Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I was out of the Chamber at an intelligence briefing during the vote just held on the Interior appropriations bill conference report, rollcall No. 531. I would ask the Record to reflect that had I been present my vote would have been ``nay.''

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation regarding the Oklahoma City memorial. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], for shepherding this through the legislative process, as, of course, in the Senate, Senator Nickles has done likewise. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a unique arrangement for this particular memorial because of the unique manner in which things occurred in Oklahoma City. The Federal money to be expended on this memorial ultimately will be outweighed by four to five times as much additional money that will come from other sources, from private sources, perhaps someone from State and local government sources as well. So even though it will be a national memorial, actually, the Federal Government will only bear one-fourth or one-fifth of the cost. Mr. Speaker, that is the way that it should be, because the terrorist act in Oklahoma City, taking the lives of 168 persons, was not just something that influenced Oklahoma. We all know about the people who came to Oklahoma City as rescue workers to assist, and we know that the assistance in building this memorial will come from places around the country, too. But more than anything else, just like the participation in the rescue efforts, just as the outreach to the rescue workers, to make them know how appreciated they were, came from Oklahomans, so too most of the resources for this memorial will come from Oklahomans. It will be a memorial that is designed by people acting under the community's guidance, under the guidance of the people who are survivors, under the guidance of those who had loved ones and family members who were killed or severely injured or otherwise impacted in the explosion at the Murrah Building. People came from across the country, and the donations for this will come from businesses, from individuals, from housewives, from school children, from family and friends, and it is going to remind me, Mr. Speaker, of the phenomena that we saw. There are a lot of people who were doing rescue work in Oklahoma, and they would take a dollar bill out of their pocket and they would say, that is an Oklahoma dollar, because when I was with one of the rescue teams that came to Oklahoma, they would say, I tried when I had time away to buy a meal or to pay for something, but as soon as somebody knew that I had come to help, they would not let me spend my money. Everything was given to me, was provided, by the good people of this State, and that is the same spirit in which this memorial is being created. Now, to some, they say, well, this ought to be like any other national monument. After all, these people were Federal workers that were killed; it was a Federal building that was bombed, and that was the reason that it was singled out by terrorists as a target. Mr. Speaker, to some people, perhaps, they were just Federal workers, they were people that worked with Social Security or General Services or the Secret Service, but to folks in Oklahoma City, these are the neighbors who coached the Little League teams and the soccer teams; they are the ones who drove the carpools, who attended the parent-teacher conferences, who taught Sunday school, who we saw when we bought gasoline and groceries, who played the piano, and ordered pizza, and sang in choirs and took their kids to the zoo. They were not just Federal workers, they were Mom and Dad, and children and grandparents, and friends and neighbors. I believe that this memorial is in the highest example and the highest manner of personal involvement, because Oklahoma has taken the lead in this. Despite the Federal contribution, most of the effort will come from the people who saw the victims not as Federal workers, but as friends and neighbors and family and want to be responsible for taking care of our own. For in Oklahoma, Mr. Speaker, we do believe, and we will always believe, that we are our brother's keeper. I certainly urge adoption of this act, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. If we are for our children and students, we support this amendment. If we are for more bureaucracy and more strings attached that take the money out of the classroom, then we are against this amendment. When this block grant program was first created in 1981, 42 programs were put into one, 350 Federal bureaucrats were no longer needed, and for each Federal bureaucrat there are scores and hundreds at the local level that are having to apply for grants, fill out application forms, do compliance reports, do extra audits, and so forth. We are talking about being able to eliminate thousands of bureaucrats who take the money that we want to go into the classroom, and enabling that money to go into the classroom instead. The U.S. Senate went on record in favor of this last week. Last year, I sponsored a lesser scale amendment that this House supported. I applaud the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for expanding that and saying we want to take a bold step to help students, not to be supporting bureaucrats. It takes the taxes of nine American families for each bureaucrat in Washington, DC, and there are similar numbers for all the additional bureaucrats that our State and local governments and our schools have to hire to deal with the Washington bureaucrats and the redtape and the paperwork that flows back and forth, and it does not help the kids. Let us support this amendment and help children, not bureaucrats.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. I think it is interesting to hear some people being concerned suddenly with redtape or procedure, rather than the merits of this, because I thought we were here about a particular government agency, and it is certainly not alone in this, but a particular government agency that had its dollar threshold of jurisdiction, in other words, the level at which it could start getting involved in a business, set in 1959, and it has not been adjusted for inflation since then. We are told that there are no things certain in this world except for two, that the only two certain things are death and taxes. Well, they are wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is a third thing. The third thing that is perpetual and eternal is a government program. Once it is in place, it perpetuates its existence. The National Labor Relations Board, when it had the jurisdictional threshold set in 1959, there was a reason for it, so you could know what kinds of disputes were a Federal case that needed to involve a Federal agency in Washington, DC, and what other matters still covered by Federal law really should be handled on the local level, and they could be handled in the State courts, where it is more convenient for everybody concerned, without hiring the specialists, without having the huge expense of going back and forth to Washington or going to a regional office of the NLRB. So the jurisdiction, when the NLRB could get involved, was set at a particular level. For example, for a nonretail business, if they had $50,000 a year of gross volume, then in 1959 dollars, they said, that is a big enough business that the NLRB ought to be involved in that. Today that equivalent amount would require that you have a business doing business with something closer to, I believe, around $300,000. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense not to adjust for inflation. We hear people say, oh, we have to adjust Federal spending for inflation. After all, costs go up. Taxpayers are rightfully concerned about bracket creep, which Congress, after many years, finally adjusted so taxpayers would not automatically be pushed into another bracket. Last year, the NLRB spent 20 percent of its resources, 20 percent of its huge Federal budget, working on cases involving employers with fewer than nine people working for them. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is a waste. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has an excellent amendment to fix that. In fact, it is such a nice amendment that last year the same thing was in this very bill when it passed out of committee, when it came to the House floor, and it was the position of the House of Representatives that we ought to make this change for adjustment. Nobody stood on this House floor and sought to have an amendment to take it out or to change it. People who today say, well, that ought to be covered by a committee of jurisdiction, last year were willing to let it be covered in this identical piece of legislation. In fact, it got in there with the approval of the committee of jurisdiction. I know, because last year I was the one who was sponsoring it and who asked for it. And this House of Representatives agreed to it, and nobody on either side of the aisle, no Republican and no Democrat, stood up and said, we think it is a bad idea. Here I hear people complaining today about, well, it is a redtape- type objection. We think you should have used some other procedural method. We think Members of the House of Representatives should be confined in the area in which they want to take part; that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], if he is not on a committee that deals with labor, he should forget about labor issues. Maybe we should just abolish the House floor and just let committees make the decisions, and tell each Member of Congress, never mind your constitutional duty, never mind your oath, never mind what you owe to the people back home, whether it be in Indiana, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma, or Pennsylvania, wherever it may be, you should not get involved in things if you are not on that committee. Last year every single Member of this House of Representatives had an opportunity to object last year and say, we should not make this change. Instead, the House of Representatives said that this measure, which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] is sponsoring today, that yes, that should be part of this bill. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] is only asking that we be consistent. I think that is a pretty simple, pretty basic request. After all, I think what was going on with me in 1959, if things adjusted for inflation. I was in elementary school. I used to walk home from Castleberry Elementary School, public school, to home, and I would stop at the Griddle if I had a nickel, because a nickel would get me a Hershey bar. Mr. Speaker, it was bigger than today's Hershey bars are. It was only a nickel. Let us make the inflation judgment. Let us support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] in this amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I understand there may be another Member that has an amendment that would, in the normal course of things, precede mine, so I would reserve my right to bring it up before we conclude title II.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule, which I would like to bring up at this time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, at this time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], my corepresentative.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note, and this has not been mentioned by the speakers, that this amendment clearly permits the judicial bypass that is typical for States when they say a child needs a service which the parent is not providing, to get around the problem of parents that may not be responsible. But, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that we should not be presuming that the parents of 1\1/2\ million teenagers per year are irresponsible and, therefore, nobody should get parental notice. Certainly also the amendment only applies to providing contraceptives. It does not prohibit, for example, disseminating information or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].

Mr. ISTOOK. Yielding myself 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly relate that from experience. I know of parents who I personally know are extremely responsible parents, and yet their children have been drawn into that nevertheless. I do not think we could make that assumption. But I appreciate the opinion of the gentleman, as I know he appreciates mine.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, actually the points raised by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] are already covered amply by the legislation. For example, counseling does not require any sort of parental notice nor consent. In fact, if the child has a sexually transmitted disease, it requires treatment. Also, there is no need of parental notice or parental consent because there is an immediate health care need. It is only when they are seeking contraceptives that it comes into play. Furthermore, the urging of family involvement is already the law and has been for several years. The amendment adds nothing there. And, finally, the bill already contains language that says you are going to counsel minors on resisting sexual advances and so forth. The Castle amendment adds absolutely nothing to what is already in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Bob Shaffer].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cook].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds. I think the thoughtful comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] deserve some response. When he says good parents do not need this because this never happens in good families, of course it happens in good families. Good families want to get involved when something happens that is a surprise to them. If we say that availability of birth control has no affect on sexual activity, I lived through the 1960's and the early 1970's. I know all the writings that are out there saying that the availability of the pill and so forth and birth control had a huge affect on sexual activity in America. I do not think that we can say, here is a hammer, here is a nail, here is a board. But believe me, I am not encouraging you to have it. I do not think that would be realistic. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I hear people say, oh, they are already required to follow the law and report statutory rape or incest or child molestation or sexual abuse or whatever we want to call it. Title X is providing services to 1.5 million teens each year. It has been in existence for 27 years. I have not heard of one single instance where any of these teens pulled into the program, adolescents as young as 12, 13 years old, has ever, ever, ever, ever, in 27 years, had a title X provider report a case that it is statutory rape, it is child abuse, it is incest. Not a single instance in 27 years. It is time we fix that. The amendment fixes it. After all, title X was adopted in 1970. The birth rates for unmarried teens has doubled since title X because it provides a false sense of security that it is OK and safe for them to have sex.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, the language of the Castle amendment only repeats what is already in the bill. The Castle amendment does not add anything or change anything. Those requirements are already in the bill. As I say, I know of no case where a title X clinic has ever reported things. But they do know what their laws are on what is the age of sexual consent in their State, and they are not paying attention to them.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts]. (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Illinois [Chairman Porter] say, well, the program should not be done on an appropriations bill. The problem is, title X has not been authorized by Congress. Its authorization expired 12 years ago, and there is no other opportunity except through appropriations bills to affect it. We heard a claim that it is providing services to poor women. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the so-called confidentiality requirement is used to provide services to any socioeconomic group, because they say, ``Do you want us to tell your parents?'' They say ``no.'' ``OK, then we cannot count your parents' income. We will only count your income as a teenager. What is it?'' Of course, it is not anything beyond the poverty level, because you are only talking about a young lady or a young man. Finally, I know of no case in the entire country, despite the underage children that go in there, where a title X clinic has ever reported a case of incest, has ever reported a case of statutory rape, has ever reported a case of child molestation or abuse. Mr. Chairman, they have never reported these. And that is the essence of the problem. They do not report them. I do not know of a single case. If the Chairman knows, I am sure he will advise us.