John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple, straightforward, and necessary for the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, to do its job. The National Labor Relations Board currently has jurisdiction over many labor disputes that involve enterprises that impact interstate commerce. The board has traditionally addressed cases that substantially affect interstate commerce. In 1959, Congress endorsed this notion and enacted legislation known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Congress essentially gave discretion to the NLRB to decline cases where its jurisdiction was not warranted. However, this law did provide thresholds whereby the Board could not decline to assert its jurisdiction. These standards were based on raw dollar amounts and are based, for the most part, on the gross annual receipts of a business entity. Quite simply, the level at which the NLRB's jurisdiction over businesses kicks in is based on a business' economic activity and the thresholds vary depending upon the nature of the business. The reason for my amendment is that most of these thresholds have not been modified since the law was enacted in 1959. Clearly, the legislative method for determining jurisdiction is outdated and therefore overly burdensome to many small businesses that should never have been affected. My amendment merely indexes these thresholds for inflation. Let us take an example. In 1959, the gross annual receipts threshold established for nonretail businesses was $50,000. As an aside, this $50,000 means interstate business that substantially affected interstate commerce. While the Board today exercises jurisdiction over businesses that meet the $50,000 threshold, had indexation for inflation occurred, the threshold for nonretail businesses would be at least $261,859. To put it another way, a $50,000 threshold level today would have been approximately $9,550 in 1959. These thresholds for determining jurisdiction have never taken into account inflation. Furthermore, the jurisdiction levels fail to account for size of businesses. According to John Runyan at the Labor Policy Association, in 1994, 20 percent of the NLRB's efforts were spent on bargaining units of 9 people or less and these efforts reached less than 2 percent of the total number of employees involved in representation elections. Clearly, this is unacceptable and my amendment is a simple and straightforward way to address these inequities and allow the NLRB to focus on the truly egregious cases. Leaders at the NLRB repeatedly state that the caseloads are too heavy and this amendment gives the NLRB greater discretion in taking on new cases. But speaking of egregious cases, I do want to mention a few instances where the NLRB has been very aggressive and these low and unfair thresholds have contributed to the zeal of the Board in handling these cases. For example, the NLRB exercised a case against an Episcopal church in New York City with a congregation of 600 and a primary school with enrollment of 365 children. Its gross annual revenues were approximately $1 million and its direct inflow was just over $50,000. The NLRB exercised jurisdiction based on the current thresholds established in 1959. I find it difficult to believe any of the business conducted by the church substantially impacted interstate commerce. In another instance, the NLRB handled a case involving a day care center in Massachusetts that employed nine teachers, a janitor, a cook and a social worker because it had gross receipts over $250,000. I would contend, as was contended in the dissenting opinion, that this day care service simply provides a local service and has minimal correlation to interstate industry. Furthermore, I must mention the case where a small business purchased a machine valued at $50,000 from out of State and the Board exercised jurisdiction over the business because of this one purchase alone. Increasing the threshold would help avoid such frivolous cases and enable the NLRB to pursue cases where real abuses and inequities are occurring. I would like to make another point. Even though these mandatory thresholds are increased, the NLRB can still exercise its jurisdiction over any case it deems appropriate. The thresholds only provide levels at which the NLRB's discretion ends and they are mandated to exercise their jurisdiction. In other words, the NLRB can choose to pursue a case at any level, above or below this jurisdiction level that is set out in this amendment. Furthermore, if there is a case that falls below the threshold level and the NLRB has declined the case, that case can be pursued in the State courts. Clearly there is plenty of protection for employees at every level. However, a little relief for both the NLRB and small businesses means a more productive and effective NLRB. I would simply like to conclude by reminding everyone that a similar provision as this was included in last year's House passed a version of the Labor/HHS/Ed appropriations bill. I ask for consideration and acceptance of this amendment.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I appreciate the gentleman's point and it is a very good point. The issue here is that as I do not sit on the authorizing committee and I know that similar legislation is not forthcoming at this point, the appropriation bill allows the only instrument at this time to allow such a change and the Parliamentarian of the House said that it would be made in order. It would be very good, I think, if it could be part of an authorizing bill, but given that this is the only possible vehicle this year to change it for 1 year, that is why I offered the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, our amendment seeks only to index the levels that were created in 1959.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I do know why those original levels, but the philosophy was not to change them.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the subcommittee pointed out, this is a 1-year process. And the desire of this Member to grant some regulatory relief to small business, as the NLRB has itself said, that 20 percent of the caseloads are those individuals that are-- --

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. [Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring us back to the substance of this amendment. The substance of the amendment seeks to simply index the levels of jurisdiction, mandatory jurisdiction for the National Labor Relations Board. And it is important that I stress the point ``mandatory level,'' because the National Labor Relations Board, under this amendment and under current law, has the ability to look at any case that merits, that deserves their attention at any level of gross annual receipts. This amendment merely indexes the level of their mandatory jurisdiction. Most of these thresholds have not been changed since 1959, and I think it is time we do so. The chairman of the full committee made an excellent point, that this is going to be for a 1-year time period only. But I hope that we would get back to the substance of the issue. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important to understand that when one side of an argument does not have the merits of the argument on their side, they tend to divert attention into areas of procedure and process. Unfortunately, that is what has taken place at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask for those Members who are watching this debate, that they would simply consider the merits of this amendment and would understand that we are seeking to grant regulatory relief to small businesses and granting a relief of caseload, if they so desire, to the National Labor Relations Board so that the National Labor Relations Board can fully spend more time and more of their resources on those most egregious cases that they see fit indeterminate of this jurisdiction level, even above or below. Mr. Chairman, I seek for acceptance and adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking me questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Istook-Manzullo amendment and in opposition to the Castle substitute. I am deeply concerned about the incident that occurred in Illinois, and even more concerned about current law allowing this type of atrocious behavior to continue to occur unless something is done and something is done soon. I am distressed that it takes the exposure of such an atrocious situation for an issue such as this to receive appropriate attention. I am encouraged that this amendment is on the floor today, and I urge every Member to support the Istook-Manzullo amendment. Currently, there are nearly 1.5 million teenagers using the title X program. This means that the parents of 1.5 million teenagers receiving federally funded services pay taxes for those purposes. I think it is not rational to believe that those parents do not want to be informed when their children are being supplied with possibly potentially harmful contraceptives. As the father of the two most beautiful little girls in the world and as a Member of Congress responsible for allocating taxpayer dollars, I find this issue extremely troubling. This amendment is critical for parents to be just that, parents. Unfortunately, the title X program virtually eliminates the role of parents in their children's receipt of medical care, and potentially harmful medical care at that. Opponents of this amendment claim this amendment would result in higher pregnancy rates and more abortions. I find this difficult to understand in light of the fact that teen pregnancy rates have doubled since the title X program was created. At best, there is no correlation between the funding of this program and a reduction in the teen pregnancy rates, and in fact, it may be concluded that this program has actually facilitated its increase. Parents have been deleted from the picture and clinic employees are now responsible for providing contraceptives without any interest or legal procedure to actually question the teenager about his or her sexual activities. This amendment, the Istook-Manzullo amendment, would simply require clinics to report to the proper authorities any abuse, rape, incest or molestation that title X clinic patients have experienced, and would allow parents to simply be informed of any contraceptives their minor child is receiving. This amendment does not prevent the treatment, counseling or testing for sexually transmitted diseases under current law. Parental notification is not required for minors to be treated for STD's. In addition, it does not deny any services to teens. It does not even require parental consent, but it will at least let a parent know when their 13-year-old daughter is coming into a clinic for a Depo-Provera shot while some 25-year-old monster waits in the car. I think parents deserve at least that much. Simply put, I encourage all of us to consider how much longer we will continue to allow child molesters and rapists to hide behind the Federal morass of title X regulations. Mr. Chairman, it seems that in this body we continue to legislate based on the lowest common moral denominator. We are saying that because there are parents, a minority to be sure, a minority of parents that in some way cause problems for their children when they find out their children have been sexually active; or in the case of the lady from Oregon talking about the father that killed his daughter when she reported the sexual molestation, that we must bring everyone in the country under that same concept of regulation. Mr. Chairman, I would say that not every parent is like the parent in Oregon or not even close. Many of us as fathers and mothers want to know about these situations when they come into our children's lives. And the idea that we can set up this because we need this for the children is to say that, for example, we need to eliminate the status of minors altogether. If we believe that there is a case in America or some cases in America whereby some parents may not act responsibly when informed of these things, why can we not extrapolate from this and say, let us do the same thing for alcohol abuse. Let us simply not notify the parents, but have a clinic operator inform the child and counsel the child. Or tobacco use, how about we not tell the parent that the child is involved in tobacco use because the parent may be averse to that? No, Mr. Chairman, in this country we continue to recognize the importance of parents in the lives and decision-making of their minor children. This bill does not stop funding of a program that, at best, has no correlation to reducing pregnancy rates. This does not even talk about consent. We are not asking that I give my consent if my daughters receive Federal family planning. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment, and I seek that the membership elect to accept the Istook-Manzullo amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend Kelly S. Yarde, a charitable and compassionate soldier from the Eighth District of Indiana. Sergeant Kelly Yarde is a dedicated soldier, a loving father, and a committed husband. And Kelly gives, and he gives abundantly, even in times of personal hardship. In short, Kelly is unusually charitable. While serving under the command of the U.S. Army in Bosnia, Kelly witnessed firsthand an often overlooked result of war--clothless, toyless, penniless children--while at the same time living in less than luxurious conditions himself. Yet Kelly looked beyond his own needs and did something for the children of the war-torn land where he serves. With the help of his brother Anthony, an Evansville, IN, newspaper reporter, and a hometown radio station, Kelly made a public appeal to his fellow Americans to come to the children's aid. Citizens from the Eighth District of Indiana and neighboring States answered his call, and they gave abundantly. From new basketballs and hundreds of new crayons and pens to the establishment of new friends via pen pal relationships, Americans gladly spent their time and treasure for kids they may never meet. I'm sure Kelly would humbly wave off these praises, directing our attention to who he recognizes as the true heroes, the people who generously responded to his pleas. Yet it is fitting to commend Kelly Yarde, a catalyst for giving, an example of charity, and an exemplary U.S. soldier serving his Nation.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of a civil debate, as was earlier mentioned, even I will try to keep the tone civil and try not to come to this debate from such a limited vocabulary that refers to it as ``weird.'' But I would simply say that we did not take a poll on this side because we do not need to. Long before America heard about Frank Luntz, they heard about Dick Morris and they had to hear about Dick Morris because someone talking to the President about education, that person had to take a poll about education because that person sent his child to private school. If you want to know about the course of education in America, you need to come to people that send their children to public school, such as I do, and so I do not need to take a poll to hear what is happening in education today. What is happening in education today is the Federal Government is expanding its influence in education. I was not going to talk about this amendment specifically, but when the issue of education and speaking out of one side of our mouths, I think that they are looking at the wrong institution. They should look at the White House when they talk about speaking out of one side of their mouths because they do not know the ills personally of the public school, public education system, and the problems that have been created by a tremendous Federal bureaucracy that was created in 1980, almost 200 years after the Founders created this country by the U.S. Constitution. If we want to help the children of this country, let us put it in the hands of the people that really care about the children. Last night we heard in this debate that a program in this bill called whole school reform was created as the result of the research of a group of businessmen. Businessmen. I was glad that I heard the debate because I learned more about whole school reform last night than I knew before that time. But here today we are talking about we cannot hand over the issue of wage and hour compliance to what was earlier referred to as ``loathsome employers.'' Are these the same loathsome employers that we are asking to create education policy in our country? Are these the same sweatshop owners that we are entrusting the future of our children's education to? Maybe you had different people at your sweatshop hearings than you did at your businessmen to create education policy hearings. I do not know. I am not a member of that committee, but you can understand that. Last night we heard that there were problems with title I, from that side. We heard that there were problems with title I and that bureaucrats were not actually engaged in the actual creation of educational progress in our country and that they had problems with Goals 2000. So what is the solution? We bring businessmen into Congress and ask them how to educate our children. And then to evaluate the process, we ask bureaucrats to evaluate it as a creation of whole school reform. There is one entity that is taken out of the picture here. We did not ask the parents how to educate our children. We asked businessmen, or loathsome employers or sweat shop owners, or however you want to refer to them today, depending on the day of the month or the debate that we are talking about. But the fact is that we did not bring parents in. When it comes time for us to evaluate the progress of our children, we are not going to ask parents either. What are we going to do? One Member said last night, ``We're going to bring them in for coffee.'' Well, that is nice if they are coffee drinkers. But if they are parents concerned about education, why do we not ask the parents to evaluate the educational progress of our children? Is that unreasonable? If I gave my colleagues a list of 10 people on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, Members of Congress, Senators, the President, even teachers or administrators, and I placed in there the term ``parent'' and asked you who is most interested in the educational progress of our children, I think everyone in this Chamber would say it is parents. But who have we not asked to develop educational policy in this country? Parents. Who have we not asked to evaluate the progress of our children in this country? Parents, as a result of this bill. There is a fundamental difference in America today and that difference is inside the Beltway and everywhere else in this country. There is a fundamental difference in how and why and to what extent our children should be educated and on what basis we should create that. If you want to do the right thing for children, help the children of this country, as I heard one individual so eloquently put it, and you want an agenda that is clear, then I say, let us ask the parents how to educate our children. Let us give them the flexibility.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Smith amendment and in opposition to the substitute. The Supreme Court has opined in Roe versus Wade and its erroneous progeny that we have to allow the killing of preborn children. Clearly this was a misread of the Constitution by the Court. In any event, the Court has not opined that our Government has an obligation to provide this service here in America or in any other land. We should not take to this course by our own will. The sanctity of life transcends international boundaries. It is time to say no to a careless export, the notion that abortion is acceptable as a means of family planning. I would prefer to block all international family planning funding. It is fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise. But if we are to fund this type of program, and the Smith amendment does not end international family planning, we must do all we can to see that we do not fund those which promote abortion.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. There are so many reasons to support this amendment, an amendment whose time has come. This amendment will eliminate funding for all population control activities overseas. We have spent hour upon hour in this Chamber debating the many issues surrounding foreign aid, which includes the funding for international family planning. There are many problems with the U.S. taxpayer spending nearly $400 million every year for international population control activities. One very obvious and practical problem that cannot be ignored is that the taxpayer simply cannot afford this type of program any longer. I wish I could count the number of times I have come to the floor to speak out in one way or another against excessive Federal spending and Government intervention. Every time I implore Members of this body to consider how we are sabotaging our children's futures, how we slowly but surely chip away at any prospects for a solid financial foundation every time we vote to spend more and more tax dollars on inappropriate and unconstitutional programs without any regard to the reality of our Federal Government's financial situation. But there is an even bigger problem than one simply associated with dollars. This problem is more fundamental to the appropriate role of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution. Some might say that many provisions of this appropriations bill fall outside of the guidelines given to us by the Constitution. Some might say that a debate of that nature goes beyond the scope of this amendment. I think we should talk about the Constitution more. I think that every time we consider a bill, an amendment, a motion to instruct conferees, every time we take any legislative action, we should remember our oath to uphold the Constitution. This means that sometimes, even when things sound like a great idea or the perfect solution to a problem facing our constituents back home, or faceless and nameless individuals suffering thousands of miles away, we have to show some restraint, if only because we are not empowered to act outside the legislative walls erected for us by our Founding Fathers. Furthermore, I believe that international population control funding is not even a good idea. What concerns me greatly is that it appears that many of my colleagues have simply accepted the assertions of the population control lobby when they constantly and unfailingly contend that overpopulation is the cause of nearly all of the world's human suffering. For decades, we have heard doomsday predictions that the Earth's population is growing so much, to the point that we will soon be unable to sustain this rate of growth. Make no mistake about it and do not be misled. This is not an overcrowded planet. Too many people are not the problem. I would assert, however, that those more interested in redistributing wealth and power have everything to lose if the myth of an unsustainable population explosion is debunked. I would further contend that sound public, policy based on real science, not misguided public and political maneuvers and schemes based on radical environmentalism, is the answer to the world's hunger and environmental problems. Flooding Third World developing and developed countries with potentially harmful contraceptives and family planning information, while appearing to meet a very humanitarian need, is such a misguided policy. There have been numerous reports about the atrocities many women have suffered, all under the auspices of family planning. We have seen women in the slums of Bangladesh and Haiti who are part of experimentation with Norplant. We have heard accounts of women in Turkey who were told by volunteers that ``family planning'' is more important than husbands, tradition, culture or God, and that sterilization is better than children. Surely even those who advocate dollars for responsible population control policy would be alarmed at this information. Surely we should not force our constituents to contribute to these programs that undermine the cultures of our neighbors. Mr. Chairman, I would simply conclude by expressing once again that we need to reevaluate our priorities, our financial situation, and most importantly, our constitutional obligations, and support this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my district, I missed two votes today, July 8, 1997. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows and request that these appear at the appropriate place in the Record: I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 246, passage of H.R. 849, a bill to amend the Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 to prohibit the payment of displacement compensation to illegal aliens. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 247, on passage of House Resolution 79, a resolution to direct the Interior Secretary to design and construct a permanent addition to the FDR Memorial in Washington, DC.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my most acccomplished constituents. On July 1, 1997, Mike Marshall of Princeton, IN, will end his term as the president of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. It is a distinct pleasure for me to join the residents of Gibson County in recognizing Mike Marshall for his endless work in helping to prepare future leaders as well as to bring to the forefront of public debate such issues as the future of Social Security, the fight against teen smoking, and the importance of small business to the future of our country. Mike Marshall first joined the Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1984 after graduating from Ball State University and moving back to his hometown of Princeton, IN. Since becoming a member of the Princeton Jaycees, Mike has dedicated himself to bettering his community through many worthwhile Jaycee projects such as the Needy Kids Christmas gift giving program, the Annual Princeton Christmas parade, the MDA Pledge Center, the Annual Community Easter Egg Hunt, and other worthwhile projects. His dedication to his community and his organization has led to him holding many distinguished positions in the Junior Chamber of Commerce, including President of the Indiana Jaycees, Chaplain of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, and culminating in his election last year as President of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. As a successful entrepreneur who founded ``First Place Trophies & Awards'', Mike Marshall has shown that the American dream thrives in small communities around the country. Now, as U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce President, Mike has been a shining example of what is right with America and its younger generation. Mike Marshall has represented Gibson County, the State of Indiana, and the United States honorably in his travels throughout the world during his year as President of the U.S. Jaycees. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all Members to join me in paying tribute to Mike Marshall. He is an exemplary individual who has dedicated his life to making his state, and his country a better place. I applaud Mike Marshall's dedication and wish him continued success in his endeavors.