John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for putting it so well. The local, State, and county governments know best. That is where our tax dollars come from, and we need to return the idea that they know what is best. Theirs is the resource of the money. Let them do things in their locales that they think is best. There is a quote that says, ``Welfare is a narcotic. A subtile destroyer of the human spirit.'' Who said this Mr. Speaker? Was it, A, Charles Murray; B, Ronald Reagan; or C, William F. Buckley? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is none of the above. The quote is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who would you say, Mr. Speaker, has been least effective in meeting the needs of the poor? A, Mother Teresa; B, the United Way; C, the Salvation Army; or D, the Federal Government? If you formulated your answer based on dollars spent, you would probably choose one of the top three. But in answering the question, Who has been least effective in meeting the needs of the poor, the answer is clear. The Federal Government has failed. Why, then, would we think of a federally run food stamp program as the ultimate social safety net as some are calling it? Marvin Olasky, in ``The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' writes how charity workers deal with applicants for assistance. They start with the goal of answering one question: Who is bound to help in this case? Charity workers then called in relatives, neighbors or former coworkers or coworshipers. Relief given without reference to friends and neighbors is accompanied by moral loss. Mary Richmond of the Baltimore Charity Organization Society noted, and I quote, ``Poor neighborhoods are doomed to grow poorer and more sordid whenever the natural ties of neighborliness are weakened by our well-meant but unintelligent interference.'' Another minister said, quote: ``Raising the money required specially on each case, though very troublesome, has immense advantages. It enforces family ties and neighborly or other duties instead of relaxing them.'' The Federal Government does not do any of these things. The proposed plan for food stamps, while less of a budget strain than the current system, continues on with the Federal tradition of throwing money at the problem. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask that Members consider the idea of block granting food stamps and the idea that the Federal Government does not always know best and that State and local governments can best meet the needs, along with private and religious charities, to meet the needs of our neighbors. And I give back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Rules Committee is graciously allowing me to do my special order, and I would like to continue and conclude at this time. But there will be an opportunity later.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I would most assuredly agree with you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir, they sure do.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I do not, sir.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk]. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about block granting food stamps to the States, opponents of the idea express doubts about the ability of State government to reform the program. Forgetting momentarily that the Federal Government has not shown any ability to operate the program under its own auspices, let us look at what the States have done with welfare reform. First of all, Wisconsin Governor, Tommy Thompson, introduced a number of innovative programs that reduced welfare rolls in his State by 25 percent, saving State taxpayers $16 million per month. In 1988, he began Learnfare which discourages truancy and promotes education. In 1990, he started Children First, a program to increase child support collections. In 1992, his Parental and Family Responsibility Initiative removed disincentives to marriage and discouraged children from having children. This year, he launched Work Not Welfare requiring able-bodied recipients to work for cash benefits. Michigan Governor, John Engler, who we heard about prior, offered welfare clients incentives to work and required them to sign a social contract agreeing to work, receive job training, or volunteer at least 20 hours per week. In just 2 years, the plan has helped nearly 55,000 welfare achieve independence, and welfare caseloads have fallen to their lowest level in 7 years, saving taxpayers $100 million. Massachusetts Governor, William Weld, signed legislation last year to strengthen child support collection which is expected to save $102 million in AFDC and Medicaid expenses and enable an estimated 7,000 families to discontinue the AFDC Program. This year, he introduced welfare reform requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to take a job or community placement within 60 days in exchange for child care and health care benefits. In addition, Governor Thompson recently identified four principles around which any welfare system should be built. These include: First, to end indefinite cash assistance; require work of able-bodied adults as a condition of receiving temporary assistance; include provisions to reduce illegitimacy; fund States, not individuals, by ending individual entitlements. Michigan Governor John Engler stated matters well on February 9 at an Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on food stamps. The Governor said, and I quote, ``Let me be absolutely clear on this from the start: America's governors understand the importance of good nutrition, especially for children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable individuals. None of us would adopt policies that would take food from the mouths of people in need. On the contrary, we want the freedom of a block grant to be able to help more people with better, more efficient community-based programs that better meet local needs,'' end quote. Governor Engler also said, and I quote, ``With the freedom of block grants, I trust my human service department directors and their colleagues at the county, city, and neighborhood level to get the job done. And I trust local charities, civic groups, churches, synagogues and mosques to make sure that the children and mothers to be in their respective communities get the proper nutrition.'' Mr. Speaker, I know some people feel that the Federal Government is inherently better at providing food assistance. I believe the track record shows otherwise. The closer the administration is to the people who need the food, the better that administration will be. How effective are churches and private charities in dealing with hunger? As early as the pilgrims establishing a community in Massachusetts, Americans have shown compassion for one another free of government interference. Marvin Olasky, in The Tragedy of American Compassion, quotes Pilgrim leader William Bradford describing the benevolent activities of those Pilgrims who remained healthy. Bradford's account describes able-bodied men and women cooking food, washing clothes, and providing medicinal aid to those less fortunate. Olasky writes that the need to offer personal help and hospitality became a frequent subject of sermons, which in colonial days were more powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose. Congregationalist and Presbyterian sermons noted that faith without works of compassion was dead. Anglicans also argued that those blessed materially by God should have compassion for the poor by descending into misery when necessary in order to help them up: This in one order of life is right and good; nothing more harmonious. And when Methodism spread in the 18th century, American followers propagated John Wesley's advice to, quote, ``Put yourself in the place of every poor man and deal with him as you would hope that God would deal with you.'' I do not need to document the work of organizations like Catholic Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, and the United Jewish Appeal. I even have some firsthand experience at church-directed charities. I ran the food pantry at 12th Avenue General Baptist Church in Evansville, IN. We met people's needs, we took an interest in people's lives. That is the America I know. That is the America that used to be and can be again if we can get away from this idea that the Federal Government is our nanny. At this time I would like to offer time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, should the Federal Government be managing the Food Stamp Program? Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I rise today because the Food Stamp Program provides clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were correct when they advocated a limited role for the Federal Government. I'm talking about a system that has increased in cost to the taxpayers by 300 percent. I'm talking about a system that wastes $3 billion yearly in fraud and errors alone. I'm talking about a system that does nothing to address the root causes of recipients' needs. I'm talking about the Federal Food Stamp Program--a monument to Great Society pseudocompassion. In Marvin Olasky's ``The Tragedy of American Compassion'' we see an exceptional portrayal of how American society can and will take better care of its needy without the interference of a successful war on poverty was waged by tens of thousands of local charitable agencies and religious groups around the country. The platoons of the greatest charity army in American history often were small, and made up of volunteers led by poorly paid professional managers. Women volunteers by day and men by night often worked out of cramped offices and church basements. What Olasky is describing is an America that reaches out to its fellow man. Private charities and churches are still capable of doing that and they can do it much better than the Government has. Mr. Speaker, people may be listening tonight and thinking--that's what the Republican welfare reform bill is supposed to do. They would be correct, if not for one exception. That exception is the Federal Food Stamp Program. A decision has been made to exempt what is by far the largest Federal food assistance program from the block grant concept. We're block granting AFDC, we're block granting WIC, we're block granting school nutrition programs, but we're going to keep the Federal Food Stamp Program at the Federal level. Olasky compares the attempts to do this with an anecdote from mythology. ``Year after year,'' he writes, ``proposals to tinker with the bureacracy and reduce the marginal tax wall caused mild stirs in Washington, but even the best proposals mirrored Hercules's early attempts to kill the nine-headed monster Hydra; each time he hacked off one head, he found two growing in its place.'' Block granting the Food Stamp Program by itself is not slaying the monster, but I reject the notion of some great Federal responsibility to administer the program. The taxpayers providing the funding are residents of the States. It is taxpayer money, not money belonging to the Agriculture Committee, the Congress, or the Federal Government. We should take the administration of this program closer to the people. This chart provides a perfect illustration of why we should take the administration of this program closer to the people. As you can see from this chart, about 25 percent of the costs of the current Food Stamp Program are not used for the potential purchase of food. In fact, right off the top of the Federal funds for food stamps. $1.1 billion is issued for a special block grant to Puerto Rico. Next, the Federal Government must reimburse the States for about half of the administrative costs that the States incur for issuing these coupons. This does not take into account an additional $250 million in other administrative-type costs that decrease the benefits. And even after all these bills have been paid, we still have to consider that there is 1.9 billion dollars' worth of coupons that are issued erroneously. This includes caseworker mistakes, unintentional mistakes made by recipients, and about $500 million in intentional deceit on the part of recipients. Last, but certainly not least, we have heard estimates from the Secret Service that there is an additional $1 billion lost to illegal food stamp trafficking. After all these costs are factored into the equation, we are left with 75 cents for every taxpayer dollar that might go to the purchase of food for the needy. And may I remind you, this doesn't consider the fact that the States also spend approximately $1.5 billion in administrative costs as well. Why does it cost so very much to provide food services to those who are in need? It costs so much because the Federal Government is attempting to provide the services. My amendment would change all of that. Instead of layer upon layer of administrative guidelines, regulations, and rules at every level of government, this amendment would simply repeal the administrative nightmares and give the States the flexibility needed to provide true and meaningful welfare reform. As you can see from the chart, my amendment, which almost mirrors the contract language, would limit 5 percent of the block grants for administrative expenses. It requires that 95 percent of the funds from the block grant be used for food assistance for the economically disadvantaged. It is simple, clear, and I believe quite compelling. How can we argue against sending the funds to those who are closely and acutely aware of the problems and eliminating the red tape that has prohibited success in the Food Stamp Program. If we take the Federal bureaucracy out of the equation, what remains is a lot more money for food assistance. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], my colleague.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 45th year that National Engineer's Week has been celebrated, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the value of engineers in our society. National Engineers Week is celebrated during this time of George Washington's birthday for a reason. Washington had the educational background of an engineer and land surveyor and is considered the Nation's first engineer. While President, Washington led a growing society toward technical advancements, invention and education. He promoted the construction of roads, canals, the U.S. Capitol, docks and ports and the development of manufacturing resources. I have been a registered professional engineer for only 3 years, but I have seen this country's technology and quality of life advance tremendously, largely due to its 1.8 million engineers. An engineer's skills allow him or her not only to develop wonderfully creative ideas, but to bring them to the marketplace where they can solve problems and improve our standard of living. This is why we should strongly encourage the seventh and eighth graders who compete in the National Engineers Week future city competition. The students who participate in this national competition present their designs for cities in the 21st century using computer simulations and scale models. Many of these seventh and eighth graders will likely become the talented engineers of the future, and they will go on to lead this country well into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to know that many of my congressional colleagues are engineers. This fact alone goes to show that whether they are building a stronger bridge, designing a safer car or more efficient city, discovering a helpful drug manufacturing process, or making policy in our Nation's Capital, engineers contribute to advancing our technology, promoting the quality of our lives, and improving our society.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Condit bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450. As a cosponsor of H.R. 490, the bill introduced by my colleague, Mr. Smith, the gentleman from Texas. I am quite aware of the hardships that have been caused by sending the original Endangered Species Act into regulatory overdrive. In my district, there have been coal operations endangered because of the potential listing of a water snake that happens to abide in mines. There have been farmers with easements placed on their farms to preserve potentially critical habitat for bats. The horror stories elsewhere about ranchers being fined for protecting their sheep from bears and farmers jailed for killing rats are numerous. But beyond the horror stories, there is a fundamental issue at stake. The rights of American citizens to own and enjoy their property. No one is advocating the wanton extermination of legitimate species here. But it's time that we make a decision about what takes a higher priority-- the property rights of taxpaying American citizens or the comfort of creeping things and the special interests that represent them. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Condit-bipartisan amendment and final passage of H.R. 450.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Regulatory Transition Act. Mr. Speaker, there is a frantic effort underway on the part of the administration to frighten the American public and this body about what those of us who would protect private property rights are trying to do. For years, Big Government has disseminated the message that the public needs of Washington, DC, to take care of it--that without Washington, DC, no one will look out for its health and well-being; that without Washington, DC, no one will protect its clean air and clean water; that without Washington, DC, no one will know what to do because only Washington, DC, knows what's good. Something may sound ridiculous but, as the message goes, it's coming from Washington, DC, so it must be a smart idea, because after all, doesn't Washington, DC, know best? There was a different message sent in the last election. Washington, DC, doesn't know best. Regulation after regulation comes down the pike--micromanaging every facet of the daily lives of individuals and the daily operations of businesses. The people said, ``Enough.'' The administration responded by preparing some 4,300 new regulations to get through under the closing door. If we are truly representing the American people, we must keep this from happening. The administration is trying to send a message that life as we know it will fall apart if these regulations don't get through. That is an unfortunate scare tactic. But let's show everybody concerned that the regulatory monster isn't vital to our existence, but it actually threatens our way of life as we know it. Let's cast a vote for smaller, smarter Government and defy those who are trying to scare the American public and this body into continuing with business as usual.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today for a number of reasons. It is my hope and expectation that later this evening, this Chamber will pass H.R. 2 and give the President a much overdue line- item veto. I commend my colleagues for this effort and look forward to casting my vote in support of this very useful tool as it will be a good first step in eliminating unnecessary Federal spending and put a bit of balance into the Federal budget process. However, I think the words that I should most emphasize here would be ``first step.'' Giving the President the power and authority to rescind spending that is viewed as wasteful or excessive is only the first step in the long and arduous journey toward fiscal responsibility. However, given the fact that President's Clinton's budget, which was just released today, contains an annual budget deficit of over $190 billion for the next 5 years, Congress is obviously going to have to take the lead in instilling some kind of fiscal control in the Federal budget process. Line-item veto or no-line-item veto, from the looks of the red ink in this President's budget, it is readily apparent that if anything is going to be done about this country's fiscal crisis, it is going to be done by us. And at the risk of sounding cynical or pessimistic, we have not even begun to make the difficult decisions that we will undoubtedly have to make to put the Federal budget process and Federal spending back on the path toward fiscal health. It is because I am ready, even anxious, to make these decisions that I decided to run for Congress last year at this time. I looked around me, at what was happening to the priorities our Federal Government had established when doling out Federal tax dollars, my tax dollars, and I became concerned, actually frightened, and I thought about the future of my children. I began to seriously worry about the burden that trillions of dollars in debt will place on my children and on the children of all Americans. Each year, lawmakers seem to ignore what is fiscally sound economic advice from their constituents and endlessly deficit spend the hard working citizens' tax dollars. And every year that this happens, the financial security of our children, and our children's children is jeopardized. I am no longer willing to take this kind of chance with the future of our country. Today we celebrate the birthday of former President Ronald Reagan, a man whose commitment to fiscal responsibility was acknowledged and respected far and wide. Today I celebrate the birthday of another gentleman who taught me about fiscal accountability. My father turns 72 today, and it is from him that I learned about the duty, responsibility, and obligation for family that I try to incorporate into my life every day. It is because of this overwhelming sense of commitment to my family that I stand before you today. As we undertake this enormous task in front of us, I urge us not to lose sight of the fact that it will be our children that will actually suffer from our lack of dedication to true fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are in a crisis in this country, and that crisis is one of fiscal irresponsibility. We talked about campaign promises, the gentleman from California did, and he is exactly right, because there are three constituents back in my district, my three children, that I have a great responsibility to now. And we are hearing all sorts of rhetoric from the other side, but there are really two discussions going on on the other side, and I would just like to possibly get some clarification on those, the first of which is that this proposed line-item veto will give two-thirds majority veto power to the President, and that will be too much power. But in the campaign, as I ran against a Democrat incumbent, I was told through the media, through my opponent and from the Democrat Party in general that the reason why my children have such a burden on them is because of 12 years of Republican rule, because for 12 years Republican Presidents spent too much money. The Constitution gives the appropriating powers to the U.S. Congress, and if the Congress chooses not to appropriate funds, those moneys are not spent. So my question is this: As we hear that this will give the President too much power, is this more power than supposedly Ronald Reagan had, more power than supposedly George Bush had to control spending and, therefore, put my children's future in graver risk? Or was it incorrect on the campaign trail, which at times we all tend to get a little verbose on the campaign trail, but was it not true that it was the fault of the appropriating body, according to the Constitution? Was it the problem of the appropriating body that my children have this debt?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Substantially higher.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Proportionately it was much greater. You are right.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Reclaiming my time, the point is that we are in a crisis; this body. You, sir, there is no doubt that you have the responsibility to the Constitution and to your constituents, but this body as a whole has shown time and time again it does not have that responsibility.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. But we have today shot John once again in the past. I am not running in lockstep, as you all know, with this side, but what we must do is we must give the President the power, since this body has proven time and time again that it cannot do that. We must give the President the power that was supposedly given to him, according to the campaign rhetoric that was there, and if that is the case, then we will bring fiscal responsibility to this Federal Government, and we will not continue down the same path. That is why we need to give this two-thirds power, not because we are giving overwhelming power to the President, but because we are in a crisis, a fiscal crisis.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, how many times was the debt limit raised as a result of a majority vote of this House?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Reclaiming my time once again, $20 billion less. But how much more in debt? How many times was the debt limit raised?

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Agricultural Lands Protection Act of 1995. This bill is meant to provide fundamental change in the approach taken toward deciding how land can be used. It grants owners of regularly farmed land freedom from overzealous regulators and it would end the withholding of farm program benefits as a penalty for farmers farming their land. The Agricultural Lands Protection Act of 1995 will not jeopardize ground water quality. It will not inhibit the numerous private sector efforts to restore and conserve true wetlands. How a property owner uses his or her land should determine how that land is classified. Water levels and vegetation types should not take precedence over the property owners' land needs. We can make significant strides toward helping farmers and ranchers economically by simply getting these burdensome regulations out of the way. Farmers are the true conservationists. Nobody appreciates more the need to take care of the land. Their livelihoods depend on it. But a low spot in a field that holds water after heavy rain is not the ideal habitat for ducks. If it has been farmland, it should stay farmland until the property owner decides otherwise. I urge all members to cosponsor and support this valuable bill.