John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. With all due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) regarding Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jefferson was actually no party to the United States Constitution nor the ratification of the Bill of Rights, because he was in service in France at the time. But with regard to what the gentleman said about Article III of the Constitution, actually it says nothing with regard to the constitutionality itself. In fact, Chief Justice John Jay, the original Supreme Court Justice, relinquished his Chief Justiceship because he did not believe the Supreme Court would actually carry the weight of the debate with regard to separation of powers and the importance of the issue of the Supreme Court and the judicial system.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I am intrigued by the comments of the earlier gentleman saying that he was deadly opposed to the fact that the United States Congress should not impose its will on local authorities but it is quite well enough for the United States Supreme Court to do that. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeMint amendment. It is time that America stop the making of constitutional law by extortion. Let me give an example. In 1992 the Supreme Court in Lee v. Wiseman decided, wrongly I believe, that local graduation prayer conducted by schools was unconstitutional. In March of 1993, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union wrote to educators in Indiana threatening a lawsuit should the school have any type of prayer at graduation. Let me quote from that letter: We know that a few school boards are trying to find a way around the Supreme Court ruling. If you decide to hold graduation prayer anyway, as a matter of principle, four things will probably happen. We will sue both the school corporation and any individuals who approved and authorized graduation prayers. We will win. The Supreme Court has already decided the issue. You will pay your own and our attorney's fees, an amount that could run as high as a quarter of a million dollars. Your insurance will not cover it because it is a deliberate violation of law so the money will come directly from property taxes. That is not what our founders intended. It was wrong in 1976 to give an incentive for coercing public officials to act in opposition to the wishes of their constituents. It is right to put some sanity back into this legal process. Constitutional law should be by deliberation and not extortion.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Massachusetts tell me where the Secretary of State was serving as a Member of the House of Representatives or a Member of the Senate while the amendments to the Constitution were being offered?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, he was in France.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of unborn children on demand. It has not, however, told us the government has an obligation to facilitate this service. This amendment would help ensure that American taxpayers do not end up funding the approval of drugs that are designed to kill our unborn children. FDA's mission, as it was created by this very Congress, should be to approve drugs that save lives, not end lives. I would just hasten to add that Congress does have oversight responsibility with regard to all agencies of the Federal Government. It has been stated that Congress is sticking its nose into places it should not be. Well, if Congress should not be here now, then it is assumed that the proponents of that philosophy say that the Federal Government should not have been involved in the Food and Drug Administration's creation. Secondly, there has been the point made with regard to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decision that has been made. Earlier today we heard an oath from a new Member that said he swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He did not say anything about according to what the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says. Separation of powers says that the House of Representatives, the Congress, has the constitutional obligation to determine constitutional intent; and that is what the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is doing right here, saying that it is Congress' obligation to determine how the taxpayers' money is spent. The point has also been made that Congress are not scientists. Well, there are several of us that happen to be scientists. We are not in the area with regard to medical science, but we have been told about other doctrines of science, other theories of science; and that is one of those old theories that we are asked to subscribe to today. And that is that we are led to believe that if a child, if an individual is conceived, that 9 months later it turns into something that it was not. During the Dark Ages and shortly thereafter, that was a scientific theory that was subscribed to, called spontaneous generation, which said basically if rancid meat sat in the corner for 24 days, there will be flies there. So that meant that rancid meat ultimately turned into flies. Well, that is not the point here. The point is that a child at conception is a child at conception, it is a child 2 months after conception, it is a child 9 months after conception, and it is a child 2 years after it is born. We should not, as Members of this House, be asked to subscribe to a theory in science that was done away with hundreds of years ago by scientific knowledge at that time. Therefore, we are being asked to facilitate the FDA doing something safe and effective. If that child is a child at conception, and it does not automatically spontaneously generate into a child sometime later, then we are to make sure that drugs are safe and effective for children that are inside the womb as well and not be facilitating the destruction of that human life. Finally, I will say that there has been much said here about cancer survivorship, and I would be one that would say that I am pleased at the rate of survivorship of Members of this House, Members of this Chamber. My mother is a cancer survivor. However, my father had cancer and he is not a survivor of cancer. This weekend I am going to take part in a relay for life where those survivors of cancer are going to come and celebrate life. My father will not get to take part in that process this year because he is not a survivor of cancer, but I can tell my colleague this: that the way my father raised me is such that he would not take one innocent child's life in order for him to survive cancer. And that is not what this amendment does. It says and I quote, ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Food and Drug Administration for the testing, development, or approval, including approval of production, manufacture or distribution, of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion.'' This amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma simply deals with a phenomenon of the day, and that is RU486, an abortifacient, that is not being used to treat people and cure people of cancer as it could have my father. Let us remove all the veneer, let us remove all of the camouflage over this and tell the story as it is. The gentleman's amendment will not stop one drop of research into saving people's lives that have cancer. I wish that research would have happened a few years earlier, so that my father could have taken part in that relay for life this weekend. Let us do say a word for life today. Let us say that innocent preborn life is worth securing, is worth protecting and is at least worth not spending taxpayer dollars on to find a more efficient way to exterminate it.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, discussion has taken place with regard to the motives and the application of the process. I would just like to remind the Members and talk very briefly about an incident that happened on the floor just a couple of hours ago. That was, I opposed the rule for the consideration of this bill because the bill spends more money than it did last year. The discretionary amount is more than what we passed out of this House last year. I was asked why I would oppose an open rule, and I think that was a good question. I think that was a good question because the Committee on Rules, I believe, relinquishes a great deal of power whenever they decide to give an open rule, and it was a good question. The reason was not because we had the freedom of an open rule, but merely because the rule allowed for the deliberation on this floor of a bill that spent more money last year, the very first bill in the appropriations process that we deal with is going to spend more money than we spent on this bill before. And so the reason that the gentleman is offering so many amendments is not for the sake of a filibuster, but for the simple fact that we have an open rule. I was led to believe that an open rule would allow for free debate. Now we hear that the debate should in fact be reduced, should be cut off by the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think in fact if we are going to have an open rule and a gentleman will go to the hardship of having many of these amendments preprinted in the Record and offering them himself, we should at least recognize the Rules of the House. Secondly, with regard to hurting America's farmers, I do not know, maybe southwest Indiana farmers are different from other farmers, but whenever I ask farmers in southwest Indiana what they would like to see coming from the Federal Government, the first thing they always tell me is tax relief. I tell them we can cut taxes, but if we continue to increase spending across the board, even in the Agriculture Department, somebody is going to have to pay for that. And so when I say we can either give you tax relief or we can take more of your tax dollars to allow the various bureaucracies to spend that money in order to help you, they realize in fact that Washington, D.C. is probably not the best source of their help. Secondly, they ask for regulatory relief. If individuals really want to help farmers, they will indeed support regulatory relief, and for a little bit of commercial activity, I will merely tout the virtues of H.R. 1578, my Protect American Agricultural Lands Act of 1999, which will allow for that land which has been in production 5 of the last 10 years to be exempt from clean water permitting, because in fact it has been used for farming. Thirdly, the agriculture community wants open markets, places where they can sell their product. But they do not want open market agreements for the sake of merely signing an agreement. They want agreements that can be enforced, enforced by this administration which they see dreadfully lacking. Finally, I will simply say that this is the opportunity that many of us that do not necessarily serve on the House Committee on Appropriations have to offer amendments in this fashion. When we look at all the various constituencies of all of these provisions, we realize that in fact there is the potential in the future to not cut $5 billion from the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Department. There will not be the opportunity to cut almost $4 billion from the Veterans' Administration and the Housing and Urban Development bill that is going to come up later, that in fact if we are not diligent from the very outset of this whole appropriations process, that in fact it will whirl out of control; and when we get to the end of the appropriations season later this year, that we will in fact be busting the caps and having to reduce our commitment to cutting taxes, our commitment to stopping the raids on the Social Security trust fund; and we will in fact tell America that indeed Washington D.C. knows best, and if you simply give us more of your money, we will prove it to you. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and ask that the Committee do likewise.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding to me. While I commend the modernization transition committee for their work, and especially their work regarding the closure of the Evansville, Indiana office, I think it is necessary to chronicle the actual life lost and the loss of property as a result of the inadequate service provided there. On April 14 of 1996 an F-2 tornado struck Warrick County, Indiana, without warning, toppling two rail cars and tossing a trash dumpster into an electrical transformer at Alcoa's Warrick operations. Subsequently, a Reed, Kentucky woman was killed by a tornado of which she had no warning to the locale. Neither did the tornado in Warrick County. Likewise, no warning was given prior to a tornado hitting the north side of Evansville, Indiana, the third largest city in the State of Indiana, and damaged two places of business. Then, most recently, an F-2 tornado touched down in Pike County, Indiana, with no warning, destroying three homes. So I commend the gentleman from Arkansas for his bringing up this very important issue, and I ask for his sense of Congress amendment to be adopted by the committee and the House.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution was established to provide for the common defense. However, at a time when the threat of rogue nations with nuclear weapons remain strong and the administration has ordered an unprecedented number of deployments, our troops and military are not as well equipped or as well provided for as yesterday. Consider: For the first time in decades, we are failing to meet recruitment goals. For example, in 1998, the Navy missed its recruiting goals by 12 percent. Additionally, there is a 13\1/2\ percent wage gap between civilian and military pay. In fact, many military families need the assistance of food stamps just to survive. My colleagues may be pondering this weakened state of U.S. military forces and feel alarmed about our current level of national security, but there is hope. The same President who has overseen this tremendous decline in our military has proposed a solution to undo the devastation. First, the President proposes defense spending over the next 6 years, which is as much as $70 billion below the Defense Chiefs' requirements to maintain our current level of national security. Second, the President realizes that the U.S. House, which declared that the U.S. should deploy a national missile defense system to protect our Nation and troops, is mistaken. That must be why he would rescind $230 million in funding for the development of a national missile defense. To improve the financial condition of our military families, the President has slashed military construction funding, including money for military family housing, by $3.1 billion. For those of my colleagues who desire to improve national security by inadequately funding our armed services, by stealing pledged funds from our national missile defense program, and by severely reducing construction for our military and its families, I urge their support for the Clinton-Gore budget.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Russia where I joined a bipartisan delegation of my colleagues in communicating the intent of H.R. 4 to members of the Russian Duma. Although Russia is skeptical of America's intent to deploy a national missile defense, I can tell my colleagues that a limited national missile defense would not undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. In fact, Russia still has a strategic nuclear arsenal of over 7,000 warheads. Even if Russia ratifies and complies with START II, they will still be able to sustain a strategic force of 3,500 warheads. If the U.S. had a national missile defense system similar to what Russia already has deployed outside of Moscow, Russia's strategic missile force could still overwhelm such a defensive U.S. system. The fact is, we have no missile defense system to defend against any incoming ballistic missile, whether that missile is part of a limited or accidentally launched attack from a rogue nation such as North Korea or Iran, or an accidental launch from Russia or China. Russia, not the U.S., is the only country that currently maintains the world's only operational ballistic missile defense system for their country. Even if the 1972 ABM Treaty were still legally valid, it at least allows for deployment of a limited national missile defense system at a single site in the U.S., a deployment that this administration has consistently opposed, up until recently, through and through. I find it shocking, though not really surprising, that Russia has the only real missile defense system, and that they do not really want to change the ABM Treaty, and yet the U.S. gets criticized for not cooperating with Russia. The fact is, our bipartisan delegation to speak to the Russian Duma this past weekend was all about the U.S. Congress taking the initiative to cooperate with and give advanced notice to Russia regarding our intent to enact a national missile defense policy for the United States, a national missile defense system to protect our cities, our businesses, our families, our children, from a missile carrying a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could flatten an entire metropolitan area with one strike. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the full Committee on Armed Services, for advancing the goals of the Constitution: to provide for the defense of our Nation.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 51, I was on official Congressional business in Russia, and could not be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on this vote to pass H.R. 774.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 50, I was on official Congressional business in Russia, and could not be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote to pass H.R. 819.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his time and indulgence and the point he makes, along with the gentleman from Arizona, that this was truly an unprecedented journey and an historic journey. As the gentleman pointed out, we are in the process of exposing the Russian Duma to more and more Members of Congress. This was my first time ever to visit that great country of Russia, to talk to them very frankly about our need to defend our people from a possible limited nuclear strike by some rogue nation. It is as a result of our discussion with Duma members, by our recognizing the Duma and dealing with the Duma, who very similar to our House of Representatives are elected by democratic process by their constituents in their regions, and represented in other ways according to their constitution, which is vitally important, that we recognize the importance of a constitutional form of government and Democratically elected representations as a vital part of that government. The Duma can see, just like themselves, that we represent our constituents. We are representative of the individuals. I tell people, when they ask me about this job, I tell them that if they want to know what America is like they should just look at the U.S. House of Representatives. We are a picture of America. And if we look at the Duma the same way we will see what Russia is like. And very many times, when we see this executive branch to executive branch dialogue and discussion, we miss that from time to time by not seeing the elected representatives from the various regions. The meeting was vitally important because it is necessary that the Duma understand our resolve to join them in the belief that it is the obligation of the Federal Government, both in Russia and in the United States of America, according to our Constitution, Article I, Section 8, to defend the United States of America. And that is what H.R. 4 tomorrow is all about, to make it the policy of the United States to develop and deploy a national missile defense system. It is important to note, and I am sure the gentleman has already done this in this discussion, that Russia already has such a system that is ABM compliant, a ground-based system situated on the outskirts of Moscow, and that has the capability of protecting a majority of their citizens. I made the point in our press conference yesterday, and the point has been made time and time again on this floor by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), whose single-handed activity in this area, with the support of a lot of the rest of us, and especially the chairman on the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and other members on that committee, that we have got to move to a situation where we at least do what the Russian government has done for their people, and that is to try to defend and protect American lives. Not one U.S. citizen residing in the United States of America is protected at all from an accidental or other type of launch of a ballistic missile against the United States of America. Not one person. We do not have a system. The American people believe that we do. One reporter asked the question, as the gentleman from Colorado remembers, at the press conference, the reporter from the Baltimore Sun asked the question that if Russia has this capability, and they have for years, and the United States of America does not have that capability, and it has been the policy of the United States of America and the Federal Government in the past to not protect our people from ballistic missile attack, who in the world made that decision? It is this debate, this special order that is going to bring to light as we begin to head back to our districts during the April recess, where we get to talk about important issues that may be on the front page from time to time; the budget, which is vitally important, maintaining a balanced budget, reducing the tax burden on American families, doing the right thing with regard to Social Security, but adding another issue to the vitally important issues that we deal with in this country, to make sure that the American people know where we are and where we need to go from here. I thank the gentleman for his time and hope to continue this dialogue.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that the journey that several of us made, a bipartisan delegation to Russia, to talk about these issues is vitally important. Because, as the point was made, that when the former Soviet Union decided to deploy such a missile, they did not, neither were they obligated to come to the United States of America, to Washington, D.C., to sit down with Members of the House of Representatives, sit down with Members of Congress, to inform us that they were going to do it and why they were going to do it. That is what this Congressional delegation did just this past week in taking members of the Rumsfeld Commission, Chairman Rumsfeld, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Dr. Bill Schneider to show the Russian Duma, and therefore the Russian people, that we want to be open with them because we see tremendous opportunity, tremendous prospects and potential for a growing relationship, both economic and otherwise, with the people of Russia. And the way that we are going to do that is to be more open with them. But while we are more open with them, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) so appropriately pointed out, we are to remind them that it is our obligation to follow the Constitution of the United States and defend the people of the United States against any threat that may be over the horizon. That is our foremost obligation according to the Constitution. Plurality of the delegated powers of Congress deal with that national defense. We will do that and we will do that, hopefully, with the cooperation and understanding of our friends in Russia. But we will do it nonetheless. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for this opportunity to talk about this vitally important issue not only to us today but to our children tomorrow.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Vote No. 35, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to weather constraints. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote to pass H.R. 540.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 34, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to weather constraints. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this Journal vote.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 36, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to weather constraints. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote to pass H. Res. 100. Stated against:

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on the resolution before this House, there has been much discussion of the opinions of ``experts'' on Constitutional law. This discussion reminds me of the testimony of Lino A. Graglia, the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at University of Texas School of Law in testimony before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives on May 15, 1997 when he states, ``The first and most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution.'' I have not had the title bestowed upon me as an ``expert'' on Constitutional law so therefore I had to read the Constitution and determine its meaning. And how would I do that? I believe Thomas Jefferson gave the most persuasive advice on the topic of Constitutional meaning when he wrote in a letter to Justice William Johnson on June 12, 1823, ``On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed our of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.'' In order to determine its meaning and be faithful to the wisdom of the Chief Architect of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States of America and the founder of the Democratic Party, Mr. Jefferson, it was necessary to understand the meaning of the words as they were written by the Framers because, as was stated by Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, France: Author of ``Spirit of the Laws,'' ``Society, notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change.'' That being said, there has likewise been much discussion about whether the information that has been acquired by the House of Representatives is sufficient to accuse the President of an offense or offenses which proceed from what Alexander Hamilton referred to in Federalist #65 as ``the misconduct of public men.'' The virtually infinite spectrum of potential wrongdoings that may--to use the modern day vernacular--``rise to the level of an impeachable offense,'' is defined in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to be those offenses situated inclusively between the levels of ``. . . high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' While I have heard several opinions that what the President did does not rise to the level of a crime, does what William Jefferson Clinton did while in office constitute misconduct of a ``public'' man? It would obviously be necessary to know what the term ``Misdemeanor'' means as was intended by the Framers. Noah Webster, one of the first Founding Fathers to call for a Constitutional Convention, wrote and published the first American dictionary in 1828 where he defined ``misdemeanor'' as, ``ill behavior, evil conduct, fault, mismanagement.'' He also included the definition given by the individual most influential on the process of jurisprudence in the colonies at the time of ratification of the Constitution, William Blackstone: ``In law, . . . the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.'' And so today we, as members of the United States House of Representatives, are asked to determine whether there is sufficient information to accuse the President of some wrongdoing less than or equal to a ``high crime'' and greater than or equal to a ``small fault [or] omission.'' I believe there are two reasons why there is much more consensus on this issue than has been perceived by either ourselves in the House of Representatives or the people of the United States. Initially, any individual who would support a resolution of censure accusing President William Jefferson Clinton of: 1. egregiously fail[ing] in [his] obligation [to] set an example of high moral standards and conduct[ing] himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth, 2. through his actions violat[ing] the trust of the American people. 3. lessen[ing] [the American people's] esteem for the office of President, 4. dishonor[ing] the office which [the American people] have entrusted to him, 5. [making] false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate and, 6. wrongly [taking] steps to delay discovery of the truth would have to admit that the President may be at least accused of a ``small fault'' and therefore impeached. Secondly, I have heard the consternation of the Minority that they will not be able to ``vote [their] conscience'' because they will not be able to censure the President. Also, I have heard my colleagues in the Majority state that it is not Constitutional to censure the President. This is where the consensus of the members of this House is, if not known, nonetheless present. The consensus being that both the Minority and the Majority are wrong. Once again we need only to look to the enlightment of the original definition of the term ``impeach'' as it was most probably known at the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution and observed in Webster's first dictionary of 1828. That definition of ``impeach'' was given to us to be ``Censure, accusation, a calling in question the purity of motives or the rectitude of conduct. . .'' Therefore, by definition quit literally, to impeach is to censure. It follows that those compelled by their conscience to vote for censure may salve that conscience with a vote for impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. In conclusion, I will vote for all four articles of impeachment outlined in H. Res. 611 of the 105th Congress because my conscience compells me to consider the facts as they have been presented and render the judgement obligated to me by my oath to ``. . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States. . .''

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and I rise in strong support of this bill, a piece of legislation which, when discussed, may seem like something directly from the Sci-Fi Channel when someone would discuss theft of an identity and the assumption of that identity. One would think that was something far off in the future, but in many cases in these pieces of legislation the anecdotes we have heard, some of them come very close to home. In fact, earlier this spring, my district scheduler back in southwestern Indiana, Erica, experienced this very phenomenon. A person in Michigan had purchased information such as social security numbers and family information of Erica. The imposter then ordered a credit report to learn her credit status. After learning that status, and armed with that information, the perpetrator went on a 2-day spending spree, opened numerous charge accounts as Erica, and purchased in excess of $5,000 in goods, including the purchase of a cell phone. The individual was caught only when a clerk noticed that the imposter hesitated at providing certain information and the credit card company called my district scheduler to verify it. Madam Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that is very timely, very important, not only to the individuals that are directly impacted by it, but our economy as a whole. I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for his work on this very needed piece of bipartisan legislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for yielding me this time. As we all know, the U.S. easily pays the lion's share of the burden for keeping the U.N. in operation. Each year the U.S. spends approximately $1 billion for the U.N.'s regular budget, peacekeeping operations, and various other U.N. programs. In addition, in 1995, the U.S. spent approximately $1 billion for U.N. peacekeeping operations above and beyond our assessed dues. In fact, a recent GAO report documents that from 1992 to 1995 the U.S. supported the U.N. in its peacekeeping ventures to the tune of $6.6 billion, but only $1.8 billion of this was counted toward our assessed dues to the U.N. Of the remaining $4.8 billion, only $79 million has been reimbursed to the United States. If we deduct the $1.3 billion the U.N. claims we owe them from the $4.8 billion of nonreimbursed U.S. expenditures, the result is $3.5 billion that the U.N. still must pay or credit to the United States. Perhaps the U.N. bureaucrats think this was a gift from American taxpayers, but it certainly was not. That is why 31 Members of Congress, myself included, sent a letter to President Clinton following his State of the Union address in February 1997. This letter voiced our disagreement with the President's statement that we owe money to the U.N. Currently, we pay at least 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget through assessed dues. This is 2 to 3 percent below what the U.N. believes we should pay and 5 percent below what this administration wants us to pay. Also, for peacekeeping operations, we contribute over 30 percent of the U.N.'s budget. On top of these assessed dues, the U.S. appropriates roughly $300 million as voluntary contributions for various U.N. programs, including $30 million in fiscal year 1998 for the U.N. population program, which we all know is a front for funding overseas abortions. This Congress and the President need to realize we cannot provide any so-called back payments to the U.N. until the U.S. is properly reimbursed or credited for our contributions to the various peacekeeping ventures and until certain U.N. reforms have been implemented. Let me just remind the House that, first, we do not owe the $1.3 billion in arrears, as the U.N. claims. Second, we do not owe $921 million in arrears, as the administration's request for fiscal year 1998 and 1999. And, thirdly, we do not owe $819 million in U.N. back dues, as H.R. 1757 authorizes for fiscal year 1998 and 2000. Accordingly, we should not fund $475 in so-called unpaid arrears for fiscal year 1999, as proposed in this State Department appropriations bill. Equally important, we do not need to throw any extra chunk of the American taxpayers' hard earned money at an institution that, one, often contradicts U.S. national interest, fails to acknowledge the extent and significance of U.S. contributions, and fails to implement many of the badly needed U.N. reforms necessary to help the U.N. Support the Bartlett amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in strong support of this amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of unborn children on demand. It has not, however, told us that government has an obligation to facilitate this service. This amendment would help ensure that American taxpayers do not end up funding the approval of drugs that are designed to kill our unborn children. FDA's mission as it was created by this Congress should be to approve drugs that save lives, not end lives. With all the illnesses we have to deal with, cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, the examples go on and on, why would we want to spend our hard-earned dollars on drugs designed to exterminate our most valued resource, our children? There is a core principle at issue today: Whether the government is obligated to provide the people's money to research and test new and innovative ways to kill our children for a right pulled out of thin air by a majority of the Supreme Court. Congress has the responsibility under our Constitution to ensure that the money we collect from hardworking and productive Americans is spent wisely. Mr. Chairman, let us ensure the FDA uses America's resources to help us and not kill us. I would simply add, Mr. Chairman, that today I have heard a lot of discussion with regard to the elevation of the science of the efficient extermination of human life almost to the extent of a virtue. I think we must be very careful in our rhetoric when we talk about that efficient extermination of human life, that we do not go to a very troubling time in our world's history, a time when Nazi Germany carried on the efficient extermination of human life. Where do we go from here with that argument? Do we go to the efficient extermination of life that cannot sustain itself, to the aged and to the infirm? Mr. Chairman, in order that we do not start down that slippery slope or that we do not go further down that slippery slope, I urge a yes vote on this amendment.