions produced under the current Federal Credit Reform Act, is it any wonder that direct government lending appears cheaper than the private sector-based program? More important perhaps than any analysis of Credit Reform is the work of the Congressional Research Service on the subject of student loans. The paper recently produced for Rep. Gordon unambiguously states the following: ``There may be a logical rationale for direct lending, but low cost is not it.'' To make the revenue stream to the government appear better than it really is, the administration has used 90-day Treasury note interest rates for loans that are actually on the books for 10 years. This results in a 2 percentage point difference in interest rates. It certainly does not take into account the risk the government is experiencing as a result of the dramatic increase in lending the pilot schools have experience (in the neighborhood of a 20% increase in the amount of direct lending.) Finally, one item that greatly disturbs me is the move from a Guaranteed Student Loan program, where the government has a contingent liability, to a Direct Student Loan program where the taxpayer is liable for 100% of the amount of the loan, not just the default portion. The chart with me today, ``Direct Lending's Impact on the National Debt,'' demonstrates this clearly. Using conservative assumptions throughout, assumptions clearly listed on the graph included with my testimony, after 20 years of Direct Lending, given default rates, growth in the program, repayments, and the ``profit'' from repayments, the National Debt will increase by $348 billion between FY95 and FY2014. Mr. Chairman, the enactment of the direct loan program effectively precluded exploration of innovations in the private sector-based program that may very well equal or surpass the ease in access to funds that many schools in direct government loans find so attractive. I understand that notwithstanding the fact that the Congress and Department of Education have not required or even encouraged program improvements in Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL), that the student loan industry is unilaterally undertaking implementation of such improvements on its own. Two of the most promising innovations are the Educational Loan Management initiative and the Nation Student Loan Clearinghouse. I also understand that much of the work of the industry is taking place in spite of poor cooperation from the Department of Education. It seems the Department is reluctant to cooperate with the private sector when it sees itself as a direct competitor. I was very disturbed to see a quote from Mr. Leo Kornfeld of the Department of Education in a May 22nd Forbes article where he states, ``I want to go toe-to-toe against the industry.'' This is clearly inappropriate and reflects the belief of some at the Department that the private sector is the enemy. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that this subcommittee pay careful attention to Mr. Kornfeld's activities in his capacity as Senior Advisor to the Secretary. A situation where the regulator of the private sector student lending sees itself as a competitor is most untenable. There are several other observations I would like to make about the direct government loan program. These observations, among others, prompted me to introduce my bill: First, I am concerned about how the Department of Education is marketing the program. Direct government lending is supposedly a break-through in administrative simplicity that all schools should be rushing to join. Instead, the Department is using part of the $2.5 billion made available for poorly defined ``administration'' of the program to fund newspaper advertisements, to contract with a New York City advertising firm, and to send dozens of employees to financial aid conferences to sell the program. If direct government loans are so good, shouldn't the program be able to sell itself? In these times of serious budget problems, should the Department of Education be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising and public relations? I don't think so. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the administrative funds available for the direct government loan program have been subject to inadequate and deficient oversight at the Department. I urge your subcommittee to fully review the types of activities the Department is undertaking with monies that were understood by many of us to have been made available solely to service student loans. Second, I am concerned about the types of schools that seem anxious to get into direct loans. Mr. Gordon has documented the disproportionate number of high-default schools that have applied for, or been accepted into the program. What does the fact that problem schools seem to like direct government loans so much tell us? It tells us that the program appears an easy to source of virtually unlimited federal funds to these schools. It tells me that the direct government loan program is a disaster waiting to happen. Remember that the Savings and Loan debacle was about $50 billion. Third, I am very concerned about the level of responsibility placed in the Department of Education. The Department of Education has a record of administrative inefficiency. As you know, it was the Department of Education that ran the Federal Insured Student Loan Program, the failed program that led to the concept of a decentralized, private sector based student loan program. I simply do not believe that the management problems at the Department have disappeared, notwithstanding the fact that the 520 new bureaucrats being hired to run direct government loans, in direct contradiction of the premises of reinventing government. I see no evidence whatsoever that the Department is doing a better job in policing the types of schools that get into the federal student aid programs. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the only real progress in reducing defaults resulted from imposition of cut-offs of schools for high default rates, something that Congress enacted on its own. It is time for us to admit the mistake of enacting direct loans in 1993 and to get on [[Page E1213]] with the project of making sure the private sector loan program works efficiently. The longer we delay getting rid of this ill- conceived government monopoly, the greater the problem will be in getting rid of it later. I would like to close my statement by emphasizing that my reasons for objecting to the direct government loan program are reasons which appear to have strong bipartisan support. On January 19, 1995, the President stood with the Vice President and several members of the Cabinet at the White House and said to the American people ``We propose to stop doing things that government doesn't do very well and that don't need to be done by government.'' The Vice President went further. He declared to the American people who sent a clear mandate in November to reduce government that ``over the next several months, we will be looking at every other agency and program asking the direct question, do we really need this agency; do we really need this program; there is a better way to do it; is there an opportunity here to give middle-class Americans a break? We have already eliminated over 100 programs. We will eliminate a lot more in the weeks and months ahead.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to join in my efforts to help the President achieve these stated goals by supporting H.R. 1501 to eliminate direct government student loans.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I am insulted by the way the President of the United States is handling it. He came to Oklahoma, we wanted him to come, we were glad to have him to mourn with us. However, the money in here in response to Oklahoma is not for Oklahoma, it is for the whole country, for heightened security around the country, to defend against the possibility of something happening to the rest of you as happened to us. The President pretending that he is wanting to veto it because of pork, it is a lie. What he is complaining about is what was put in bills last year by the Democrat leadership that he signed and put into law, and he is trying to say ``It is your fault because you are not taking out what I did.'' What a lie, Mr. President. We are sick of the rhetoric that you are using on this. Do not do it. Look at it on the merits. If you have some things you want to take out, you should have sent a list up when there is time to do it, but I am insulted by the way the President is behaving. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, everyone who was in this country in 1941 knows where they were on Pearl Harbor day. Everyone knows where they were when the Challenger blew up as it was launched from Cape Canaveral. And everyone in Oklahoma will always know where they were at 9:02 in the morning on April 19, 1995. The shock from that blast was felt as far as 55 miles away. I myself was in a building 8 miles away and people were afraid from the shaking of it that it was going to come down as well. We have all seen the depictions on TV, in the newspapers and in magazines about what happened there, but it does not capture it. If anyone on this floor has not seen some of the pictures, I have brought a collection. But nothing can convey what really occurred and to how many people it happened. But if you see someone from Oklahoma with tears in their eyes right now, you cannot tell when it is tears of sorrow and when it is tears of pride. For our State, our city, our community has united like I believe no one has ever seen before in the face of a common disaster. When the workers came in, and we are so grateful they did, from nearby Maryland here, from Virginia, from California, from Arizona, from Minnesota, from Texas, from all over this country, they came together with help, and we say thank you. To the brave workers who were there on the scene, people passing by on the street that rendered immediate aid, that did not worry about danger to themselves, that rushed into the building that was still in the process of collapsing, and while there were fires still burning from cars that had exploded in the chain reaction of the blast, we say thank you. A plane full of doctors on their way to a meeting in Texas turned around and came back to help with the disaster victims. Medical personnel were called all over. Mr. Speaker, the sad thing was, after the first rush of over 400 injured people to the hospitals, they kept waiting. They kept waiting in the emergency rooms, they kept waiting in the downtown area. They kept waiting for more victims of about 200 people still known to be missing and, Mr. Speaker, the other injured never came, because they were the ones whose bodies were left shattered and torn in the rubble. Our city has responded with outreach to the families, to the ones left behind. People could not all be rescue workers, could not all go down and dig through the rubble, could not all be part of the investigation. So they said, what do you need? Do you need people to go out and comfort the families? We'll do it. Do you need to take care of the rescue workers? We'll do it. Not out of Government response but just from private citizens. About 100,000 meals were donated, from all over the community. If the rescue workers needed something to pick through the rubble, whether it be shovels, whether it be leather gloves, knee pads because they had to crawl through, flashlight batteries to try to dig through the cavern underneath, they just mentioned it, and it materialized downtown. No procurement process, no worry about payback. Just private citizens trying to do everything they could to help. This is the spirit of brotherly love that we believe in in Oklahoma. We are grateful that all political differences were set aside. When we held a memorial service a week ago Sunday, the President and First Lady came in, half of the Cabinet came in, and they were received out of the respect of their concern for us and the dignity that is due their office. About 20,000 Oklahomans came together, only 11,000 could fit in the building, the rest had to wait outside, to honor the dead, their families, our State, our city, and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, it was not just the Federal building. We have probably 19 buildings in downtown Oklahoma City that are going to have to be razed because of the structural damage. We have hundreds of others with degrees of damage because that was how tremendous the blast was. One of the saddest things may be that a church immediately across the street to the east of the Federal building, in the midst of the shattered stained glass windows and the crumbling brick, they have had to take a church, a house of God, a house of worship, a house of prayer, and use it as the morgue to take care of the victims. Mr. Speaker, I wear a ribbon and all true Oklahoma people are wearing ribbons in honor of the things that are being done. We want to say thank you. We want to say thank you for everything everyone has done. If you come to Oklahoma City, and I hope and pray that you will have an occasion to do so, to meet the people that fit the title of being in the heartland of America, you will find that in addition to all the ribbons flying, there are signs all over our town, and they say God bless Oklahoma City. Mr. Speaker, I know He does. It says above you there and above the flag, in God we trust. Mr. Speaker, there is no other way we could have made it. We want to thank the Lord, as well as the people of this country, for the blessings that He has given us to make it through.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of enacting uniform national term limits on all Members of Congress, the House and the Senate. This country was founded by those who set aside, for so long as was necessary, their individual businesses and pursuits, but never intending to become a professional political class. They brought with them the variety of strengths, background, and insights which can only be gained from interaction with fellow citizens on a normal, everyday basis. Since then our country has grown large and Government has grown even larger. It has created a system whereby too many people in politics know no other way to make a living. And too often they are isolated and unfamiliar with normal and everyday life. This is not healthy for America. It is especially fascinating to read studies which show the longer somebody serves in Congress, the more they tend to vote for big government, and bigger taxes, and to oppose cutting spending and cutting the size of government. The system has become a narcotic for too many people. Many States, including my own, have voted to limit the terms of their own Congressmen and Senators. They did so with the hope and expectation that this would create momentum to adopt term limits on a national level, to treat all States equally. Now we have the chance to adopt those term limits. Although many may think it of themselves, nobody in this Congress is indispensable. We have term limits on Presidents, on Governors, on State legislators, even on city council members and others elected to public office. Congress needs to listen to the people and adopt uniform national term limits. I urge support and final passage of the measure.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, recently a column by fellow Oklahoman Paul Harvey was published which effectively highlights the problems faced by our Nation's domestic oil and gas enterprises. I commend this column to my colleagues in the hope that Mr. Harvey's wise words, born of experience, will be heeded as we consider legislation affecting this vital industry this session. [From the Daily Oklahoman, Mar. 10, 1995] Nation's Oil Industry Continues to Suffer (By Paul Harvey) Our nation's balance of trade with other nations is unbalanced in their favor largely because of all the foreign oil we are buying--needlessly. While drilling rigs sit idle in Texas, Oklahoma and 28 other states, our country continues to import from other countries more than half of all the oil we use. Meanwhile, the administration persists in maintaining policies that make it impossible for stateside oil companies to compete. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown has persistently refused even to consider a tariff on imports, which would ``level the playing field.'' The White House has declined even to consider initiatives to bolster our own oil industry, to stimulate our own production. Denise Bode, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, is outraged. She predicts ``a fire storm'' in the oil- and gas-producing states. The American Petroleum Institute, convinced it will get nothing from the White House, is turning for help to Congress. The eight-member Oklahoma congressional delegation is seeking remedial legislation. Sens. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Don Nickles, R-Ponca City, are offering a parallel proposal to the Senate. What they seek is a $3-a-barrel tax credit for existing and new marginal oil wells, phasing out when the market prices hit $20 a barrel. It can be argued that our nation is vulnerable again to being held hostage by Middle East potentates, who could cut off our oil within hours in the event of confrontation. That is so. But a poor boy who grew up in Tulsa is more urgently anxious about the prospect of losing our nation's limited reserves forever. Underground oil is not a ``pool'' of liquid. Mostly, it is suspended in sand or porous rock. Over time, even under applied water pressure, the flow dwindles, until one day, you have wells producing perhaps only three barrels a day. After time, that three-barrel well will not pay its way because of cheap imports. If you plug that well, and later effort to re-drill the same well might cost $5 million, which is utterly unrealistic. So, that oil is gone forever. Domestic United States oil production is the lowest it has been in 40 years--500,000 jobs have disappeared in the oil industry in the past 10 years. Twenty-two thousand have been eliminated in just the two Clinton years. Considering those numbers, a tax credit to encourage production is one of the best investments our country could make.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am amazed from what I just heard from this other side of the aisle. They said we have to have Government-subsidized broadcasting at taxpayers' expense to counter what you are hearing from the free enterprise system; that you have to have Government to get out a public propaganda message instead of listening to what is on news programs or public information programs from free enterprise. That is a socialist approach. I reject it. If you want education programming, you have got that in private sector already. Look at the Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Arts and Entertainment Channel, C-SPAN, Spanish Network, Weather Channel, Headline News, CNN; then the other commercial stations. You do not need Government to give your side of the story whenever the free enterprise system says something. I reject that notion. That shows what is really going on. Public broadcasting should be paid for by voluntary members of the public that want to contribute, not tax money.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe this is a deadly amendment. I believe it is a damaging amendment. I think it is an amendment that fails to take stock of reality. Under this bill, your losses must be one of two types: either they must be economic damages, as defined on page 20 of the bill, something that is a financial loss. Everything else is noneconomic damage. If you lose your sight, it is noneconomic damage. If you lose any other organ, your ears, your hearing, it is noneconomic damage. If you lose your arm, if you lose both legs, if you are paralyzed for the rest of your life, it is noneconomic damage. And it is capped; it is treated under the same cap as intangibles such as pain and suffering.