John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the words of Jeremiah the profit, who said that he knew me in my mother's womb, and simply say that there are those of us that do believe that life does begin at conception and that we are indeed involved in the extermination of human life in this very day.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, as someone who has never received special interest PAC money in the history of his elections, I think it is important that the gentleman makes it clear that the gentleman has in the past. Is that not the case?

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann CATs budget, in that it maintains a commitment to our national defense. The United States Constitution declares, ``We, the people of the United States, in order to provide for the common defense, do ordain and establish this Constitution.'' The Neumann CATs budget merely maintains defense spending at the rate of inflation. It does not even increase defense spending, when we put into account inflation. This budget does what liberal Democrat Congresses have not done in the past. It merely maintains inflation. If Members agree with the leader of that party who, in his formative years, in a December 3, 1969 letter to a Colonel Holmes said that he ``loathes the military,'' Members will vote against the Neumann CATs budget. If Members believe that we should maintain our commitment to the military, if they love the men and women in uniform and they believe that we should maintain the rate of inflation and they do not loathe the United States military, I suggest Members vote for the Neumann budget and support our men and women in uniform.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I have two principal objections. First of all, this amendment legitimizes the Supreme Court's application of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the States. I should note that it was not applicable to the States from 1791 through 1947. In fact, many States had established religion at our Nation's founding. Massachusetts, for example, paid the salaries of the Congregational ministers in that State until 1833, 42 years after the ratification of the first amendment. Indeed, it was proposed but rejected by Congress to directly apply the religious clauses of the first amendment to the States. In 1876, 8 years after ratification of the 14th amendment, Congress considered a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator James Blaine of Maine. The Blaine amendment read, quote, ``no State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' end quote. This amendment was debated at length and defeated in the Senate. Madam Speaker, if this amendment is ratified, our States will forever lose their ability to define the appropriate level of public expression of religion. My second objection to the amendment is in its apparent definition of ``establishment.'' The language of the RFA suggests that any action beyond ``acknowledgment'' or ``recognition'' of God may be in violation of establishment. Indeed, the entire amendment is prefaced on the mere right to ``acknowledge.'' Does this mean that 30 years from now we will be told by the Supreme Court that mentioning the Bible or wearing a cross or crossing oneself is prohibited by the RFA because it goes beyond acknowledgment and into the particular? Does this mean that school prayers which go beyond simple recognition will be forbidden? What about worship? Time will tell. Or maybe, I should say, a future Supreme Court will tell. The First Amendment is not the problem. The Constitution is not broken. I do not believe that the RFA will restore true religious freedom in America today.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because I understand the motivation behind the Religious Freedom Amendment, or RFA, and share its supporter's frustration with the Supreme Court's misguided applications of the First Amendment. But the RFA is the wrong means to instruct the Court. In fact, I fear that should the RFA be ratified, supporters of religious freedom will-- for a short-term gain--jettison the very heritage they seek to protect. My colleagues, the RFA is not a clarification of the First Amendment, it is a new amendment. This becomes clear when we consider the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which we are today seeking to amend. The establishment clause states, as it has since 1791, that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' This clause is not without meaning. Let us first take the term ``Congress''. This term clearly limits the application of the clause to the federal legislature, not to the states. In fact many states had established religion at our nation's founding. Massachusetts, for example, paid the salaries of the Congregational ministers in that state until 1833--42 years after the ratification of the First Amendment. Indeed, it was even proposed but then rejected by Congress to directly apply the religious clauses of the First Amendment to the States. In 1876, eight years after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress considered a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator James Blaine of Maine. The Blaine amendment read: ``No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. * * *'' This amendment was debated at length and defeated in the Senate. With this clear legislative precedent, one must wonder how the establishment clause came to be applied to the States. Well, the fact is that it did not occur until 1947. In that year, the Supreme Court--for the first time--decided that the establishment clause should apply to the states. The Court found--despite a complete lack of historical evidence--that the phrase ``liberty'' in the Fourteenth Amendment included, or in their words ``incorporated'' the establishment clause. Keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified eight years prior to the Blaine amendment's failed attempt to apply establishment principles to the states. Since 1947, the Court--with its newfound power over the states--has prohibited all 50 states from allowing prayer, Bible reading, and the posting of the Ten Commandments. What has the Supreme Court's application brought us? A severe curtailing of the public expression of religion. As Mr. Istook has pointed out, in nearly every state of the nation our local and state officials have come under the control of the Supreme Court not only out of touch with the Constitution, but also a Supreme Court with its own policy agenda. And herein lies my first objection to the RFA. Rather than keep the control over the public expression of religion with state and local government--as did the First Amendment until 1947--the RFA legitimizes the Supreme Court's control. If this amendment is ratified, our states will forever lose their ability to define the appropriate level of public expression of religion. The RFA is not a clarification, it is a new amendment. So what did the establishment clause prohibit Congress from doing? It says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' What is an establishment? Clearly, it refers to the appropriate level of expression of religion either on public property, by public officials, or through public funds. What level of public expression of religion constitutes an establishment has been the subject of much debate. Opinions currently range from those, on the one hand, like Justice Joseph Story in 1833 and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in 1853 and 1854, who believed that establishment means a national church or denomination, to, on the other hand, the current Supreme Court which believes that any government action that might advance religion constitutes establishment. Whatever the historical meaning of the term ``establishment,'' I have reservations about the RFA's apparent re-interpretation of that term. The language of the RFA suggests that any action beyond ``acknowledgment'' or ``recognition'' of God is in violation of establishment. Indeed the entire amendment is prefaced on the mere right to ``acknowledge.'' Does this mean that thirty years from now we will be told by the Supreme Court that mentioning the Bible, or wearing a cross, or crossing yourself, is prohibited by the RFA because it goes beyond acknowledgment and into the particular? Does this mean that school prayers which go beyond simple recognition will be forbidden? What about worship? Time will tell. Or maybe I should say, a future Supreme Court will tell. The First Amendment is not the problem. The Constitution is not broken. The problem we face is with judicial misinterpretation, or misapplication, which Congress could address, if it had the will. What we are really doing here, my friends, is redefining the meaning of religious freedom which was cherished and flourished until 1947-- when a Supreme Court on its own agenda--ventured into the policy arena. We are limiting religious freedom under the RFA to the right to merely acknowledge or recognize. I do not believe that the RFA will restore true religious freedom in America.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of preborn children. It has not, however, told us that government has an obligation to provide this service. This amendment would do just that. This amendment obligates the United States to make sure abortion services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. It is this obligation that I believe the Committee on National Security and the House soundly rejected in recent years on so many occasions and should again reject. Abortion remains a very divisive practice in America and, indeed, the world. Allowing abortions to be performed on military installations would bring that discord and dissension right onto our military bases complete with pickets and the like. The core principle at issue here is whether the government has the obligation to provide for what is merely a right is a serious issue with serious ramifications. Does the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment obligate the Federal Government to provide every interested American with a printing press? Does the Federal Government have to provide a U.S. flag and a set of matches to anyone who wants to burn our flag just because the Supreme Court has said that flag burning is a right protected under the First Amendment. Does the right to distribute pornography, which also has been upheld by the court, obligate the military to distribute it to the troops? And because prostitution is legal in one State, does this obligate that State government to provide prostitution services to its employees? Of course the answer to these absurd questions is a resounding no. Congress has the clear responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the rules and regulations of the military. We must not make it the policy of the United States to use its military institutions to facilitate destructive behaviors such as killing innocent preborn life. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, the Declaration of Independence asserts that ``all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.'' Governments are then instituted to preserve these rights for mankind. But today, our American Government is in grave violation of that principle to treat each man and woman equally. Married men and women bow under a heavier tax burden than singles, a tax burden on average as great as $1,400. Why does your Nation's tax law discriminate against those who participate in the institution of marriage and even discourage their participation through an annual charge of $1,400? The Tax Foundation has reported that 60 tax provisions handle married couples differently than singles. A married couple's income is taxed under the higher 28 percent bracket at a lower point than a single's income. Married couples receive a lower standard deduction than two singles. Even tax provisions regarding Social Security, capital gains, and the Earned Income Tax Credit are subject to this disparity. This unfair treatment, inconsistent with the principles on which this Nation was founded and on which we base our congressional service, must stop. I ask my colleagues to join in marriage penalty relief.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill of disapproval. In 1995, the future years Defense plan showed that a chemical and biological testing facility was planned to be built at the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in fiscal year 1998--which is the Navy's designated agent for servicing and upgrading the chemical and biological weapon detection equipment deployed with the fleet. Since Crane is in the district I represent, I spoke to the Navy about this construction. I learned that the workload in this area was increasing dramatically and that the current facility would be hard put to handle the increase. In 1996, this program slipped to fiscal year 1999. This spring, I noticed that this project had slipped in the future years Defense plan to fiscal year 2000. I found this disturbing in light of the hearings our committee was having. For instance, on March 19, 1997, the Commander in Chief for the U.S. Central Command, General Peay, testified before the National Security Committee that, quote ``The situation has worsened during the past twelve months, with Iraq, Iran and others in the Middle East aggressively . . . advancing their chemical and biological research and development plans.'' The Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan identified the capability for standoff detection of chemical weapons as, quote ``our single and most pressing need . . . critical to protecting our fielded forces.'' The Chemical and Biological Testing facility was planned, necessary, and executionable. The Congress was right to advance this project for our sailors. The President made an error in vetoing it. We should do the right thing again.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and their effort on behalf of responsible use of publicly owned land. The fact that such a bill is necessary is just one of many problems that arise with this issue of Federal ownership of property. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns more than one-third of the 2.3 billion acres in the United States. It owns 63 percent of the 13 Western States. For a country founded in large part due to the high regard placed on the private ownership of property, this is a curious thing. One has to wonder how the United States of America assumed all this property given that article 1, section 18, clause 17 tells us Congress has the power: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 square miles) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. Does that sound like a mandate to own 725 million acres of land? As with so many other areas of policy in Government, we have gotten very, very far away from the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in our chief governing document, the U.S. Constitution, which each Member of this body takes an oath to uphold. With Federal ownership, you are bound to get them wanting to manage it this way and us wanting to manage it that way. Private property ownership is clearly the superior route. The Founding Fathers clearly saw Federal ownership of land as the exception rather than the rule. Having said that, the least that we can do as Federal legislators is to give the taxpayers who use that federally owned land, their federally owned land, some regulatory relief. This bill does that. That is why I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote No. 458 on September 26, 1997. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the Bartlett amendment to strike funding for payments for U.N. international organization arrearages and U.N. international peacekeeping arrearages.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in all this talk about a balanced budget agreement about how Democrats and Republicans, the President and Congress want to cut wasteful Government spending to reach a balanced budget, I would like to talk about one of those costly and troubled Government programs that was not protected in the budget agreement and should have been eliminated. The Advanced Technology Program, ATP, gives direct subsidies to private corporations to support their research and development budgets. These cash handouts usually go to the Fortune 500 companies such as IBM, AT&T, GM and the like, which already have billion-dollar R&D budgets and billions in annual revenues. Not only did the budget agreement reject the President's proposal to protect ATP funding, the Commerce Department recently issued a report chock full of planned structural changes. But the administration's plan falls far short of addressing the real problems with ATP, which are too fundamental to be fixed by minor adjustments. The fundamental problem is what many Members of Congress and even ATP grantees already know, ATP does not have the ability to effectively promote its goals of advancing high-risk technology research and promoting U.S. competitiveness. Technology development in most industries simply changes too quickly to depend on slow-moving congressional budgets. In short, ATP is corporate welfare. Given our budget constraints, we cannot afford it. And after watching the program for seven years, ATP does more harm than good. If we dare venture to read the Constitution, we find that the program is unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, we must eliminate funding for ATP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this discussion has given credence to the old axiom that says that nothing is so absurd that if said often enough, people will start believing it. Those people who say that ATP is not corporate welfare I think are wrong. When you give hundreds of millions of dollars a year to multibillion-dollar corporations who have multibillion-dollar research and development budgets, that is corporate welfare, Mr. Chairman. I would urge that this body follow the precedents of last year and defund the ATP.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to squelch the gentleman's bemusement, but I do not serve on the education authorizing committee.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No, I want to serve on the National Security and Agriculture Committees.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will yield, the Parliamentarian said that this is the proper forum in which to offer this.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].