Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 2590; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read when called up.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, the sky is not falling. On October 21 we are not going to be hit by a great rush of jurisdictions saying now we are going to impose taxes on the Internet. We are not under an emergency circumstance on that. We have many emergencies in this country; trying to stop some unnamed jurisdictions from adopting a sudden tax is not an emergency. However, dealing with the overall issue of drawing the ground rules for how the Internet is treated in comparison with other legitimate businesses is very important. That is why it is important that Congress not take an attitude of saying we are going to stick our head in the sand for any period of time, 5 years, 2 years, any amount of time. I oppose any sort of effort to single out the Internet or Internet merchants for taxation, to say we are going to have multiple taxes because a business does business through the Internet or discriminatory taxes because they do that. I also oppose singling out merchants that do not deal through the Internet; to say that they are going to be paying taxes that others that sell to those same customers are not required to pay or to collect. We need a fair tax system when it comes to the Internet. We need a fair tax system when it comes to merchants that are not using the Internet. That is my concern, that we will hide our head in the sand rather than addressing the tough issues. That is why I am pleased that we are not talking about a 5-year moratorium anymore. We are talking about a bill that is now on the floor that has been reduced down to 2 years; and frankly, it is very possible that the Senate will decide that even 2 years is too much. However, we need to keep things alive by moving the legislation; and I support that, so that we have an opportunity to grapple with the tough issues that some people do not want to grapple with. Now, what are those tough issues? Well, first, let me mention the National Governors' Association, which keeps up with what is going on in their States and all their jurisdictions within their States. They tell us there is nobody about to jump in and do this, to create new tax systems. Whatever may have been the situation 5 years ago is not the circumstance today. Most State legislatures are not even in session, and there is certainly a lot of lead time with any jurisdiction that might jump up and say, oh, we want to create an Internet tax mechanism. The National Governors' Association has asked us not to take up any moratorium unless we deal with the underlying issue of what the bill does not say but what it does, which is to try to chill efforts to have a fair, uniform system regarding sales tax that is fair and nondiscriminatory and simplified and uniform for merchants doing business in whatever way. That is what the States are doing. I am pleased that a year ago, when we had a 5-year extension on this floor, two-thirds of this body, two-thirds, actually more than two- thirds of the House of Representatives, put in guidelines that said we want the States to work together, we want them to make a compact that says we will have a uniform standard, a multi-State compact that avoids multiple taxation, that simplifies the complicated sales tax systems that have different definitions in different States, so that we will not be discriminating across State lines or within State lines. That effort is underway. As has been pointed out by other speakers, there are over 30 States involved in the effort, and more expected to join in. And we expect them to have some results to bring back to us before the 2 years is up, and that is where Congress needs to address the issue and not avoid the issues. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we remember that the Congress is not a body of unlimited jurisdiction. The Constitution specifies where we have authority that relates to interstate commerce and also where the States have authority; that the power not expressly given to the Congress nor denied to it reside with the States and the citizens thereof. If all power to determine the level of State and local taxes resides in Washington, D.C., we remove it from the people in the States. And if we starve out the premier tax base that supports schools, highways, public safety, public health, the sales tax base of the States; if we either by action or inaction destroy the States' tax base, we have destroyed the power and the authority of the States, we have destroyed the Federal system, we have shifted power away from the States, away from the communities, away from local citizens, away from our neighborhoods; and we will have moved it to Washington, D.C. We do not want that. That is why we need to address all the issues, not single out one or two that looks good in a headline so that we can say, ``I voted against taxes,'' but also the issues where we say, ``I voted for fairness, I voted to let people back home to continue making their decisions, that long belong to them,'' rather than usurping them. Madam Speaker, it is important that we allow the Senate to address this issue, because they have not before; and moving this legislation will help get the Senate involved in the process. But I hope the ultimate result is going to be that we in the Congress support a uniform streamlined system that is just as fair to the merchants in our communities as it is to the merchants that bring their wares into our homes and businesses through the Internet. That is fair and equal, a level playing field, as we often say, between merchants of all types, which says that no one gets an advantage or a disadvantage because they use the Internet or because they set up a store on the corner.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is referring to any document or source that purports that the BA is any different than the dollar for dollar that is in here, my parliamentary inquiry is upon what does the Chair rely?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is when the amounts are dollar for dollar the same as within the bill, upon reliance upon what documents can the Chair maintain that it is anything else than dollar for dollar the same amounts. If the Chair is referring to some extraneous document, I think we would like to be aware of that.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer the fact that on the face of the amendment, it is dollar for dollar the same. If there is anything that says it is not the same, then this body is entitled to know, that we might proceed in order and make sure that valid issues can be undertaken.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding from the parliamentarian that it is necessary that the amendment be offered at a place in the bill where the first adjustment, the first offset is being made which is the point at which we have offered it in this bill. Furthermore, it is dollar for dollar the same as the amount that is contained in those sections of the bill involving any sort of transfer. I would ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is to increase by $33 million the amount appropriated for abstinence education, as has been defined by this Congress in previous legislation. Let me first state, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in this base bill has increased the funding for abstinence education. My regret is that it is not to a level that many of us consider satisfactory, but that should not remove our appreciation for the fact that it has been increased. We have had for many years, for decades, Mr. Chairman, Federal funding for so-called family planning or safe sex programs, as they are often called. But Mr. Chairman, that has not reversed the trend of increase in teen births out of wedlock. However, in recent years, Federal funding began in 1995 and private funding began in the couple of years before that, and in recent years we have seen a very different approach that has taken place; that is, promoting abstinence as the surest and only way to prevent sexually- transmitted diseases, or to prevent the out-of-wedlock births among teenagers. Indeed, President George W. Bush, when he was campaigning, made the commitment to bring the level of Federal funding for abstinence education to the same level as we are spending on the family planning and safe sex programs. That is what this amendment does. By the $33 million increase, it brings parity. What we mean by that is we follow the definition of this Congress to say that we are talking about the funding for education that has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity, and teaching that abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard for all school-aged children, and the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, and to avoid other associated health problems. Indeed, only with the advent of abstinence education have we seen in the last couple of years a reversal of the long-standing and deplorable trend in this country of increases in teenage unwed births. Earlier this year, for the first time, grants were made to applicants by the Department of Health and Human Services, putting out the first 20 million in competitive grants for this purpose. They were overwhelmed. It was the greatest tide of applications they have ever seen for any program. Over 359 entities across the country seeking some $165 million applied for a program that only had $20 million available to it. We need to increase the amount of money we are putting into abstinence education for the benefit of our kids, for the benefit of our Nation, which pays exorbitant costs with out-of-wedlock births and supporting the social problems that come from them, and we need to start reinforcing what we teach our children at home, what we teach our children at church, but too often is undercut by the messages sent by the Federal Government. Rather than defunding the Federal Government's programs relating to so-called safe sex, we are seeking parity. We are seeking equity which was what the commitment was by President Bush; and indeed, since the original budget was submitted by the Bush administration, the amount that we made available for this bill has gone up by some $2 billion which created the room to make this comparatively minor increase in abstinence education funding. The Office of Management and Budget has submitted, we have made it available to the Members, their letter supporting this increase in funding to abstinence education. Let us bring the account up from the 40 million it has in the bill to 73 million which will be the effect of this amendment. It is money that we can easily afford to fund. It keeps the commitment certainly of Mr. Bush, but more importantly than that, it keeps in place the values that we teach our kids and says we want to reinforce them and not to be undercutting them. So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly move the adoption of this amendment that brings parity in the funding of these accounts and within the scope of a bill as large as this one is a comparatively minor adjustment. Point of Order

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, when the Chair says relying upon assertions, the only assertion that has been presented on the floor is the raising of the point of order contesting whether that is the case as opposed to a factual assertion that is the case. If the Chair is relying upon a factual assertion made by the committee or anyone else, that is what I seek to learn.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this deals with the matter that was offered earlier during the debate on this bill to make available an additional $33 million for Abstinence Education Grants. The offset, of course, is different from what it was before. It is now under the Disease Control, Research, and Training program, which, among other things, provides funding for combatting sexually transmitted diseases, as well as other diseases. Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the great crisis that we have had for decades regarding teen pregnancy, teen sexual activity, unwed births, and the tremendous catastrophic effect that it has had on America and on millions and millions of lives in America. For decades, since the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we have been funding so-called safe sex programs, family planning programs, things using a euphemism for telling kids it is okay to have sex, as long as you are careful about it. What has been the result during that time? Mr. Chairman, as Federal funding for these programs went up, teenage pregnancies and unwed births went up along with it. The more we sent a mixed message that says it is okay to have sex out of wedlock, it is okay, kids, just be safe about it, the more we undercut what Mom and Dad tell their kids, the more we undercut what they are taught at church, the more we found that we got more of the problem. But only when first in private funding and then, in 1995, in Federal funding, did we start funding the abstinence programs that taught kids about waiting until marriage and upholding values, only then have we started to see this number come down in teenage unwed births. That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman. We started funding that in 1995 at the rate of $50 million a year, and then, in the last year, we began adding to that at a rate of $70 million a year. To the chairman's credit, the bill in front of us would bring that number to $90 million, but it does not bring it to parity with what we have been spending to promote so-called safe sex, family planning. ``It is okay to do it as long as you try to be careful,'' and teenagers are not able to be careful that way, Mr. Chairman. This is bringing parity, as the President has proposed. As we have the supportive letter from OMB to support that, this is bringing parity to the funding, saying that we ought to be spending at least as much on the message of abstinence as we are on the other message. We defined what we meant by abstinence. Teaching that has as its exclusive purpose the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity. Teaching that abstinence from sexual activity for teens outside marriage is the expected standard, and it is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the only way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases that have exploded along with the explosion of teen pregnancies. Mr. Chairman, this is just saying let us have parity. This does not attack the programs that we have been funding for years, but it does say that it is about time that the average American, the typical American, the normal values of everyday people in this country, receive the same emphasis from their government as we have put on other things. I ask Members to join me, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment; in supporting the $33 million which we calculated and the President calculated would bring parity. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you, it is probably still about $15 million short of that parity, but I am not asking for a higher number. We asked early on in this session for this amount, this $73 million for the grants on top of the $50 million that goes to the States to do this. And there is huge demand for it. When the first grants were awarded this year under the grant program, only $20 million was available. Applicants applied for seven times that amount. The Department of Health and Human Services was overwhelmed with the number of applications. They have never had such a response to a new program as they had for this. Mr. Chairman, we need to put this funding in place. We have the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. We have the extra billions that were added in just the last week or two. It is not asking too much to say that we ought to be active in seeking the abstinence education. Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the amendment.

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, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are here because we need to be here, because we are trying to take care of the things that we are responsible to take care of, not only the security of the United States of America but the welfare of its people. That is why we have this bill on the floor. Yes, we could spend all of our time talking about foreign affairs; but if we did, we would not be trying to have normalcy. And, yes, it is normal that we get on the floor of this House, we have debates, we have disagreements, and we have bills such as the annual appropriation bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. If we did not have that, then things such as the Centers for Disease Control and public health programs would not have their funding and where would the welfare of the Nation be? Right now the congressional authorizations for these measures expires unless we take action such as passing this bill. So of course we should be here. We should be talking about the issues that are timeless and timely, and this is among them. We have, Mr. Chairman, according to the Centers for Disease Control that is charged with, among other things, trying to stop the sexually transmitted diseases which this amendment addresses. According to CDC and the Institute of Medicine, 12 million new cases are reported each year of sexually transmitted diseases, one-fourth of them among teenagers. It is 89 percent of all reported diseases that constitute the top 10 in the whole U.S. of all diseases. Twenty-nine percent of those were infected with chlamydia, which causes sterility. Young women often do not find out until they reach their childbearing years they are not able to have kids now because they got involved in teenage sex, they got chlamydia, now they cannot have kids. Twenty-two percent had herpes, 32 percent had HPV, human papilloma virus, which causes 80 percent of all genital cancers. The Institute of Medicine concluded public awareness and knowledge regarding STDs is dangerously low. It is unfocused. The disproportionate impact on young people has not been measured. That is what we are trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to make sure that kids get the message that ``safe sex'' does not stop these sexually transmitted diseases. They happen with or without use of contraceptives, with or without use of condoms or other devices trying to prevent pregnancy. The only sure message is to say, ``wait until you are married.'' That is what abstinence education is about. It is the best course; it is the safest course. And this Congress needs to get on course, not giving it just minor funding within a huge bill, with huge increases in so many other programs, with more than twice as much being spent to promote these safe sex programs, as they are called, as to promote abstinence. Let us bring some equality into this. This amendment is what the Bush administration says is what we need to bring parity. I think they may have underestimated it. I think we probably need about $15 million more for parity, but I am not arguing that point, Mr. Chairman. I am arguing equal treatment, a level playing field, so that there is some reinforcement from Washington, D.C. and from groups that we help to fund to get the message out and reinforce what we teach our kids at school: wait until marriage. It is the best course and the safest course. I move adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that I am certainly amenable to any unanimous consent request to limit total debate time on this measure. Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that until the Office of Management and Budget issues a cost-benefit analysis of a series of Federal regulations, those regulations are to be held in abeyance. They are what is commonly called ``limited English proficiency'' regulations. What is all this about? It is about an executive order that was issued last August and regulations that were issued pursuant to it mandating that not only Federal agencies but also State and local agencies, businesses, nonprofit groups, anybody who has received any funds to administer or handle or be involved with a Federal program must make all vital documents, it says, available in multiple translations; basically into any language group involving 3,000 people or more. Mr. Chairman, there are over 200 language groups in the United States involving 3,000 people or more. If we are required to translate everything into each one of these languages, the average cost for billions of pages is $40 a page per language. Multiply $40 per page by over 200 languages, by billions of documents, and my colleagues can begin to see the nature of this problem, the huge unfunded mandate that this puts on businesses and on local governments. In fact, nine or 10 States officially have petitioned for these not to go into effect because of the unfunded mandate. After all, Mr. Chairman, there are some large language groups; and we have plenty of efforts to try to accommodate them. This amendment does not restrict anyone from trying to accommodate a language group or to make something available in another language. It simply removes the Federal mandate that we have to do so in this unlimited number of languages. It lets common sense prevail instead. It follows what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled just April of this year is the law of the land: there is no right to force somebody to translate civil documents or civil activities for you. Now, if an individual is charged in a court proceeding, yes, they will make sure they have a translation as a defendant. But we are not talking about that. There is no right, constitutional or statutory. Yet, usurping the powers of this Congress, of this body, this executive order and the regulations issued under it are putting that burden on people all over the country. Imagine being called up for a violation of Federal law because you did not provide a translation, for example, into western Farsi, with a million people in the United States speaking it; or because you did not provide a translation into Kabuverdianu, that has hundreds of thousands of people that speak it. My colleagues can pick whatever language they want, I am not going to pick on any of them, but with over 200 languages, to be told, well, if there are more than 3,000 people affected, you have to translate all vital documents, anything that this person might need, any documents made generally available to the public. Mr. Chairman, we have thousands of informational brochures, bits of information, guidance that go to people constantly. How much are we going to pay for this? We ought to wait until we have the cost-benefit analysis from the Office of Management and Budget. That is their job. They ought to be doing it. We should not go into this thing blind. I realize there will be some people, Mr. Chairman, who talk about constituents they have that are not proficient in English. I understand that. But that does not mean that we go out and put this mandate out there to try to solve the problem. The American Medical Association has said these will cause doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients and Medicaid patients because they cannot afford the cost of paying for a translator. The regulations even say it is not good enough if they have a family member come with them to the doctor to do a translation. Oh no, that is not permissible. The doctor has to go out and hire a translator at hundreds of dollars an hour that costs more than he is reimbursed, usually something about $30 or $40, more than he is reimbursed for seeing the patient in the first place. That is why the AMA, as well as so many States, wants us to pull back on this. Let us make a common-sense test. Let us apply the law under an earlier executive order that says OMB is going to do cost-benefit analyses when we have legislation that is this far-reaching. I move the adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman. We will reoffer the amendment as many times as are necessary to make sure that it is in order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), this amendment does give them time. It just says until they do their job, the rest of the country should not be put under this incredible burden. Right now there are groups that are being pursued by HHS, pursued by Federal agencies for supposed noncompliance with these regulations. We ought to say you do not go after agencies pursuing these regulations until we do that cost-benefit analysis. That is exactly what the amendment does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, so the burden of proof is not on the person raising the point of order? Is not that a shift of the burden of proof?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does the burden rest upon the person raising a point of order?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does that mean that any time that the presenter of a bill on the floor raises a point of order asking the Chair whether something is in order between budget authority and outlay, that the Chair will automatically assume that the point of order is well taken? That seems to be the position that has been asserted.