Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman. amendment no. 28 offered by mr. mcintosh

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 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 have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I believe many people are missing the point of this. In the last 26 years we have found this program, using $200 million a year of Federal taxpayers' money to help teenagers sneak around behind the backs of their parents, does not work. It has doubled the out-of- wedlock birthrate among teenagers. We need to get parental responsibility back involved if we expect to improve the standards and return accountability in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] only echoes existing law. It is already in section 1001 of the Public Health Service Act that there is supposed to be this very encouragement for family participation, which is totally undercut by the existing Federal law saying it is not required. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns how we are spending $200 million a year of our Federal tax money, one-third of which goes to provide contraceptives, condoms, birth control pills, and related services to teenagers, to minors, with neither the knowledge nor the consent of their parents. As a parent of 5 children, 3 of them teenage girls, Mr. Chairman, and public school students, I am well aware of the different times that parental consent is necessary for so many things. For example, this is a form from the Fairfax County, VA, public schools. To go on a field trip, they have to have written consent from their parents. To get authorization for medication, even aspirin, to be administered to a minor in public school, in most cases you have to have a signed permission slip from the parent or the guardian. This is from the school that my children attend, again echoing that to have medication, even something as simple as aspirin given to a student, you cannot do it without the consent of their parents. But, Mr. Chairman, under Federal law, it is something different. Under Federal law, Mr. Chairman, and this is from the Federal regulations, if they want to obtain services under the so-called title X, Family Planning Services, then if they want to, and they do, all the information is kept confidential only to that minor child. Their child is sexually active, may have a sexually transmitted disease, is at risk of pregnancy and all the complications that come from it with a child involved in that activity, and 1.3 million of them a year in this country are receiving federally funded assistance in bypassing their parents, isolating them from the love, the counsel, the nurture, and the moral guidance of their parents under Federal law. Mr. Chairman, I submit that is wrong. I submit that this country in caring about its children says we want them to have the guidance of their parents, and yet this is another part of the Federal law that specifies that regardless of their family income, this is supposed to be a low-income family program, if they want this confidentiality, then you disregard what mom and dad and anyone else in the household is making and so this child, by themselves, qualifies for this Federal program. One-third of its services, one-third of the $200 million a year, is going to minors with neither the knowledge nor the consent of the parents. Mr. Chairman, since this program has been underway, since 1970 when it began, we were told this is going to reduce teenage pregnancy, this is going to reduce out-of-wedlock births with teenagers, and they still try to manufacture some statistics trying to claim it. But, Mr. Chairman, their projections do not hold up. There is only one set of statistics that is really kept on this. It is kept through the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, and is shown on this graph from it, since this program went into effect. The number of out-of-wedlock births with teenage mothers in the United States has doubled, the rate of teenage out-of-wedlock births has doubled because the Federal Government is inviting them to go around the moral guidance of their parents on these most intimate and personal issues. This amendment simply states we are not going to do it. We are going to require parental consent if this is to go on. Normally it is a matter of the States to decide. Fine. If the States decide otherwise, they can do it in their State, but they would have the say-so. I ask Members' support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alaska, I would certainly say that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision 1 year and 1 week ago, specified that they do, the States and communities do have the authority to tax sales on tribal lands to non- Indians. It is just the enforcement problem. We are not interfering with tribal sovereignty. Certainly, if the gentleman would like to have hearings, it takes a few months for this bill to work its way through and hearings would be welcomed during that time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just note briefly that the home State of the gentleman who just spoke, Washington State, has advised us they are already losing $55 million a year in State taxes because of cigarette sales alone on tribal lands. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], the cosponsor of the amendment. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, that is what I said.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted an additional minute of debate time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the objection consumed probably a minute in and of itself. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the statute which the gentleman read before applies to property taxes. We are not touching property taxes. We are not touching the rights of the tribes on the lands that they already have. We are only saying, If you want the U.S. Government to take new land that you buy and give it this protected status, then you just don't talk, you make an agreement with the State and local governments about their rights. What happens when all these businesses go under? I have got a letter from a supplier in Oklahoma that has 40 stations. They have talked with the tribal attorney. They say, ``We can exempt you from so many taxes you'll make an extra $3 million a year.'' The business can defend itself that way; but when the tax base is gone, funds for schools, for education, for public safety, for highways, they evaporate. It is happening all over the country. I urge adoption of this simple moratorium amendment to keep the problem under control.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important amendment that has broad support all across the Nation, especially from communities that have found just how direly they are being affected. It is based upon the principle that the Federal Government should not subsidize tax evasion, and certainly should not help some people to make megamillions of dollars by offering a way to others to avoid paying State and local taxes. Specifically, what is happening, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and their ability, with no restrictions, to transfer land to Indian tribes in trust at prime locations along interstate highways and busy intersections, is establishing a way that the Indian tribes are enriching themselves totally at the expense of the State and local governments, which lose the tax revenue by selling goods to non-Indians, who thereby escape having to pay their sales tax, their gasoline and diesel taxes, and their excise taxes, such as cigarette taxes. Mr. Chairman, especially because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, the problem is accelerating and soon it will reach beyond the point of no return. The Supreme Court rules that although State and local governments have the authority to tax these sales to nontribal members on the tribal lands, they do not have the authority to enforce it through the usual method of having the seller, the retailer, collect and remit to the local tax collector the taxes that were due. Because they cannot require this, the tribes are able to freely sell with huge margins between themselves and all competitors. Since the Bureau of Indian Affairs is giving them the way to relocate to prime locations, they can thereby drive competors out of business and the State and local government lose the tax base. Here is an example, Mr. Chairman. Across this country, on motor fuel sales, the average tax is 20 cents per gallon. A regular dealer would have to sell it for about $1.14 a gallon. The tribe can sell it for 94 cents. If people had the chance to go to one station or the other, and one is 20 cents less a gallon, where would they go? On cigarettes, for example, the national average tax, or the State tax, is 32 cents a pack. If people had to pay the State taxes, it is $1.91; if they did not, it is $1.59. If people are out to buy a few cartons, where will they go if they have a clear choice? In addition to that, there is the sales tax gap, on average, about 5 cents a dollar for all purchases. It does not take many sales like this to add up, and that is what is happening. That is why governors across the country have been urging their Members to support this amendment. New York State calculates it is losing about $100 million a year. My State of Oklahoma, from only 18 tribal gasoline stations, already is losing $13 million a year, and they have not even begun to put in the new locations because of the transfer of the trust lands. The amendment is very simple. It says the Bureau of Indian Affairs will not make further discretionary grants to tribes unless they show they have an agreement with the State and local government regarding the collection and payment of taxes or in-lieu payments for what their customers owe in those taxes. Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of the amendment and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, no nation can be secure if it depends on another nation for its economic lifeblood. Five years ago, we sent 500,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf to fight for oil. In 1991 we imported 45 percent of our oil. Today, we import 52 percent, 9 million barrels per day, annually $60 billion going out of the country to buy oil. The number of producing wells in this country has declined by 11 percent since the gulf war. Instead of becoming less dependent on foreign oil, we are more so. No nation can be secure with such dependency, and because 60 percent of America's oil wells, 60 percent, Mr. Speaker, are developed not by major oil companies but by independent producers, it is in America's national interest to do all that we can to preserve America's independent producers of petroleum.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, as well as the legislation to which it is offered. Mr. Chairman, in Oklahoma City last April 19 when we had the horrific bombing that occurred, several things happened that have still not come to rest that affect the 168 families of the 168 people that were killed in that explosion. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, the chairman, has incorporated in this amendment language that was suggested to him by my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas; language that was suggested to him by myself, and language that I know Senator Nickles has expressed great interest in. Mr. Chairman, the trial has been moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, a distance of some 600 miles. When we have 168 stricken families with spouses, husbands, fathers, children, grandparents, grandchildren, and other relatives, all of whom have a great interest in the trial proceedings, we need to understand that we have a law on the books that says a victim of a violent crime has a statutory right to attend the trial. But unfortunately, when this many people desire to attend the trial to exercise their right as victims, they cannot do so if the trial has been moved 600 miles away. It is a great understaking and a great difficulty. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, this portion of the amendment specifies that shall be a closed circuit rebroadcast back to the original location, to Oklahoma City, for the benefit of those who are victims and have the right to attend that trial, who have a great desire and interest and a need to attend that trial. Mr. Chairman, the language has safeguards. The proceedings are not to be rebroadcast elsewhere. They are not available for Court TV or CNN or anyone else that might wish to do so, because we want to minimize the disruptive effect that some might fear would otherwise occur. Certainly the judge retains his ability to say, if someone is a witness who might be affected by hearing the proceedings, then they can be excluded, as the law already requires. But to the people who otherwise would have to relocate 600 miles for who knows how long, for an extended period of time, because of this trial, this takes into account their need. This allows them to exercise their rights as victims, for what little comfort and help it might be to them; but whatever we can provide to them, we certainly want to do. Mr. Chairman, this makes that possible. I was pleased to hear this morning, Mr. Chairman, that the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed this approach. It is a very narrowly crafted exception to the normal rule against televising criminal proceedings in Federal court; but it will be of great benefit, we hope, for those who had family members who suffered either by loss of life of injury in that terrible explosion. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the death penalty reform provisions in this measure are very important to those same family members. As one person who lost a family member said to me, she does not want her newborn child to grow to adulthood before she can experience the resolution of knowing that the person or persons responsible have been brought to justice, and that justice, including the death penalty, can be carried out on that person. We do not want these persons to have those multiple years of uncertainty which this bill will remove by reforming the death penalty procedure so, again it can be swift as well as sure.