Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the gentleman from Wisconsin, this means, of course, the same as has been established in the precedence of the House with this particular language. I mean it, of course, to mean a declaration of war or any act by the Congress that would be any equivalent approval of a declaration of war. Congress, of course, has not given any authorization for such a commitment of our forces.

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise not to declare war, but to support our Constitution. Right now President Clinton is prosecuting a war he was never authorized to start. President Clinton asked many nations to agree to attack Yugoslavia, but he failed to get permission from one crucial country, America. Our Constitution requires that Congress must declare war, not the President. It also states that Congress, not the President, defines and punishes offenses against the law of nations. And the NATO treaty, approved 50 years ago, says nothing about launching an attack. It is not the American way to let one man drag us into a bloody quagmire. I took an oath to honor our Constitution, and I will not stand idle while the President, again, runs rough-shod over that Constitution.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in committee and missed rollcall vote No. 91, which was on H.R. 1376, a bill to provide tax benefits to American military personnel in Yugoslavia, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, the President was given the opportunity to present witnesses or evidence which would dispute the facts. He did not. His legal hair-splitting defense could not alter the simple truth: The President lied, and lied under oath. Here is what convinced me that this perjury is an impeachable offense and not simply a moral failure. These were not lies told under sudden pressure when he was unexpectedly asked embarrassing questions. The President's lies were planned well in advance. They were premeditated. He knowingly acted to block justice, even after a Federal judge ruled his behavior was relevant and material. He orchestrated a deliberate scheme to tell multiple lies under oath on multiple occasions many months apart. Even today, he has admitted only what he has been forced to admit and otherwise continues to stonewall. This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision to hide personal shame. He had ample time to correct his course, but instead chose to defy the laws of our land. Mr. Speaker, I will vote to impeach.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, a bad bipartisan bill is still a bad bill. I appreciate the efforts of Republican leaders to get extra money that was vitally needed for national defense. The defense spending is badly needed, as well as emergency relief for farmers and hurricane victims, but those do not justify the rest of this bill. This bill raises Federal spending several billion dollars higher than even President Clinton requested several months ago. We should celebrate balancing the budget, but not with a spending spree. We should be lowering taxes and paying off the national debt, not using the surplus as the latest of many excuses to spend more money. A great many Members of Congress worked long and hard this year to hold the line on spending. I am glad that our chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) fought so hard to control spending, and I know that he did. Unfortunately, at the end of the process the most liberal Democrats in Congress had the leverage to get the President to back their demands, their insistence, for more spending. The President knows his future hinges on the support of liberals in Congress, who do not care what he may have done as long as he fights for their big government programs, because his future depends upon their support. He made it clear he would veto anything that did not give the most liberal of the Democrats whatever they wanted in exchange. This made it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate for anything different. The root problem remains that problem of trust. A year ago the President agreed to a limit on this year's spending in exchange for extra spending which he received last year. Earlier this year he pretended that he opposed tax cuts because he said he wanted to preserve the entire surplus for social security. Now he wants to spend almost one-third of that surplus. His word is in doubt. This is protection money, and that is wrong. It is wrong for anyone to turn a blind eye toward the President's conduct, so long as he delivers our tax money to pay for the big government that they want.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the gentleman from Louisiana. I know that Members want to engage in different blame games of what goes back and forth, but I think what we really ought to be talking about is the chance for the American people to know what we are doing and the openness of the process. There was an agreement that was made last year regarding how much money would be spent this year. The President, however, when he presented his budget wanted to spend more. And he presented a plan on how to be able to do it; namely, to have offsets through different things such as tobacco taxes, which did not materialize. Indeed, I know there are many Members on the other side of the aisle that also agreed that we should not be raising taxes, whether we called it direct or indirect taxes. Mr. Speaker, when that extra money did not materialize, then of course we would expect that the President would say, okay, there is not as much money, therefore, here is how I will cut back on my proposals, because if we want to spend money, we have to say where is the money going to originate. The President did not do that. We have had efforts, and I think some numbers have been presented in the last couple of days saying, here is where we can trim something else to be able to spend this money on my education programs and so forth. Well, it is a little late in the game, but it is being looked at. I appreciate, for example, the attitude that has been displayed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), also a member of the Committee on Appropriations. He has a number of times stood on this floor and said, if you want to spend the money, you should show where the tax or other offset will originate to pay for it. We have not known what the President proposed to cut back in order to justify the additional spending that he desired. Indeed, I think the American people have a right to know. Something like that should not be presented just in a private, closed-door meeting. If you want to spend more on item A, tell us where you are going to reduce spending on item B. Unfortunately, we cannot have it both ways. So we are in this situation because of that, and I ask support of the resolution.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the time remaining and the different allocations.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I think it is crucial to understand that we are not talking about the past when a child goes into a Title X clinic, we are talking about the future. We are talking about enabling the future conduct with a program that spends $200 million of taxpayers' money a year and gives these to 1\1/2\ million teenagers without the knowledge of their parents.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this program provides birth control pills and other contraceptives to kids. Not just those who are 17, but it freely gives them to those who are 15, to those who are 13, to those who are 12, to those who are 11, to those who are 11, 10, with no limit, totally ignoring the State laws on the books about age of consent. Without the language, the Istook language in the bill, we do not even have a requirement to turn in people who are taking advantage of kids, and then taking them to these clinics for birth control, who are breaking the law that is designed to protect minors and our kids. The issue is should $200 million a year of taxpayers' money go to provide contraceptives to 1.5 million kids each year without their parents knowing it? This is not emergency care. We do not say they have to have notice if they need treatment, if they have already contracted some disease. It is only if they are giving out contraceptives for future sexual activity. And birth control pills, yes, they have side effects. They have interactions. Parents need to know about their children's health, as well as about their children's morals, if they are going to be involved in being able to give parental guidance. The Istook language has counseling on abstinence. It has a requirement that State laws are to be followed in reporting sexual predators. For goodness sakes, Mr. Chairman, let the parents know.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), a family doctor who practices in this area, to close the debate.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has sought to reform a Federal program that has not been revised or reviewed by the Congress in a great number of years, that being Federal Family Planning. It is not a matter of 17 years olds, it is a matter of children of any age whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. It is not a matter of just low income persons because the effect of not having parental notice is to say that any child is considered to be a child of poverty and, therefore, at taxpayers' expense, can receive, among other things, taxpayer financed contraceptives, condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, with neither the knowledge or consent of their parents. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the government were enabling children to be involved with drugs or alcohol or were aware that they were involved, parents would be notified. There is no other circumstance like this where parents are cut out. The issue is to vote that parents have a right to know, to be involved with the morals and the life and the activities of their children. That is simply why we encourage a vote for the Istook substitute to provide for parental notice, which is sadly lacking today.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have 3 cosponsors of the amendment: myself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule regarding the appropriations measure on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. There has been a lot of work, of course, that has gone with this bill, as there always is, this being one of the largest spending bills each year that comes before the House. I especially want to compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). This is always a very difficult bill, bringing together, as it does, so many different issues, so much major funding. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has gone to great pains to work with a large number of Members who had concerns over this measure. I know the gentleman is personally very pleased with the additional funding for medical research through the National Institute of Health, which are in this bill, the efforts to increase the efficiency of the money that actually reaches the classroom through Federal funding for education, whether it be through different block grants and things such as impact aid. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been very diligent in that. Mr. Speaker, there is one particular portion of the bill, however, that I want to make sure that I mention. A part of this bill each year involves Federal family planning funds under title 10 as it is called. In the Federal Family Planning Program of title 10, within the bill, is a measure which was adopted in the Committee on Appropriations in consultation, of course, with the authorizing committee involved to make a major reform in that particular program. Mr. Chairman, 1\1/2\ million teenagers each year receive services under the title 10 Family Planning Program. Some of it is treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Some of it is providing contraceptives and counseling to young people. Since this program has been in place since 1971, however, which provides a mechanism for Federal dollars to provide contraceptives to teenagers with neither the knowledge nor consent of their parents, since that time, Mr. Speaker, the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate among teenagers in America has doubled. We hear a lot of talk about family involvement in major issues of our times, and certainly the rate of teenage pregnancy is one of those. The measure adopted by the Committee on Appropriations has been desired by a great many American families for a great number of years. It says, in most simple terms, that an unemancipated minor, a teenager who is still dependent upon their parents, should not be provided contraceptives at Federal taxpayers' expense unless their parents are notified. This does not apply to any particular other types of services. This does not, for example, say that parents have to be notified if it is some sort of emergency medical care. But if taxpayers' money is to be used to pay for future sexual activity by a teenager, this simply says that the parent ought to be notified. As the parent of teenagers myself, Mr. Speaker, I know that they cannot receive pierced ears without parents being notified. They cannot go on field trips or get aspirins at school without parents being notified. Yet Federal taxpayers' dollars are used to provide contraceptives to teenagers and the parents are never told. If my child were picked up for using drugs or using alcohol, I would expect to be notified. The real tragedy is that there is not even notification for children who are below the age of consent. We have laws on the books in this State on statutory rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, taking indecent liberties with a minor, and so forth, and the title 10 clinics ignore those laws. They neither report violations of them to the parents nor to law enforcement authorities. This bill has reforms in it that says they will provide notification in both of those instances. It is a very important measure to try to get parents involved in monitoring and helping with the life and the problems and the circumstances of their youth. This measure needs to be preserved in this bill. We will have debate on measures to take it out. It is important that we keep it in. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, please enter the enclosed materials into the Record. Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, TN, June 2, 1998. Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to re-iterate our support for the Religious Freedom Amendment, which is soon to be voted upon. Passage of the Religious Freedom Amendment is essential to restoring the original intent of our First Amendment. Restoring the original intent of the First Amendment is essential to fully restoring religious liberty. Therefore, I urge your support of this historic effort to further secure our inalienable right to the free exercise of religion. If we may be of assistance to you in your deliberation, please feel free to contact Will Dodson in our Washington office at (202) 547-8105. thank you for your consideration of this issue of critical importance to the welfare of our nation. Sincerely, Dr. Richard D. Land, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I request that division.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I request that when the vote is called upon the amendment now before the House, that the question be divided so that we may vote separately on the first part relating to the mention of God, and the second part separately relating to benefits.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, a vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for all the court decisions that have restricted religious liberty. It is a vote for the Stone v. Graham case whereby, 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said the Ten Commandments cannot be on the wall of a public school. Four justices said they could stay; 5 said they have to come down. If Members vote yes, they are voting they have to stay down. A vote for this is a vote for the Lee v. Weisman decision, where they said that a Jewish rabbi's prayer at a school graduation was unconstitutional, a 5-4 decision. If Members vote for the motion to recommit, they are voting for the five Justices that said the rabbi could not pray with these kids at that graduation. If they vote against it, they are voting for the four Justices that said it was wrong. We have had a lot of court decisions. If Members vote for this motion to recommit, they are endorsing each and every one of them. They are endorsing the decision where Judge DeMint in Alabama ruled in Federal court that the schools are permanently enjoined, Members would be endorsing the court interpretation under which he issued an order which reads that the schools are permanently enjoined from permitting prayers, biblical and scriptural readings and other presentations or activities of a religious nature at all school- sponsored or school-initiated assemblies and events including, but not limited to, sporting events, regardless of whether the activity takes place during instructional time, regardless of whether attendance is compulsory or noncompulsory and regardless of whether the speaker is a student, school official, or nonschool person. That is what they are doing under the misinterpretations of the first amendment. That is why we need the Religious Freedom Amendment. If Members want to keep with the current court decisions, tell that to this first grader, Zachariah Hood, who was told he could not read a story from the Beginner's Bible that did not even mention God but was told by a Federal judge he cannot read that story at school. Not because there is really anything religious about the particular story he chose but simply because it came from the Beginner's Bible. That is what the courts are doing and twisting and distorting the first amendment and what is meant to be a guarantee of religious freedom in the United States. That is why Members should vote no on the motion to recommit and yes for the Religious Freedom Amendment.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.