Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the articulate comments of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I especially appreciate the passion with which she represents her community. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of comments that were raised by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) because I think they are worthy of considered response. I realize that we are going to have certain votes when amendments are offered to this bill on Thursday. As we do in elections, so, too, here in the House of Representatives, we accept the results of votes. We have those votes. We handle our differences. But we do not let the things upon which we differ keep us from uniting to accomplish the things that we agree are good. I think that is important in this. There may be certain senior advisors of the President who recommends to him that he veto a bill over just one issue. I personally doubt that he would over one or even two. I think that needs to be explored briefly. I had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to serve in local government as a city council member in my community, a library board member over a consolidated county system, and a library chairman, and as a member of the State legislature in Oklahoma. Frequently, especially in the legislature, I found that, as a member of the Oklahoma legislature, we not only established the public policy for State government, but we established public policy for the communities within the State of Oklahoma. That is true in every State, Mr. Chairman, because cities, counties, villages, townships, parishes, these are established by State government. State government gives them the parameters within which they may function. It is not uncommon in State government to have issues come up that say, this governs not only how the State itself is going to operate, but also how the political subdivisions within the State are going to be able to operate, what they can do, or what they cannot do. Washington DC, of course, is a very different situation. It is not a State that has a State government. It is a Federal district that has one city. It is established by the Federal Constitution.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I only have my closing comments. I do not know if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) desired to take any further time or not. Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the related authorizing committee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are here tonight, of course, for general consideration of the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. This is a bill that is some $200 million below the amount appropriated out of Federal funds last year, the overall amount in the bill because it includes, Mr. Chairman, the District-raised funds as well, as some $6.8 billion. The Federal share of that is $453 million. Mr. Chairman, this measure is the latest stage in the efforts to assist the District of Columbia in revitalizing from the situations in which it found itself, of course, a number of years ago. There are still many residual problems that linger within the District, but yet I think it is important that we keep our eye on the positive and put some accent upon some things that are heading in the right direction. I appreciate the efforts of the ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), I am grateful for the efforts of our appropriation chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who himself served for a number of years on this subcommittee, and of course we have worked closely with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). We have also developed, I hope, a good working relationship with the new mayor who was elected last November, Tony Williams, and with the council of the District. I have worked especially close with the chair of the council, Linda Cropp, and I am grateful for their efforts in cooperation, and I think it is a sign of the positive note on which we have been proceeding that the consensus budget that was developed and approved by the mayor, by the city council, and by the Control Board of D.C. is intact within this bill. We worked with them. We understand that they are undertaking significant efforts to rightsize the government within the city, to improve the government services, to improve the police and the fire protection, to upgrade the quality of public schools, and public school facilities. There is a significant effort that the District launched in the last couple of years for charter schools which are a part of the public school system which this bill also helps to further. When the relationship between the Federal Government and the District was redefined to help it get on its financial feet and to reorganize things a couple of years ago, the Federal Government, rather than making these same type of lump sum appropriations have in common until that time began making specific appropriations to assume responsibility for the conduct of the court system, the corrections system and the system to supervise offenders, those upon probation, parole and awaiting trial. Those are the main amounts of the Federal portion of the $453 million that is the direct Federal appropriation within this bill. Within that there are some very significant things that we have attempted to do within this bill. First, we have recognized that D.C. has balanced its budget. A couple more years of balanced budget, and it will be removed from the Control Board provision that was put in place by Congress a couple of years ago. We have also recognized that even when we have great efforts at economic stimulus and development in D.C. to try to stem the out migration that began a number of years ago, it does not do any good to have a better developed city if we do not have a safe city. We have put a lot of time and effort in this particular appropriation to creating a program that is going to be the most striking of its type within the country when it comes to making sure that persons who are on some sort of early release or pre-release program or parole or probation program are remaining drug-free, because such a major portion of the crime in D.C. remains linked to the use of illegal drugs. There are 30,000 people, Mr. Speaker, who are on probation or parole within the District of Columbia who are required as a condition of that to remain drug-free. They are not doing it. That is a major reason why they are a source of so much of the crime within the city. Some estimates are that many people in this offender population are committing hundreds of crimes each year to sustain their drug habit and because of their drug habit. We have in addition to the other drug treatment and drug testing programs, a new $25 million initiative that will universally test these persons, some of them every week, all of them within every 2 weeks, and some of them twice a week to make sure that they are abiding by the terms imposed by the courts to stay drug-free, else they will not stay free on the streets. At the same time there is a significant upgrade in the drug treatment programs because we realize that some people cannot get off of drugs on their own. By doing this with the offender population, we will also free up several million dollars in city funds that were being used to treat persons that were in the offender population that will now be available for other citizens that are in dire need of drug treatment to help the Nation's capital overcome the drug problem and the terrible consequences that it is faced with it. That is a major effort, the most significant effort undertaken anyplace in the country on universal drug testing for those that are on a probation or a parole status. We also have several major education initiatives. This House previously passed what we refer to as the D.C. scholarship bill. That D.C. scholarship bill is recognizing the fact that D.C. does not have a state university system, it is not part of the State. Every other State in the country, of course, has that and also has a program to enable students who do not go to one of the State universities to be assisted in their college education. The House has voted, the Senate is considering, the program to establish that for the District of Columbia. We have within the bill the $17 million to create this ability to give a stepping stone into higher education for persons that have graduated from high school here in the District of Columbia. We also do several things with the charter school movement, making their status a permanent status rather than a temporary provisional one and opening some doors to some financing for facilities for those charter schools within D.C. We also recognize there is a problem with some 3,300 or so foster children that are in the custody of the trustee for foster care within the District of Columbia. These are young people that are often trapped in long-term foster care, not with their natural parents, not with family members, but often shuttled around between different foster care families. They need permanent, stable, loving homes. We have an $8\1/2\ million initiative to help with the placement and the incentives for that so that we can overcome again one of the accumulated problems with which D.C. still has to deal. We also have a significant environmental effort regarding the Anacostia River. One of our members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was very crucial in developing that program, a $5 million river clean-up program for the contaminants within the Anacostia River. We have in addition to that some efforts to assist the mayor and the city council in rightsizing the city government. When the Control Board was headed by Tony Williams, who now, of course, is the mayor of D.C., he was the CFO and was very much involved, of course, in getting rid of the overcrowding, shall we say, within some of the city government offices rightsizing the city government. We have a $20 million incentive for buyouts and early retirements to help them reduce another 1,000 persons from the city payroll. At the same time, we have some transportation significant items here relating especially to the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River connecting with Virginia, already overburdened with traffic and soon to be further overburdened due to some construction on the other significant river crossing down at the Wilson Bridge. Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that this bill ratifies the action of the Mayor and the city council, their bold economic development efforts recognizing that there was a severe problem of being overtaxed within the District. They have passed bold legislation to reduce income taxes and to reduce property taxes within the District of Columbia. We ratify that action in this piece of legislation. I say that because it is important to always remember that under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the Congress, although it is delegated to D.C. with the home rule charter, nevertheless has the constitutional duty and responsibility and exclusive authority, as the Constitution states, over all legislative matters within the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, this has been a consensus effort. I am very appreciative of the efforts of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the members of the city government, and so many other people that have participated in trying to bring a bill that accents the positive things that are going on in D.C. Yes, we know there are accumulated problems in crime, in education, in many things within the city. But, the officials that have taken responsibility for city government in recent months have made a very concerted, very praiseworthy effort to attack these problems, and we want to thank them for doing that, and we want to work cooperatively with them in doing so. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JY99.021 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 2587) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and that I may be permitted to include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the underlying bill that the rule authorizes to be considered. I appreciate the Committee on Rules' cooperation in putting the package together for fair consideration of this appropriations measure. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) with whom I have worked, and, of course, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This rule keeps in place what the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations have sought to do; that is, to, to the maximum extent possible, respect and follow the budget that was put together by the Mayor and the City Council in the District of Columbia. There are certain things, of course, that we undertake pursuant to our constitutional obligation. Article 1, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution provides that this Congress has exclusive legislative authority regarding the District of Columbia. However, many years ago, we delegated as much as we could through home rule charter to the District, and I am pleased that the budget that was adopted by the City Council, by the Mayor and by the D.C. Control Board is followed in this appropriations measure. Let me mention, so that all Members will be fully aware, several things that are in the bill that I do not believe will prove controversial. They are not controversial, and I believe they should be the focus of the consideration of the rule and of the underlying bill. For example, we are all familiar with the problems of drug and crime that have plagued the District for far too many years. We have a very ambitious program created in this piece of legislation, a $25 million addition on top of other drug testing and treatment funds for the Federal Office of Offender Supervision that is in charge of supervising some 30,000 persons that are on probation or parole within the District of Columbia. One of the conditions upon being on probation or parole and not being incarcerated is that they remain drug-free. We all know they are not remaining drug-free. In fact, working with the Chief of Police, Mr. Ramsey, here in the District, he advises me, as other people do, that this population of 30,000 offenders is the core of so much of the crime that continues to plague the District of Columbia, persons that are free on supervision, or supposed supervision, that commit hundreds of crimes apiece in many cases, all too often because of the link between crime and drugs. This bill establishes for those 30,000 offenders a program of consistent, universal drug testing, for some of them once a week, for some of them twice a week, coupled with a major expansion of the drug treatment programs, saying to those offenders, if you wish to remain free on the streets, you must remain free of drugs. This will be the largest program of its kind of any city in the United States of America. We are dead serious about the war on drugs. This bill takes the largest step we have taken toward attacking that problem. I believe it deserves focus. We also have within this bill the ratification of the bold tax cut plan that was adopted by the city council and the mayor in the District of Columbia beginning with $59 million the first year and larger amounts thereafter of property tax and income tax relief trying to help revitalize the city that has lost over 200,000 people in recent years, trying to be part of turning it around with economic development initiatives. And we all know, of course, that even if they have a more vibrant economic city, it still has to be a safe city. So we ratified the council's action in this bill at the same time as we undertake the attack on drugs. We have $5 million for a special environmental clean up of the Anacostia River. I want to especially commend one of the members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who took a special interest in that particular measure. We have a major problem within the District of Columbia, one of the many accumulated problems through many bad years for the District of long-term foster care, 3,500 kids that need a permanent, stable, loving home. We have $8.5 million for adoption initiatives to help solve this long-term problem and get these kids out of long-term foster care and adopted into stable, permanent, loving homes. That is a very important initiative. The mayor and the council have been very diligent in bringing in, for the second year, a balanced budget within the District of Columbia. Thanks to some changes in the Federal relationship, some expenses that the Federal Government has assumed, they have a balanced budget; and we respect the priorities they put in. We also create further tools for rightsizing the size of city government. With the Control Board, in recent years, taking the lead and the gentleman who is now mayor of the city, Anthony Williams, who was Chief Financial Officer of the Control Board leading that way the city has been working to rightsize city government. There is still a problem with too many city workers for the size of the community. We have $20 million to help them with the downsizing initiative through buyouts and early retirements for persons that should be retired from the city payroll but that we need to make sure that we do it without a disruptive mechanism. We have these and other important initiatives that I think justify the accent upon the positive. We have a new mayor, we have a new council that is working diligently on the problems of city government, and we have also made sure that we do not open up new difficulties in this particular bill. I commend the Committee on Rules because the amendments which they placed in order are amendments which have previously been important to this House of Representatives. For example, the needle exchange prohibition with public funds that we will be voting on later is the identical provision that was approved by the House, approved by the Senate, and signed into law by the President of the United States last year. The amendment we will vote on is to continue that policy, not to create a new one. The committee has placed in order an amendment that is different in some ways, however, when it comes to the issue of the medical marijuana initiative petition that was conducted in the District. We dealt with, last year, a prohibition on counting the ballots. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) which we will offer later today that the Committee on Rules has placed in order is not quite the same. It is a prohibition on changing the law in D.C. to legalize marijuana, but it is not a prohibition against counting the ballots. The amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) relating to adoption needing to be by couples who are related by marriage or by blood is the same language that was adopted by this House last year. It is not something new that has been brought up. The language of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) regarding tobacco was also something that was attached by the House to this legislation last year. So the Committee on Rules has avoided opening new fronts with the amendments that are placed in order. I recognize that there are some issues of social policy where there may be disagreements between persons in the District, persons in this Congress, persons on one side of the aisle and persons on the other side of the aisle. But I think when the House works its will with those amendments, we will see that what remains is a bill that promotes fiscal responsibility, that keeps the budget balanced running a surplus with tax cuts to help with the economic revitalization of the District of Columbia, significant incentives regarding the problems of drugs and crime and their interrelationship in D.C. and other measures such as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has pointed out to strengthen the educational system through the charter schools provisions being made permanent. They are 5 percent of the District's school enrollment right now. They are projected to be 10 percent this fall, and also the education initiative with the D.C. scholarships, as it is called, which is a tuition aid grant modeled after the tuition aid grants that are currently in place in virtually every State in the Union. These are things that the Committee on Rules has left intact, they have not fostered disagreement or argument over these issues, and I think it is important that, as we consider the rule, we have that perspective. Yes, we will have disagreements over certain items in the bill, but after we resolve those disagreements, I urge people to adopt the underlying bill, and I urge adoption of the rule that makes it possible.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2560, the ``Child Protection Act of 1999.'' This bill would require that filters that block obscenity and child pornography be placed on all computers with Internet connections that minors can access which have been purchased with Federal funds. Here is a copy of my ``Dear Colleague'' and a copy of the Congressional Research Service opinion that says this approach is constitutional. It is important that we protect our children from obscenity and child pornography. Protect Our Children From Obscenity!!! Dear Colleague: There are over 30,000 pornographic Internet web sites. 12-17 year old adolescents are among the larger consumers of Porn (U.S. Commission on Pornography) Transporting obscenity on the Internet is a Federal crime. (Punishable by a fine and not more than 5 years in prison for the first offense and a fine and up to 10 years in prison for the second offense, plus a basic fine of up to $250,000. 18

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I know of no provision in the current law that would allow the school district to recover attorneys fees from a plaintiff who sued them challenging religious expression by the student. Is it not correct that the current law only allows the plaintiff to recover fees, but does not permit the school district which is defending the suit to make a recovery of legal fees?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman's effort. What is more precious to someone, if we are talking about their memory, than talking about their beliefs, the things for which they were willing to live and the things for which they were willing to die? Yes, we know about Cassie Bernall, who was asked, do you believe in God; yes, and because of that she was killed. For those who do not want the memory of the religious beliefs to be commemorated at the memorial that they leave behind, I invite them to go across the Potomac River to Arlington National Cemetery, where Members will find row upon row upon row of religious symbols chosen by people who were gone to mark their graves. Some may be crosses, most are, and some may be emblems of another faith, such as stars of David. But to say that when one is gone, the memory of one's faith must be gone, too, is not the American way. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear for the Record, is it the intent of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) that his amendment, when he uses the term ``students' religious expression,'' that the term ``students' religious expression'' includes student prayer?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the next scheduled amendment to be offered was one which I was to offer. However, I do not intend to offer it because the previous amendment, the DeMint amendment, was adopted by the House. My amendment had some similarities with the DeMint amendment. It would have stated that a plaintiff who sued to try to stop voluntary student prayer in public schools would not be entitled to collect attorney fees from the school district. However, since the DeMint amendment concerned religious expression, and certainly prayer is one of those religious expressions, my amendment is unnecessary because my objective was covered in fact in a broader way by the DeMint amendment. Therefore, I do not wish to offer my amendment at this time.

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

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. A vote in favor of this rule is a green light to send U.S. ground troops into Kosovo and Yugoslavia. If my colleagues believe, as I believe, that Congress must approve first the sending of any American soldiers, then my colleagues should vote ``no'' on the rule. The rule removes language which the Committee on Armed Services had put in to restrict the use of ground troops in Yugoslavia. A vote for the rule is a vote permitting those ground troops to be sent. Mr. Speaker, we have a 10-day break before us. We do not want to send a message such as this on the eve of that break, especially since newspapers in Great Britain are reporting that the President is planning to send 90,000 troops in. Our American media are reporting that airmen are being denied their normal discharges because they must stay to continue being a part of this unauthorized war being prosecuted by the President. The Constitution says it is our obligation before any war should be underway. Follow the Constitution, do not give a green light unless Congress says so. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1620, a bill to free the National Labor Relations Board from being overburdened because bracket creep that has forced them to accept cases from very small employers in this nation. Here is a copy of my ``Dear Colleague'' and a report from the Labor Policy Association that outlines the problem and why it is important to small businesses in America to correct this problem. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Free the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Help Reduce Unnecessary Burden on Small Business Dear Colleague: This Congress, Mr. Istook is introducing legislation to help the NLRB manage their huge caseload. Each year the NLRB requests additional funding to help them administer and manage their caseload. This legislative reform simply makes adjustments for inflation in the financial jurisdictional thresholds of the NLRB, most of which were set in 1959. The NLRB can still adjudicate special cases below these thresholds, just as they can do today. It is crucial that we provide the NLRB with this freedom. We urge you to cosponsor this bill. Two former NLRB Chairs support this change. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the government agency designed to settle labor disputes between unions and management. In 1959, Congress passed a law to give NLRB jurisdiction over businesses based on gross receipts. Once a business passes that threshold of gross receipts, it is subject to intervention by the NLRB. Businesses below the threshold are subject to actions brought in state courts, instead of the NLRB. Without an adjustment for inflation, businesses and the NLRB have been caught in ``bracket creep.'' as inflation has increased since 1959, the NLRB has acquired jurisdiction over much smaller businesses than was ever intended, escalating the expense and workload for the NLRB as well as for business. These now include very small businesses, for whom the cost of such intervention is unbearable. Up to 20% of the NLRB's workload now is these very small businesses. For example, NLRB has jurisdiction over non-retail businesses with gross receipts over $50,000, an inflation adjustment would raise that threshold to $275,773. NLRB has jurisdiction over retail business and restaurants doing more than $500,000 worth of business, but adjusting for inflation since 1959 would raise this to $2.7 million. Congress never intended to subject small businesses to such a have regulatory hammer. The NLRB is powerless to change its jurisdiction without an act of Congress. So this legislation will do exactly that. By indexing the jurisdiction to the rate of inflation, the NLRB could again focus upon the larger businesses for whom the law was originally written. Small businesses have been severely burdened by dealing with the far-off NLRB instead of their local state courts (Examples on Reverse). This bill's simple adjustment both frees NLRB deal with significant cases truly affecting interstate commerce, and also removes the problems very small business have with NLRB oversight (See Example on the Reverse). If you have any questions, please call Mr. Istook`s office and speak with Dr. Bill Duncan at (202) 225-2182. Tom DeLay, House Majority Whip; Bill Young, Chairman, Appropriations Committee; John Boehner, Chairman, Employer/Employee Relations Subcommittee; John Porter, Chairman, Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee; Jim Talent, Chairman, Small Business Committee; Henry Bonilla, Member, Appropriations Committee; Ernest Istook, Member, Appropriations Committee; Dan Miller, Member, Appropriations Committee; Jay Dickey, Member, Appropriations Committee; Roger Wicker, Member, Appropriations Committee; Anne Northup, Member, Appropriations Committee; Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Member, Appropriations Committee; John Hostettler; Chris Cannon.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.J. Res. 53, the Balanced Budget Amendment that protects the Social Security Trust Fund. Many years ago, the Congress made a promise. We promised to take a portion of every American's paycheck and keep it in a special trust fund. From that trust fund, the government would send a check to every American over the age of 65 so that no American would have to worry about growing old without someone to care for them. We called that promise Social Security. We should keep our promise. Most of us now realize Congress has used the trust fund as a slush fund to finance other programs. Taking Social Security ``off-budget'' is meaningless. Congress did it in 1983, 1985, and 1990, and then later quietly ignored the ``off-budget'' rules. An ordinary law can't restrain future Congresses. An ordinary law can be overturned whenever ``convenient.'' There is only one way to make certain future Congresses devote that money to Social Security--to take it away from them so that they can't spend it on anything else. We must pass an amendment to the Constitution which would guarantee that all Congresses, present and future, will protect Social Security. The only protection is to require a balanced budget that does not use the Social Security surplus. To do that, we must add to the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment the requirement that a surplus in Social Security cannot be counted as revenue. We can still consider other reforms to Social Security, but first things first. Let's finally make a bond that we cannot break, and use the Social Security dollars only for Social Security. It's the only right and honorable thing to do. To cosponsor this version of the Balanced Budget Amendment that protects the Social Security Trust Fund, call Dr. Bill Duncan on Mr. Istook's staff at 5-2132, or Charlie DeWitt on Mr. Campbell's staff at 5-2631.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1620, a bill to free the National Labor Relations Board from being overburdened because bracket creep has forced them to accept cases from very small employers in this nation. Here is a copy of my ``Dear Colleague'' and a report from the Labor Policy Association that outlines the problem and why it is important to small businesses in America to correct this problem. Free the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Help Reduce Unnecessary Burden on Small Business Dear Colleague: This Congress, Mr. Istook is introducing legislation to help the NLRB manage their huge caseload. Each year the NLRB requests additional funding to help them administer and manage their caseload. This legislative reform simply makes adjustments for inflation in the financial jurisdictional thresholds of the NLRB, most of which were set in 1959. The NLRB can still adjudicate special cases below these thresholds, just as they can do today. It is crucial that we provide the NLRB with this freedom. We urge you to cosponsor this bill. Two former NLRB Chairs support this change. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the government agency designed to settle labor disputes between unions and management. In 1959, Congress passed a law to give NLRB jurisdiction over businesses based on gross receipts. Once a business passes that threshold of gross receipts, it is subject to intervention by the NLRB. Businesses below the threshold are subject to actions brought in state courts, instead of the NLRB. Without an adjustment for inflation, businesses and the NLRB have been caught in ``bracket creep,'' as inflation has increased since 1959, the NLRB has acquired jurisdiction over much smaller businesses than was ever intended, escalating the expense and workload for the NLRB as well as for business. These now include very small businesses, for whom the cost of such intervention is unbearable. Up to 20% of the NLRB's workload now is these very small businesses. For example, NLRB has jurisdiction over non-retail businesses with gross receipts over $50,000, an inflation adjustment would raise that threshold to $275,773. NLRB has jurisdiction over retail businesses and restaurants doing more than $500,000 worth of business, but adjusting for inflation since 1959 would raise this to $2.7 million. Congress never intended to subject smaller businesses to such a heavy regulatory hammer. The NLRB is powerless to change its jurisdiction without an act of Congress. So this legislation will do exactly that. By indexing the jurisdiction to the rate of inflation, the NLRB could again focus upon the larger businesses for whom the law was originally written. Small businesses have been severely burdened by dealing with the far-off NLRB instead of their local state courts (Examples on Reverse). This bill's simple adjustment both frees NLRB to deal with significant cases truly affecting interstate commerce, and also removes the problems very small businesses have with NLRB oversight (See Example on the Reverse). If you have any questions, please call Mr. Istook's office and speak with Dr. Bill Duncan at (202) 225-2132. Tom DeLay, Bill Young, John Boehner, John Porter, Jim Talent, Henry Bonilla, Ernest Istook, Dan Miller, Jay Dickey, Roger Wicker, Anne Northup, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, John Hostettler, Chris Cannon. examples of small business nlrb cases Larry Burns, of Houston, Texas, (8 employees), had 2 charges filed against his business by the NLRB. One was thrown out, the other settled for $160 (1 days pay). Larry Burns spent $11,000 in attorneys fees and wasted time fighting the NLRB when these problems could have been solved cheaper and easier in state courts. Also, Mr. Burns, under state law, could have recovered \1/2\ of his attorney's fees under loser pays (which helps eliminate frivolous charges). Randall Borman, of Evansville, Indiana (4 employees). Three charges were filed with the NLRB. All were dismissed. He could have recovered all of his legal fees under Indiana state law. Instead he lost $7,500 in attorney's fees and lost revenue and had to lay off workers to cover this expense. examples of delays in processing nlrb cases Julian Burns, of Charlotte, North Carolina, (23 employees). His case should be heard by the NLRB. However, the NLRB's workload is so overloaded with cases from very small businesses that it took 2\1/2\ years to hear his case. Rather than getting his day in court, he settled for $10,000, after paying $35,000 in attorney's fees, and $250,000 for losses in manpower and reduced workforce, for a total cost of $295,000. Achieving NLRB Budget Savings by Updating Small Business Thresholds The National Labor Relations Board\1\ (NLRB or Board) exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all labor disputes that are considered to be of significant national interest. The Board, itself, has set the standards for determining which labor disputes reach this threshold. Unfortunately, most of these standards are based on 1959 dollar figures that have not been adjusted for inflation over time. The result is that the Board's method for asserting jurisdiction has become outdated and should be changed to reflect present economic realities. Such a change could result in substantial savings to the U.S. Government. The NLRB's jurisdiction, in both representation and unfair labor practice cases, extends to all enterprises that ``affect'' interstate commerce.\2\ This expansive statutory grant of authority has been held by the Supreme Court to mean that the Board's jurisdiction extends to ``the fullest . . . breadth constitutionally permissible under the commerce clause.'' \3\ Traditionally, however, the Board has never exercised its full authority. Since its establishment, the Board has considered only cases that, in its opinion, ``substantially affect'' interstate commerce. In 1959, Congress endorsed this practice in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The act specifically allowed the Board to ``decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute . . . where . . . the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction.'' \4\ Congress did not leave the Board total discretion, however. It instructed that the Board ``shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon August 1, 1959.'' \5\ Thus, although Congress recognized that the board needed to exercise discretion in interpreting the term ``affecting commerce,'' it clearly did not want the Board to establish lower thresholds than were already in place. In 1959, however, the Board's prevailing jurisdictional thresholds were based on raw dollar amounts. The difficulty with this jurisdictional approach is that it fails to take inflation into account. The problem with not adjusting jurisdictional thresholds is clearly illustrated in the following example. In 1959, the Board exercised jurisdiction over non-retail businesses that sold or purchased goods in interstate commerce totaling $50,000 or more annually. In other words, in 1959, $50,000 of interstate business ``substantially affected commerce.'' Today, the Board continues to exercise jurisdiction using the $50,000 threshold, but the effect on commerce of $50,000 today is not nearly what it was in 1959. The value of $50,000 today is equivalent to $9,065 in 1959. Thus, just as $9,065 did not warrant the Board's jurisdiction in 1959, $50,000 should not warrant the Board's jurisdiction today. Since 1959, the Board has established separate thresholds for particular types of businesses that did not fall into the 1959 categories. Although these thresholds are more recent, they nonetheless suffer from the same major flaw--they fail to consider inflation. Figure 1, below, lists the Board's current jurisdictional thresholds for various business sectors along with the year in which those thresholds were established. These sums are then converted into their present value--making it clear that the Board's present procedure for asserting jurisdiction is both unrealistic and outdated. Consequently, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 164(c)(1) should be amended to reflect the present value of these jurisdictional thresholds. A second flaw in basing jurisdiction solely on the volume of the employer's business is that such a method fails to consider the size of the bargaining units involved. As a result, the Board spends scarce federal resources pursuing relatively small benefits. Figure 2 clearly illustrates this position. In 1994, the Board expended nearly 20% of its representation effort on bargaining units of 9 persons or less. Yet, this 20% effort reached less than 2% of the total number of employees involved in representation elections that year (3,393 out of a total of 188,899). In other words, the Board could have reduced its effort by 20% while maintaining 98% effectiveness had it declined to assert jurisdiction over these small units. What is even more surprising is that the NLRB conducts elections in units as small as two workers. The Board refuses to release statistics on this point to the public, but such statistics would be available to the Appropriations Committee. Leaving jurisdiction over these small units to the states would be the most efficient use of federal resources and could result in significant savings to the Federal Government. Footnotes \1\ This analysis was prepared by the staff of the Labor Policy Association. \2\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160. \3\ NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224 (1963). \4\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 164(c)(1). Parties involved in labor disputes that did not meet the Board's jurisdictional requirements were not left without recourse by Congress. The act specifically provided that agencies or state courts could assert jurisdiction over these claims. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 164(c)(2). Of course, state courts would have to be empowered by state law to do so. \5\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 164(c)(1).

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that this amendment is identical to one that has previously, under the precedence of the House, been held in order, and that was an amendment that was filed in 1967 during the time of the Vietnam War. The language is identical in this case, only changing the words North Vietnam to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment our chairman on this bill that meets some very vital and important needs of the United States Armed Forces. I support this bill. I intend to support the bill whether this amendment is approved by the House or not. Our military has been depleted; it has been overused. This bill is intended to replenish our military. This bill is intended to restore strength and vitality that has been taken from our military. This bill, as I believe most proponents say, is not, however, intended to expand the war that currently is being waged in Yugoslavia, which has not been declared as a war by the Congress of the United States. This bill is to replenish our military but not to expand past the air campaign that currently is under way. We cannot take up a more serious issue in this House than committing the men and women of our Armed Forces into combat and the potential of having them sent in a hostile environment into Yugoslavia. The President of the United States has said he does not intend to do so, but, nevertheless, he is having plans drafted for the contingency of doing that. Mr. Chairman, that cannot occur; that must not occur under our system of government, under our Constitution, unless the Congress of the United States so specifies. That is what this amendment says, that no ground forces of the United States can invade Yugoslavia absent a declaration by this Congress to do so. I should mention, Mr. Chairman, the significance of this issue. The great import of this issue is such that in 1991, when the Persian Gulf War, Desert Shield and then Desert Storm, was being put together, the President of the United States, George Bush, thought it crucial to make sure that he sought not only consultation but approval of the Congress at that time. Then Senator William Cohen of Maine, now the Secretary of Defense, at the time that the Persian Gulf campaign was being contemplated took to the floor of the United States Senate, the other body, and made it clear that our Constitution would not permit that campaign to go forward unless Congress approved. In fact, in the Congressional Record of January 12, 1991, Mr. Cohen stated, and I quote him, ``The President has said that he has the authority to go forward without congressional consent. I disagree with that particular position. He has also said that even in the face of opposition from Congress, he will go forward. I think that not only is a constitutional error but a tactical one as well.'' What does the administration say and do? They said, well, we will talk to Congress, but we will not agree that we will not send our troops into the ground in Yugoslavia in a hostile environment unless Congress approved it. This amendment seeks to honor what the House voted last week by 249 to 180, that, absent congressional action, no ground forces were to be sent in. Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the press and the public will claim that we have voted this money, this $12 billion, to widen this poorly conceived military effort. I do not think that is the intent. I do not think that is the intent of the chairman in bringing this bill forward. I do not think that is our intention, to enlarge this war. But we want to make sure it does not deplete the resources of our military. Does this amendment pull us out of what is going on now? No. Does it endorse the air war? No. Does it stop the air campaign? No. Does it prevent peacekeepers from going in should peace break out? No, it does not. Does it prevent rescue of our forces? Of course not. But it does make it clear that we are not going to send any ground troops in in an invasion unless it becomes a time of war, which under our Constitution can only be declared by the Congress of the United States. It does not undercut our strategy. The President has said ground troops are not our strategy. It does not undercut our Armed Forces. It clearly is following the Constitution on who makes decisions of this tremendous import. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment; and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have been working with the chairman. I do not believe it is going to be necessary to offer this amendment for a vote, but I do think it is important that it be presented. Everyone in the Nation, of course, is aware of what has happened in Oklahoma City this week with the tornado that has left thousands of people homeless and a number of people dead and a great amount of devastation. We are appreciative of the assistance and the care and the prayers and the concerns of people all over the country. This particular amendment is only dealing with one small portion of this particular disaster. I offer this amendment not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts) in whose district most of the devastating damage has occurred. Mr. Chairman, part of the damage done by the tornado was to Tinker Air Force Base, one of our premier Air Force installations. In fact, for those who have seen on television the images of hundreds of homes devastated, leveled to the ground, what they may not be aware is that happened immediately across the street, across Sooner Road from the western edge of Tinker Air Force Base. In fact, as terrible as it was, it could have been worse had that tornado gone through Tinker as it was headed to do. At the last moment, when it came to Sooner Road that tornado veered to the north rather than heading across the air force base. We have some $11 million in damage to different housing facilities, dormitories and barracks on the base that is addressed by this amendment. We were very fortunate, however, that the tornado did not proceed to go across Tinker. Because there were still on the apron at Tinker, where they could not get them out of the path of the tornado, half a dozen of our AWACS aircraft, 10 of our tankers, two of our B- 52's, two of our B-1's, about $3 billion of premier aircraft that were in the path of the tornado until it took that twist. Nevertheless, a number of people on base lost their housing. This amendment is to specify that $11 million from this emergency supplemental appropriations should be used to restore that damaged housing at Tinker. We have several of those units that were damaged, a couple of hundred people on the base that were dislocated by the damage that are currently being housed elsewhere. Some of the buildings have already been condemned by the civil engineer on base, the base's civil engineering. Some may be repairable. Some may have to be replaced. The preliminary estimates which we have received from Tinker are that the repairs will be some $11,280,000. That figure, of course, may change. But I think it is necessary, when we want to make sure that we have the emergency response to the military needs, that we had an unforeseen disaster that affected Tinker on top of the, frankly, even worse disaster that afflicted so many people in Oklahoma. So, Mr. Chairman, I do offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and on behalf of myself. And at the proper time, I would certainly wish to yield to the chairman of the full committee for a colloquy.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think the concerns, as the chairman well knows, are that the people of Oklahoma and Tinker want to make sure that we address this on an emergency basis; and I know he has provided assurances that we are going to address this in an expedited and timely fashion, most likely within the conference report of this bill. I do understand, of course, because of the timing of this, it presents several parliamentary problems to try to bring it up at this stage. I appreciate that. With those assurances from the gentleman that this will be addressed in conference and otherwise, I would, Mr. Chairman, withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. There is no condition under our constitution which constitutes an official war absent an official action by the Congress of the United States. That is Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution.

Mr. ISTOOK. When the gentleman says it does not apply to Kosovo, Kosovo is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so certainly it applies to Kosovo.