John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just as the Supreme Court said in 1857 in the now infamous Dred Scott decision, that slavery was constitutional, that same institution has told us that for the time being we have to allow the killing of pre-born 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 last year on so many occasions and should again reject. Abortion remains a very decisive practice in America and indeed the world. Allowing abortions to be performed on military installation would bring that discord and dissension right on to our military bases complete with pickets and the like. The core principle at issue today, whether the Government is obligated to provide 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 right to distribute pornography, which has been upheld by the court, obligate the military to distribute it to the troops? I think not. 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 facilities to destroy an innocent pre-born life. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment and in opposition to the Campbell amendment. The Smith amendment is about abortion and it is about prohibiting the use of Federal dollars for the promotion of abortion. Do not be misled. Promoting abortion is never about family planning. This administration would have us believe that once we give away millions of dollars to contractors or grantees in faraway countries, how these dollars are used is irrelevant as long as their money is not being used to directly perform abortions. Since when is it irrelevant that U.S. tax dollars are being used to harm innocent human life? Since when are Americans obligated to finance efforts to dismantle the laws of foreign countries who have so appropriately chosen to protect human life? And since when has this Government simply turned over tax dollars to any individual, organization or entity and simply said, ``What you do with this is irrelevant,'' especially when lives are at stake? Mr. Chairman, human life is relevant. Nothing is more relevant. It matters to that innocent baby that may be killed because laws that protect it are being dismantled with U.S. tax dollars. It matters to the families of these children. Quite frankly, it should matter to us. It is our obligation as elected officials to actively protect innocent human life. Abortion is a disgrace to society and to civilization. Let us not degrade ourselves and our reputation abroad any longer. Please support the Smith amendment and defeat the Campbell amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, tonight this Congress is making history as we finally face the responsibility that previous Congresses ducked for a generation, balancing the Federal budget. On that we all agree. Where we disagree and what we are truly debating before the American people tonight is the path to that agreed upon target. Mr. Chairman, I support the CAT substitute budget as the best path, the best route to a balanced budget among the many before us tonight. It offers the deepest tax cuts, best curtails the burdensome bureaucracy by reducing discretionary spending and saves Medicare for the next decade. Other paths presented here tonight are good, but this is the best route to prosperity at home and peace abroad as America puts her financial house in order so the Federal Government is less of a burden on the homes of hard-working Americans.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer the following resolution from the Vanderburgh County commissioners for my colleagues' consideration here in the Congress. It is but one of the latest examples I see daily confirming that there is widespread, deep support to complete Interstate 69 through my home State of Indiana and through America's heartland down to Texas. I see this evidence daily through my work as the founder and cochairman of the Interstate 69 caucus in the Congress. This caucus includes 37 members, including Representatives and Senators, from all points of the political spectrum. As this historic Congress continues its work, Mr. Speaker, we need to push for a reauthorization of Federal highway spending to give States greater flexibility and more of the money that we all pay in taxes every time we gas up our cars and trucks. I think that need is well expressed in this resolution approved recently by the Vanderburgh County commissioners in Evansville, IN, and I commend it to the attention of my colleagues. Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the County of Vanderburgh Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County recognize that it has an important role to play in the economic development of Vanderburgh County; and Whereas, the extension of Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville is an integral element of economic growth and prosperity for Southwestern Indiana; and Realizing, that Southwestern Indiana does not have direct interstate access to its Capitol in Indianapolis, nor in any other North-South direction; and Recognizing, that the expansion of Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville and then toward Mexico will greatly expand domestic and international commerce; and Whereas, Vanderburgh County can attain only limited benefit from future expansion of trade without direct interstate access to the North and South; Be It Resolved That, on this 10th day of March, 1997, the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County endorsed the proposed extension of Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville and eventually on to Laredo, Texas for the purpose of creating a vital transportation link that will lead to the expansion of intrastate, interstate, and international trade; thus, providing a catalyst for creating numerous jobs and providing economic security for its inhabitants; and furthermore, we call upon our counterparts in all Southwest Indiana Counties along the proposed Interstate 69 route to adopt a similar resolution in support of said project. Richard E. Mourdock, President. Bettye Lou Jerrel, Vice President. Patrick Tuley, Member. Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the chamber that on Friday, May 9, the Uniontown Locks and Dam, located on the Ohio River between Indiana and Kentucky, will be renamed the John T. Myers Locks and Dam. Uniontown Locks and Dam is just 2 miles south of the confluence of the Wabash River and the mighty Ohio. As John was born and raised along the Wabash in Covington, IN, I can think of no better honor for an individual who dedicated so much of his life to public service, most of that time devoted to watching over our Nation's vast waterways system. Representative John Meyers served the people of the Seventh Congressional District of Indiana for 30 years before retiring at the end of the 104th Congress. For most of that distinguished career, the citizens of Indiana were fortunate to have him represent them on the House Appropriations Committee. His leadership on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, in particular, helped ensure that our Nation's waterways, which are so vital to our national economy, remained navigable. On May 9, John's many friends will converge on the Uniontown Locks and Dam site to officially recognize his contribution to inland navigation by renaming and dedicating this facility in his honor. It is a fitting tribute to a man whose visionary leadership has played such a significant role in the development and maintenance of America's rivers, ports and harbors.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution. In 1644 a Scotsman named Samuel Rutherford penned a work entitled ``Lex, Rex'' or ``The Law and the Prince.'' This book made quite a stir, for it challenged the divine right of kings; that is, it challenged the notion that the law was whatever the king said it was. Mr. Speaker, Rutherford saw a basic truth: Government not predicated upon an absolute is hardly a government at all. This greatly impressed the Founders of our Nation. Like it or not, the historical fact of the matter is that the absolutes upon which most of the law of this country is derived, everything from the right to own property to the criminal codes, are rooted in the Bible. More specifically, much of the law can be traced to that ancient moral code we call the Ten Commandments. Thank God that the Founders understood the source of law. I cringe that a misguided judge could so construe the Constitution as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse wall. I urge a yes vote on this resolution.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The Supreme Court has opined in Roe versus Wade, and its erroneous prodigy, that we have to allow the killing of preborn children. Clearly, this was a misread of the Constitution by the Court. I think this is a good example of a Court more bent on legislating than on adjudicating; that is, the Court, in Roe, was more concerned with setting public policy than in construing the Constitution. In any event, even the Supreme Court has not opined that our Government has an obligation to provide for or encourage abortion here in America or in any other land. We should not take to this course by our own will. Mr. Chairman, can we really call abortion family planning? Can we really say that terminating life creates strong families? Can we say that by using taxpayer dollars to finance abortion we are contributing to American interests abroad? This is not a vote about family planning. This resolution would obligate the U.S. taxpayer to promote abortion services and facilities in foreign lands. It is this obligation that I believe the House should soundly reject. If this resolution passes, there is no question about the President's actions. He will sign it into law. Before we release any more funds to him for so-called family planning, we must see to it that we do not do so without restrictions at least as solidly respectful of human life as those enjoyed between 1984 and 1993. The sanctity of life transcends international boundaries. It is time to say no to a careless export; that is, the notion that abortion is acceptable as a means of family planning. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise in support of an amendment to eliminate 1.9 percent of the spending in an appropriations bill; 1.9 percent. Around here, that is decimal dust. But it is not back home. It is not decimal dust to the taxpayers back in Indiana who are sick and tired of having their government in Washington, DC, spend more than it takes in revenue. We can talk about reducing the deficit--and we have--we have even taken some good steps in that direction. But guess what? The people of southwest Indiana are tired of talk. They want more action. They want more action for the sake of our children, who are the ones who are really stuck with paying off America's debt. 1.9 percent. I would imagine that the Americans watching this debate in their homes wonder why we are speaking so passionately about this amendment. I would imagine that Americans watching this debate are thinking, surely this will pass. Many are probably thinking that instead of 1.9 percent it ought to be 19 percent. I should say to those folks watching this debate that the sad reality is that we have offered this amendment to most of the appropriation bills and it has failed every time; 1.9 percent. It is a sad day for our children when we cannot even support a simple 1.9 percent across-the-board reduction. I urge a yes vote on this amendment for ourselves and for our children.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration. The Economic Development Administration, known as the EDA, which is a part of the Department of Commerce, was created in 1965 to assist in the development of depressed areas an encouraged increased employment through loans and grants to State and local communities. Although the original intent sounds reasonable, it is not reality. EDA money has been used for many projects that have nothing to do with jobs or economic development for depressed areas. As we struggle to balance the budget, it is critical that we terminate funding for EDA, an irreparable program that wastes millions of precious Federal dollars every year. We simply cannot afford to continue funding this program. Throughout the history of the EDA, there can be found any number of examples of Federal spending for unreasonable projects. The Inspector General audited a number of EDA projects and found fault with almost every one. Some examples of taxpayers dollars being wasted include: $800,000 for a golf course that washed away, $5,000,000 was awarded in 1976 to an economic development district that built a cash reserve of almost $2 million and wasted and misused over $1 million; and $850,000 was awarded in 1987 to help fund a $1 million 3-year industrial park expansion. Eight years later the project was barely started but $670,000 of the money had been spent. The EDA has proven itself to be a failure at meeting its objective. This program has become a $348 million drain on scarce and valuable Federal resources. Reform of the program is not the answer. Eliminating funding is the answer. If you support eliminating the Department of Commerce, you should support this amendment. The fact is when EDA was created, 12 percent of the Nation was eligible, today it is estimated 90 percent of the Nation is eligible. There has been a tendency to base projects more on political influence rather than true need. The 17 States represented by the members of the relevant House and Senate subcommittees received $1.10 per capita in EDA grants in 1994, compared to 68 cents for the rest of the Nation. EDA's programs are very costly and too slow. An analysis of The Emergency Jobs Act of 1983 revealed that only 84 previously unemployed people received jobs under the program at a cost of $307,000 per job-- seven times the cost of a job created in the private sector. A study conducted by the General Accounting Office failed to establish a strong link between a positive economic effect in a community and an agency's economic development assistance. Even proponents of this program admit the problems I have mentioned exist. As a solution to the waste of Federal funds and other problems with the EDA, they have offered up reform efforts as the answer. However, a year later, we are still spending the same amount of money and no reform has taken place to address these concerns. To quote the Commerce Department's Inspector General regarding reform legislation, ``H.R. 2145 simply reenacts substantial portions of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and changes the program delivery mechanism by reverting to a regional commission structure similar to the one discontinued nearly 15 years ago with the repeal of the former Title V of the 1965 act. We are concerned that the bill does not directly address the types of deficiencies we have noted over the years with respect to EDA, particularly issues of overly broad eligibility criteria and problems stemming from inadequate programmatic oversight.'' It is obvious the EDA has failed at its intended mission. Due to the budgetary constraints and the lack of a justifiable Federal role in these programs, it makes good sense to zero out this agency within the Department of Commerce. I ask for your vote to strike EDA funding in the fiscal year 1997 Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in the beginning, I would just like to address a point that was made earlier with regard to base closure. In an August 2 update to the subcommittee earlier, the Office of the Inspector General stated that although EDA was complying with congressional mandates in administering a program with regard to base closures, they had two preliminary concerns that had been expressed to the agency. First of all, the project's ability to mitigate the effect of military base closures or convert defense technology to civilian applications appeared limited. Second, a disproportionate share of the projects were concentrated in a few States, which speaks to the point I made earlier with regard to the number of dollars that go to States that are represented on the relevant House and Senate subcommittees. In closing, I would just like to say this. There has been a lot of touting with regard to economic development and these monies used for that, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, where do these monies come from? They are tax dollars that have to be taken either from other companies who would like to create jobs in their particular district, or from individuals who are trying to raise a family on what is becoming a more and more limited income as a result of the size and intrusiveness of the Federal Government. I guess the point is this. If Members think economic development should be done by the public sector, then they do not want to support this amendment. But if they think real jobs are created in the private sector, long-lasting jobs, not, for example, 800,000 golf courses that get washed away, but if Members think real long-term job growth happens in the private sector, then we need to let businesses and individuals keep more of the money they earn that they use to create jobs and wealth in this country.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to the fiscal year 1997 District of Columbia appropriations bill to decrease funding in the bill by 1.9 percent across the board. I believe that this is the seventh time we have come to the floor to offer this amendment. While we have not been successful with our previous efforts, we are not discouraged. When it comes to protect the financial future of this country's children, we must be tireless. While many come to the Chamber and criticized the budget resolution for increasing the deficit, few of us supported these efforts to regain that extra spending. Before we decide that we just can't resist the temptation to spend these few extra dollars--those few extra dollars that represent the thousands of hours of hard work performed by hard working folks in my district--we should think about the financial burden we are placing on our children. This amendment will trim less than 2 percent--just two pennies from every dollar of discretionary spending in this appropriations bill. The District receives approximately $717 million in the form of a Federal payment, a payment to the teachers', firefighters', police, and judges' retirement fund, and a payment for this 1997 inauguration. Included among the reasons that the District receives the Federal payment is the notion that a large percentage of the city's land is owned by the Federal Government. In actuality, just over 26 percent of the city' property is owned by the Federal Government. However, 68 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal Government, 64 percent of Utah is owned by the Federal Government, and a whopping 83 percent of the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. At the same time, Alaskans receive $1,755 per capita in Federal revenues; Utah residents receive $634 in per capita Federal revenues; and Nevada residents receive just $547. District residents, on the other hand, receive $3,898 per capita in Federal revenues. When we consider these facts, a 1.9 percent decrease in the Federal payment seems like a small amount to ask for. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe this is the most perfect solution for cutting $4 billion from the appropriations bills, and I can assure you that this is not being done to target any specific appropriations bill or any specific program--but this is a solution that will be shared by all. I asked everybody in this body--from both sides of the aisle--who is serious about staying on that real path toward a balanced budget to support our amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Aruments are routinely raised on this floor that the so-called right to choose is infringed any time the Government refuses to facilitate the practice of abortion on demand--even when, like today--we are only talking about the Government's refusing to: fund, pay for, provide, however you want to say it--the practice of abortion on demand. At stake today is whether a Government-funded health care plan--that is health insurance for Government employees--must provide coverage for abortion when the life of the mother, rape, or incest are not at issue. Roe versus Wade extra-constitutionally prohibits the complete prohibition of abortion. I contend, however, that neither Roe versus Wade, nor its erroneous progeny, require Americans to use taxpayer- provided funds for this terrible procedure. This is not health care and it does not have to be funded I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of the Istook amendment to require that minors obtain parental consent from a parent or legal guardian before they can receive services available under title X of the Public Service Health Act. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this is a Federal program. We have heard a lot about States' rights tonight from some pretty unique sources with regard to States' rights. But the fact is, this is a Federal program. There are Federal taxpayer dollars used in order that teenagers can go around their parents and, under the cloak of secrecy, not allow information to be passed to their parents. The fact is that government should not be standing in the way of the parent-child relationship. The parent is the one that the child should be going to with regard to advice when it comes to these troubling times in their life, and I ask for strong support of the Istook amendment so that we can rebond the parent-child relationship. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook amendment to require that minors obtain parental consent from a parent or legal guardian before they can receive services available under title X of the Public Health Service Act. I am appalled that a teenager girl can walk into any clinic that receives funding under title X and receive contraceptives, treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, or counseling on how to avoid pregnancy without her parent's permission. Teenagers are children themselves--and as a father of three young children, with the fourth one on the way, I cannot begin to comprehend how I would feel if one of my children were receiving such services without my knowledge or consent. By failing to require that parents give our consent to our children when they receive sexual advice, we are doing a huge disservice to parents and our children. Many people have voiced concern that if we require parental consent, teenagers may not get the necessary services to protect their health. Let me make this perfectly clear: this is not about health care. If this were really a health care issue, parental consent would be required before any of these services would be rendered to a minor. A teenager cannot receive a aspirin at school, have a physical exam, or even get their ears pierced without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Yet we are willing to ignore these very appropriate requirements at the Federal level and write a muiltimillion dollar check for birth control and sexual advice for teenage boys and girls. This is simply and patently absurd. If we believe that teenagers are more and more estranged from their parents, this is clearly not the solution to bridging the generation gap. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government to do anything to infringe upon a parent's tie to their children. I urge you to support this amendment. The relationship between a child and the Federal Government should never take the place of a relationship between a parent and a child.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, the message was clear when I ran for the House of Representatives, the message was clear when we considered last year's appropriations bills, the message was clear when we passed this year's budget resolution, and the message is still clear as we consider the amendment before us: Washington spends too much of someone else's money. Many of those someone elses are the hardworking men and women in southwest Indiana who sent me here to stand up and say no. They sent me here to say no to overtaxing families. They sent me here to say no to burdensome regulations that extinguish any spark of entrepreneurial spirit. They sent me here to say no to runaway government spending, which is why I stand before this body today. It is a simple fact of life that someone is going to have to pay for our failure to act responsibly. Do not be misled. This 1.9 percent solution is nowhere near the answer to our budget woes. This simply will get us back to where we were a few short weeks ago. I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle-Lowey amendment. One of the principal efforts of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was to study American firearms--guns--in regard to injuries involving firearms. Let me save the American taxpayer $2.6 million dollars with some free information: Guns can be dangerous, especially if loaded, pointed at someone and the trigger is pulled. Now, that was simple; was it not? Given this knowledge, one has to question why taxpayer funds were even wasted on this issue in the first place. I think I know the answer. The bottom line is that it is bothersome to some Members of this body that many Americans own firearms. Therefore, anything that can shed a negative inference on firearms, like the fact that they are dangerous, becomes worthy of taxpayer support research and political exploitation. As interesting as pursuing these issues further might be, they are in the end irrelevant. The second amendment to the United States Constitution reads: ``A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by pointing out a few things. A vote for this amendment is not a vote against volunteerism. Let me highlight what the American Heritage College Dictionary says that a volunteer is. A volunteer is a person who performs or offers to perform a service of his or her own free will, or to do charitable or helpful work without pay. It was alleged earlier that weaknesses have been taken care of as a result of some work done inside the corporation, but I need to point out that since that hearing, that there has only been action to take care of 9 of 33 material weaknesses in the corporation. Usually with one of those situations, any other corporation would be out of business. It was also alleged earlier that for some reason freshmen of the House, of the Republican side of this House, have offered this initiative. The fact is that we are freshmen, and by the very nature of that term, we have been out in the real world before we came to Congress, before we came to this Capitol Hill address. We have seen real volunteerism at work. We have seen, and we know the statistics are true, that 90 million Americans every year volunteer. This is a vote for fiscal soundness and not against volunteerism.

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