Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the committee has not made an assertion. The committee has posed a question to the Chair. The Chair has said it has received an assertion but has not told us the source. It has not said that assertion came on the floor in a document, through something extraneous, through this regular order.

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, does that mean that any person contesting any dollar amendment can always raise a point of order that it is not the same within budget authority and that point of order will automatically be sustained absent some outside authority?

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, 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, would the Chair yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

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, I offer an amendment.

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, I wish to be heard.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, nobody has given what they purport to be a differing amount of budget authority or outlay.

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we give credit where credit is due. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) earlier mentioned that they have helped get this program off the ground. Despite this opposition to this amendment, they deserve credit for that. I want to acknowledge that publicly. However, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said when someone else was speaking earlier, I would rather have their support than their praise. I would like to have the gentlewoman's support now, not just her praise for getting the program under way but her support at this time, as well. I hear people argue, well, we really cannot afford this extra $33 million. Mr. Chairman, this is in a bill with discretionary spending, not even counting the mandatory, discretionary spending of $123 billion, $11 billion more than last year, and $6.8 billion over the President's request. It has a half-a-dozen accounts in it that are more than $100 million over the President's request. It has over a dozen accounts in it that are more than $100 million over last year's amount. Then we are told, on one of the major problems of our time, with teenage pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, with 3 million young Americans each year getting sexually-transmitted diseases, 3 million teens, we are told with all this money in the bill, it is a good idea, but we really cannot afford it. Give me a break. It is a question of where our priorities are. Do Members want to fund the things that reinforce America's values? Do Members want to fund the things that are having the first success in three decades in combatting teenagers who are involved sexually, get disease, get pregnant, drop out of school, turn to alcohol, turn to drugs, do not get their education, cannot support themselves, go on public assistance, raise kids in that environment? Is that what we want? Mr. Chairman, if we had more of these abstinence education programs, we would not need all the other billions of dollars in this bill. Yet, I hear people say, it is a good idea, but we really cannot afford it, despite all the other billions of dollars in the bill. The real question is getting our priorities straight. We had $2 billion that was added to this piece of legislation in the last week. Of course we can afford this. The President's support? This is the letter dated September 24 from his office, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget: ``The President remains strongly committed to funding parity between abstinence education and teen contraception. With this in mind, the administration would support efforts in Congress to increase funding to $73 million for abstinence education activities under the administration's title V special programs of regional and national significance within the Health and Human Services Department.'' That is what this amendment does. The President has talked to us about getting parity. That is what this amendment is about. In a bill with all these billions of dollars, we do not have $33 million to put into this high priority; $33 million that prevents disease, that prevents children being raised in poverty? I heard someone say, well, we have not done enough evaluations on these abstinence education programs. These family planning programs, title X programs, we have had since 1971, for 30 years; they have never been evaluated. We spend over $200 million a year on them. We have not evaluated them. But we are told that is a reason for not promoting abstinence education, when teen pregnancy rates have only started coming down once these programs got under way. It is time we put more support into them. I would like to have the support, not just the verbal support but the support in votes, of people that have indeed helped to get this program under way. It needs a little bit of nurture and nourishment right now. The demand is huge in the United States. They are overwhelmed with applicants for these grants. They cannot fill that demand. Let us save some kids. Let us help people not get into this cycle of disease and poverty. Let us support this amendment. I move its adoption, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2590) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). I understand the policy issues that he talks about regarding funding of persons who have been appointed but have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. However, the reason for not including language in this bill to try to protect the prerogatives of the Senate is because I believe, and many of us believe, that any language to protect the prerogatives of the Senate ought to be composed and sought by the Senate. Any language to protect the prerogatives of the House should be composed and offered by the House. For this reason, I believe that we should leave this matter alone and not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I expect that the Senate in their version of this bill will want to include some language that they craft which may be the same or not the same as the gentleman prefers, but I would rather address that in conference with the Senate, knowing what they want.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen a copy of the amendment. We understood that the only reference was to an amendment at the desk and did not identify which amendment was at the desk.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, because I am not sure which of the Traficant amendments is being offered.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I state that we certainly have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. It is an important need that he has mentioned. We are unsure as we work with him regarding potential sources ultimately for funding, but we realize we need a placeholder in the bill for an account from which to fund it. So I look forward to working with the gentleman from Georgia to fill this important need.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yielded for a factual questioning, not for a running argument. I realize we may have different interpretations of what is important here, but I do believe that this ought to be the prerogative of the Senate. The Senate can pursue it. They have the opportunity to do so.