John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will protect the Boy Scouts of America from the latest political attack on its constitutionally protected rights. The most recent assault against the scouts occurred on June 20 when the District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had violated the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. The Boy Scouts' crime? In keeping with their longstanding values and standards, the Boy Scouts had expelled two homosexual scout masters in Washington, D.C. Now, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of association, and despite the Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the Boy Scouts' right to determine its criteria for members and leaders, the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission ordered the Boy Scouts to reinstate the troop leaders and pay them $50,000 each. In addition, the Commission ruled that the Scouts must also pay all attorneys' fees and court costs. Mr. Chairman, this arrogant and intrusive ruling is just the latest in a long string of cultural broadsides against the Boy Scouts of America, a group dedicated to instilling selflessness, character, responsibility, and love for God and country of our Nation's boys and young men. It was a year ago this month that legislation was brought to the floor that would have ended the Boy Scouts' Federal charter. I would remind my colleagues that of the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, only 12 voted to punish this private organization for putting its beliefs into practice. Now, during this debate, we will hear that this is a local issue, a matter best left to home rule. But as Members who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I would remind my colleagues that article I, section 8 states that ``Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.'' The Constitution requires that we watch closely the power we have delegated, in this case to the District of Columbia. Since the District is a national city, it should be a reflection of our Nation's value system. Mr. Chairman, all of us should be troubled by this ruling. When a government agency tells a private organization it must accept behavior that violates its members' core beliefs, then every civic organization, service group, church, synagogue, and mosque is vulnerable to government interference. This so-called civil rights organization clearly does not have the best interests of our Nation's boys and young men at heart. Instead, its goal is to force a radical political agenda on a private civic group. While ostensibly advancing the virtue of ``tolerance,'' the commission has approved only one politically correct viewpoint, determining that all other beliefs must be excluded or penalized, in this case. The decision of the commission runs counter to our most basic liberties and, as such, must be stopped. My amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from enforcing the commission's decision by preventing funds from being spent to do so, and I urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I simply say that in the discussion of this body's control and authority over the District of Columbia, it is clearly pointed out, not only in the home rule statute, but in the very Constitution itself. This body is afforded the obligation and authority, according to the Constitution, to effectively be the city council of the District of Columbia. So, whether we vote on Federal funds or local funds, every Member that votes on these issues votes as a Member of the legislative body overseeing all matters whatsoever according to the Constitution in this area. This is not an issue of home rule. We do not have the authority, according to the Constitution, to govern on issues regarding the city of Atlanta or the city of San Francisco or the city of Tucson, Arizona. We do have constitutional authority over all legislative matters whatsoever in regard to the District of Columbia; and Members should stand up, recognize their constitutional authority, and recognize that all groups are under assault here with regard to the values that they hold dear. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all Members would support my amendment, would allow the Boy Scouts of America to determine the criteria for their members and their leaders, and allow them to freely associate without doing any damage whatsoever to the community when, in fact, the opposite is true. They strive to make the country and their community a better place to live, with all of the activities in which they endeavor.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and the Weldon amendment. During this debate, as in years past, we have heard that Congress should not impose its will on the District of Columbia regarding its so-called domestic partnership law. We have been told that it is a matter of home rule, and we have been lectured that Federal interference is both unwarranted and unconscionable. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues of the oath they took to uphold the United States Constitution. I would remind them that article 1, section 8 of that great document states that ``Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.'' The District of Columbia was established as a unique entity. In order to prevent any one State from exercising undue influence over the Capital city, the Founders wisely created a Federal district that would belong to the whole Nation. As such, the District of Columbia should be a reflection of the values shared by the rest of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, regardless of which party has been in power, Congress has consistently prohibited both Federal and District of Columbia tax dollars from being spent on the District's domestic partnership law. I urge my colleagues to remember their constitutional obligations and to support this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following information on the subject of Cloning. National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Washington, DC, July 26, 2001. Scientists Say ``Therapeutic Cloning'' Creates a Human Embryo President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings, explicitly stated: ``The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.'' The National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research Panel also assumed in its September 27, 1994 Final Report, that cloning results in embryos. In listing research proposals that ``should not be funded for the foreseeable future'' because of ``serious ethical concerns,'' the NIH panel included cloning: ``Such research includes: . . . Studies designed to transplant embryonic or adult nuclei into an enucleated egg, including nuclear cloning, in order to duplicate a genome or to increase the number of embryos with the same genotype, with transfer.'' A group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating ``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology-- confirmed in the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that a human embryo is created and destroyed through ``therapeutic cloning'': ``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.'' On September 7, 2000, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on human cloning. The Parliament's press release defined and commented on ``therapeutic cloning'': ``. . . `Therapeutic cloning,' which involves the creation of human embryos purely for research purposes, poses an ethical dilemma and crosses a boundary in research norms.'' Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, argues in his 1997 book, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. ``Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used in cloning. . . . The newly created embryo can only develop inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all other members of the species.'' The President and CEO of the biotechnology firm that recently announced its intentions to clone human embryos for research purposes, Michael D. West, Ph.D. of Advanced Cell Technology, testified before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on December 2, 1998: ``In this . . . procedure, body cells from a patient would be fused with an egg cell that has had its nucleus (including the nuclear DNA) removed. This would theoretically allow the production of a blastocyst-staged embryo genetically identical to the patient. . . .'' Dr. Ian Wilmut of PPL Technologies, leader of the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, describes in the spring 1988 issue of Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics how embryos are used in the process now referred to as ``therapeutic cloning'': ``One potential use for this technique would be to take cells--skin cells, for example--from a human patient who had a genetic disease . . . You take this and get them back to the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues of the patient.'' As documented in the American Medical News, February 23, 1998, University of Colorado human embryologist Jonathan Van Blerkom expressed disbelief that some deny that human cloning produces an embryo, commenting: ``If it's not an embryo, what is it?''

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposed constitutional amendment. The need for such an amendment arises from a Supreme Court that has persistently stated that we must tolerate flag desecration as protected speech. Clearly, I believe the Supreme Court has it wrong. The flag is a unique symbol that merits our special recognition. I find it ironic that the Federal Government can compel men and women into the Armed Forces where they may die under the flag but, evidently, may not prohibit the desecration of the very symbol for which they fight. This proposed amendment places the debate exactly where our framers intended for it to take place: in the town halls across America. It is the American people, not the Supreme Court, that have the ultimate responsibility to answer constitutional questions. Mr. Speaker, I believe the flag is a unique symbol. When those who have given the last full measure of devotion are given the respect they deserve, we honor them by draping their coffin with the flag. They honor our country with their sacrifice, and we honor them with the flag. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I find the words of the Pledge of Allegiance telling. Just last week, President Bush had the opportunity to visit Ellis Island and to lead the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, just as so many immigrants have done before: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands.'' I would underscore that this simple phrase recited every morning in this very Chamber pledges our allegiance to the flag itself, not only to the Republic. The ``and'' separates the two phrases so that we pledge our devotion both to the flag and to our Republic. Mr. Speaker, some argue that the ideals of the flag are the only things that matter. I find the words of the pledge enlightening, and I respectfully disagree. The flag itself occupies a unique place in our Republic. It is the one symbol that merits our allegiance. Why do we continue to pledge our devotion and support to a flag if we are not willing to protect it from desecration? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde- Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment, which preserves President Bush's legal authority to implement the pro-life Mexico City policy which prohibits U.S. population assistance funds from being made available to foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortions in foreign countries. I would have thought that I would not have needed to remind anyone in this body today about the revelation last year that the International Planned Parenthood Federation quietly repaid $700,000 in U.S. grants just days before a congressional audit to determine if the funds were used for abortions or the promotion of abortion in India and Uganda. If International Planned Parenthood Federation believes they were used illegally according to Federal law, my colleagues should probably contact them to find out the truth. While International Planned Parenthood might have repaid the U.S. Treasury, they could not pay us back in the human lives they stole. Today, let us reaffirm our fundamental belief that all of the world's unborn have precious lives that should be protected. Our own Declaration of Independence recognizes that governments are instituted to protect the inalienable right to life. Why should we want to export a contrary doctrine?

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and oppose the Lofgren one-victim substitute. This bill is really a simple one. It states that if a criminal, in his attack on a pregnant women, injures the child also, than that criminal should be held responsible for his attack on both individuals. As a father myself, I have witnessed people's reaction to my wife's pregnancy. They do not ask if we hope that our product of conception will continue in pregnancy without interruption. No, they ask questions like ``Is it a boy or a girl?''; ``Have you picked out a name for your baby yet?'' ``Are your other children looking forward to their new brother or sister?'' You see, Mr. Speaker, they recognize what should be obvious to all. They recognize what our Founding Fathers thought obvious. In fact, they called it ``self evident'' that our Creator has endowed everyone with this unalienable right. Its inconsistent and hypocritical that federal law fails to recognize crimes against the pre-born as just that . . . crimes. I see no valid legal or moral difference between committing a crime against an individual one day prior to birth and one day after. We hear stories like that of Ms. Pace, who was assaulted one day before her due date. Her boyfriend had paid hit-men $400 for the express purpose of killing the child, not her. Did he hire them to kill a ``product of conception''? No, he hired them to kill a baby for whom he did not want to be responsible. Rightfully, we find ourselves outraged at stories of child abuse and neglect . . . Stories of babies being beaten and abandoned by their parents. Yet those on the other side would have us believe that an assailant should face no penalty for the willful killing of the same child before birth. If an assailant, while in the commission of a federal crime, harms a baby then he should be responsible for the harm caused to that baby. Its really that simple. For most Americans it's common sense. Unfortunately, what would otherwise make perfect sense gets lost here in Washington. Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and reject the Lofgren amendment. Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims Laws (All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.) California: People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994). Georgia: Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge). Illinois: U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909 (C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991). People v. Campos, 592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: appealed denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024 (1995). Louisiana: Re double jeopardy--State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996). Minnesota: State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990). Re establishment clause-- State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991). Missouri: State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). Ohio: State v. Coleman, 705 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). Wisconsin: Re due process--State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994) (upholding earlier statute).

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for yielding and commend him for offering the Republican Study Committee budget alternative. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this substitute budget because it is the best for our Armed Forces. While President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have every right to conduct a review, and I support the review, it is still the constitutional responsibility, the constitutional obligation of the Congress, to provide for our Armed Forces to meet our threats. The Republican Study Committee budget invests $350 billion, $25 billion more than the committee's budget, to eliminate some serious readiness woes, such as, one, a combat readiness rate of 41 percent for Air Force aircraft stationed in the continental United States; an acute shortage of ammunition for our Army and Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard aircraft, as well as ships and cutters that are grounded for lack of funding. Remember, it was President Ronald Reagan who said, quote, ``I believe it is immoral to ask the sons and daughters of America to protect this land with second-rate equipment and bargain-basement weapons,'' end quote. It was immoral then. It is immoral today. It is immoral to continue to ask our men and women in uniform to do more and more with less, both in operations and maintenance and with their own compensation and benefits. This budget goes farther than any other budget alternative to do just that. For example, it seeks to close the pay gap for our men and women in uniform, almost 11 percent at this time. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual amount required to cover the shortfall of modernization alone is $30 billion a year. According to CBO, the additional amount required to maintain OPTEMPO, operating tempos and current levels of readiness, is $5 billion short. Also, the amount to accelerate missile defense and enhance science- and technology-based programs is woefully inadequate. The Republican Study Committee budget goes a long way in meeting these obvious requirements and necessary requirements for our national defense.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department of Treasury and specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or BATF, from using taxpayer dollars to enforce the provisions of a settlement agreement between Smith & Wesson, the Treasury Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new amendment, but it is new circumstances in which I offer it given the fact that the agreement constitutes the 22 pages of legislation that was never considered in these Chambers nor passed by Congress and includes new duties for the BATF. Now the BATF will no longer just enforce Federal laws; they will now enforced a private civil agreement. This greatly expands the BATF's scope of power without Congress's approval. Failure to pass this amendment will allow the executive branch to continue to coerce legal industries, in this particular case the gun industry, to enter into these agreements whenever they feel they cannot get their agenda through Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode). (Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to some of the comments made earlier. Mr. Chairman, I once again want to reiterate the fact that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) said that this amendment is going to stop cities and Smith & Wesson from continuing in this agreement. This amendment does not. This amendment merely stops the Federal Government from intruding in this situation from being a part of this agreement. So if Smith & Wesson and the cities and towns that are involved in this want to collude to compromise the safety of their men and women in uniform, they are free to do that. Secondly, I would like to say that the gentleman said that this was an agreement that was freely entered into. It is not. This kind of Congress that makes the laws that the BATF is supposed to enforce never entered into this agreement. The people's House did not speak. This agreement was made between a private company, and the Congress said nothing. But the gentleman from Massachusetts said now we are interfering. Now the Congress of the United States is interfering in legislation that was crafted by the executive branch and Smith & Wesson. Well, pardon us for interfering in the legislative process, but that is what we are here to do. According to article 1, section 1 of the Constitution, all legislative power shall be vested in a Congress, not the lawyers at HUD, not the lawyers at Treasury and not the lawyers with Smith & Wesson. It is our prerogative to create policy as the Congress of the United States and not these entities that we have mentioned before.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I just want to remind my colleagues that this issue is not an issue about gun safety. You do not need a 24-page agreement crafted by lawyers at HUD, BATF and Smith & Wesson to create an agreement considering gun locks, trigger locks and new modes of creating pistols that make those handguns more safe. This is an argument of gun control and our second amendment rights and should we allow the Federal Government to bypass the legislative process to create more gun control and deprive us of our second amendment rights.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from using taxpayers' dollars to enforce the provisions of a settlement agreement between Smith & Wesson, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Justice would be the primary agency that would bring suit to enforce any disputes that arise as a result of the agreement. Therefore, this amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Justice from suing Smith & Wesson for HUD or Treasury to enforce the contested provisions of this agreement. Let me share with my colleagues what I am trying to accomplish with this amendment. It is quite simple. Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution states, and I quote: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' In my hand I hold 22 pages of legislation. This legislation was not deliberated in these grand Chambers. This legislation was not debated among the distinguished Members of this body. This legislation was formed by lawyers of the executive branch, bringing the full force and weight of the United States Government upon one firearms manufacturer. What is our response? If we do nothing and allow the executive branch to intrude upon our legislative authority, who is next? I do not believe the founders of this great Nation would want us to hand over our constitutional authority to Andrew Cuomo or Janet Reno. In fact, our oath of office requires us to stand up and say to the executive branch, ``You will not bypass us and bring this reign of legislation through litigation terror upon the American people.'' Now, let me share with my colleagues what these 22 pages of legislation include. Now, keep in mind that in the agreement Smith & Wesson agrees to bind all those dealers who wish to sell Smith & Wesson products to the restrictions in the agreement. In other words, Smith & Wesson dealers must include the following restrictions on all firearms sales regardless of make. This includes Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Colt, and so on. In order to continue selling Smith & Wesson products, dealers must agree to, one, impose a 14-day waiting period on any purchaser who wants to buy more than one handgun. Again, all makes. Did Congress authorize such a restriction? Two, transfer firearms only to individuals who have passed a certified safety examination or training course. Once again, all makes. Did Congress authorize this restriction? Three, the agreement authorizes the BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to sit on an oversight commission to enforce provisions of the coerced agreement. When did Congress authorize the BATF to enforce private civil settlement agreements? Four, requires the BATF or an agreed-upon proofing entity to test firearms. Did we do this in this Chamber? Five, the agreement mandates that Smith & Wesson commit 2 percent of their revenues to develop authorized user technology and within 36 months, 3 years, to incorporate this technology in all new firearm designs. It appears HUD likes unfunded mandates. Did Congress authorize this unfunded mandate? I could go on and on, but time prevents me from doing so. I have been accused of trying to destroy Smith & Wesson in past legislative efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in April, Smith & Wesson published on their Web page a clarification of their interpretation of their agreement with Treasury and HUD. But the Clinton administration was not happy at all with that interpretation found on their Web site, and I quote from the New York Times of April 14: ``A Clinton administration official hinted yesterday,'' April 13, ``that the matter might end up in court if Smith & Wesson tried to back away from a deal it had signed. `The agreement is a contract,' said an administration official involved in the deal. `It says what it says. It will be implemented.' '' Now, tell me, who is trying to destroy Smith & Wesson? I suppose former Labor Secretary Robert Reich was prophetic in his statement in USA Today when he said in February 1999: ``The era of big government may be over, but the era of regulation through litigation has just begun.'' In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask, are we a Nation of laws or a Nation of lawsuits? Support my amendment and stop Treasury and HUD from using the Department of Justice to enforce their legislation, again, not this body's legislation, but Treasury and HUD's legislation through litigation, and return that legislative power to where the Constitution requires it, the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 23.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply to once again return the legislative authority to Congress. Congress has in the past dealt with issues that the gentleman has discussed; and, in fact, it has passed legislation dealing with trigger locks, with waiting-day periods for, as past amendments dealing with that legislation dealing with the amount of time that must be used for background checks at gun shows where an individual is not a Federal firearms licensed dealer but is, in fact, a private seller. Congress has already spoken on those issues. But the administration does not want that discussion to be heard, does not want that discussion to be the legislative process. It wants to legislate through litigation. It wants to legislate through the coercive action of HUD, of the BATF and, in this particular case, the Justice Department. I would say that the discussion about what this is going to do for our children I think is made moot, is defied by the simple facts of our society today. And what we are led to believe that discussion is that this agreement will make firearms safer, will make the streets safer for our children really flies in the face of reality. And that is, if we take the tragic story earlier this year of a 6- year-old boy who went to school and killed his classmate, what we are led to believe by the opponents of this amendment, the proponents of legislation through litigation through the executive branch, is this, that when that little boy would take the gun that his father or those in the crack house where he was staying had stolen, that he would have been met on the way to school with that .32 caliber automatic firearm and, in a drug-induced stupor, his father would have said, Son, before you go to school with that firearm that we stole and you break six, eight, ten, a dozen Federal firearms laws by doing it, what you and I need to do is we need to go down and have a certified training course for that gun, for the use of that firearm, for the illegal use of that firearm. Mr. Chairman, that is not going to happen, obviously. But discussion earlier last week, I think, does define what is trying to be done in this agreement; and that is a statement that was made by one of our colleagues that said, quote, this amendment and the one that preceded it earlier regarding the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition are really unnecessary and they fly in the face of incremental and reasonable and common sense attempts to protect our children from guns. Obviously, that little 6-year-old girl that was killed was not secured from violence and this agreement and everything affiliated would not have stopped that from happening. But what is taking place is incremental gun control by actions of the executive branch implemented not only on dealers who deal in Smith & Wesson firearms but on every firearm that goes through their inventory. This is back-door gun control through coercion and through threat of litigation, and this Congress should not allow that to happen. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would address some points that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) made, and the first is the discussion of the slippery slope. She brings up a good point about reasonable cause for the Veterans' Administration for drugs from a particular drug company. No one could be opposed to that. But the analogy is not particularly complete in that, if one drug company would make that agreement with the Veterans' Administration, if the same philosophy would govern as does with the Smith & Wesson agreement, then every pharmacist that supplies that one drug would have to sell a similar drug or other drugs at a price dictated by the first drug company and the Veterans' Administration. That is what this agreement does. It makes not only the sale of Smith & Wesson firearms applicable to the provisions of this agreement, but this makes other non-signatory gun manufacturers open to this, as well. Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, said that the Department of Justice is not a party in this lawsuit, and he is absolutely correct. But, however, it would be the Department of Justice, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) pointed out, that would be the instrument that would bring the suit to Federal court on the part of HUD and the Treasury. So he is right. But this amendment is still necessary because it will be Justice that brings this to play. Now, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is right. This agreement would not have done anything to stop the tragedy nor to stop most tragedies dealing with violence against children, violent crimes. Because that is why we call them crimes. When they break the law, they commit a crime. And that is what happened in the first case with the incident that I discussed earlier. The gun was not purchased on the black market. Not many black market salesmen have guns that do background checks in the first place. But, secondly, even if this one particular black market gun dealer that my colleague points out would have done a background check, it would not have applied because it was stolen and it was reported as such, so this agreement would not have affected that particular situation at any point. Now, I would simply say that this is an agreement that is going to be carried out in a court of law, according to what has already been stated in The New York Times, if Smith & Wesson goes forward with their interpretation of the agreement. The Department of Justice would be the one to bring suit. And, so, if my colleague feels that Smith & Wesson has tried to do the right thing in this agreement, then she must vote for my amendment because she does not, in her own words, want to penalize Smith & Wesson by the Justice Department doing what they have already said they are going to do, and that is sue Smith & Wesson if Smith & Wesson does not do exactly what the Department of Justice, not Congress, says they should do in this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out a very important point, and that is that we should be doing what the American people want. The Framers of the Constitution had that very same thing in mind when they said that all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress; all policymaking power shall be given to a Congress. They did not give that power to make policy to the executive branch. They did not give it to the judicial branch. Here of late, the Supreme Court has forgotten that fact. They did not give it to bureaucrats, either. They gave it to the legislative branch, being the Congress. So by doing this amendment, we are doing exactly what the American people want. A vote later will determine that on this particular bill. Let me just remind my colleague from New York, the ranking member, that if he in fact believes that Smith & Wesson is doing the right thing by entering this agreement, and he does not want harm to come to Smith & Wesson, he should support my amendment because the Department of Justice is going to be the arm of the Federal Government that is going to be bringing this suit to court if Smith & Wesson goes against what the Department of Justice or HUD, I should say, or BATF does. It will be them. If one votes for this amendment, they will be saying hooray to Smith & Wesson; but if they do not, if they do not, then they will be saying that Smith & Wesson should be penalized for entering this agreement and not doing what the executive branch and the bureaucrats, that none of the employees of Smith & Wesson ever voted for, they will be doing what they want them to do and not according to what Smith & Wesson would have them to do. I ask for support of my amendment.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development from spending any Federal funds on the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition. This unauthorized program implemented by HUD could have adverse consequences on State and local law enforcement. According to HUD's press releases, coalition members sign a pledge and agree to show buying preferences to gun manufacturers who agree to impose gun control on themselves, their dealers and their customers. In other words, HUD and the communities signing these pledges are willing to sacrifice the requirements of law enforcement in order to coerce manufacturers into gun control agreements that they in turn impose upon their dealers and their customers. But you need not take my word for it. Two major law enforcement groups oppose these preferences. Let me share with Members a few of their comments. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, or LEAA, states this in their opposition to these preferences and I quote: ``LEAA disapproves of any attempt by the Clinton administration to strip law enforcement agencies of their right to choose the firearms for their officers. Each individual law enforcement agency is wholly qualified to decide the firearm manufacturers and models that they deem best suited for the needs of their officers. In fact, the individual law enforcement agencies are the most qualified to understand their particular needs. They do not need the Federal Government's partisan politics manipulating this or any other officer safety decisions made at the local level.'' The Fraternal Order of Police states: ``The top concern of any law enforcement agency purchasing firearms is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy. Law enforcement agencies have to stretch every dollar and they need to get the best weapons for their officers that their budget allows. Reducing their choices by imposing a requirement that they buy only from gunmakers who agree to certain HUD stipulations does not help the law enforcement mission.'' We cannot allow those who lay their lives on the line each and every day to go into the field with equipment ill-suited for their mission. We owe it to them to ensure that they have the best equipment they can afford without regard to HUD's end run around this legislature to legislate by litigation and coercion. I urge all Members to support my amendment and show their support for law enforcement. Do not allow HUD to overrule officer safety for the purpose of a political agenda. Support the ability of law enforcement to choose the best equipment for themselves. Vote yes on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on April 7 I joined with 62 other Members in a bipartisan fashion to write to the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies and the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations to ask that they prohibit HUD and the BATF from using taxpayers' money to implement a settlement agreement entered into between HUD and Smith & Wesson. As we said in our letter, this settlement agreement sets terms for the continued operation of Smith & Wesson that affect many retail customers and wholesale distributors. This agreement has been widely touted in the media as an agreement for Smith & Wesson to include trigger locks with the firearms they sell. In reality, however, this agreement is much, much more. This 22-page settlement agreement requires Smith & Wesson to implement gun control measures, and for Smith & Wesson to require their dealers to implement the same gun control measures. Smith & Wesson received in exchange HUD's promise not to sue. The last time I checked, Mr. Chairman, the Congress is the legislative body of the United States government. I suppose former Labor Secretary Robert Reich was prophetic in his statement in USA Today when he said in February of 1999, ``The era of big government may be over, but the era of regulation through litigation has just begun.'' Let me give a few examples of this new regulation, or, more properly defined as legislation, contained in this agreement. Keep in mind that this body did not agree to these provisions, and in some cases we have rejected similar provisions. Also keep in mind that in the agreement, Smith & Wesson agrees to bind all those dealers who wish to sell Smith & Wesson products to the restrictions in the agreement. In other words, Smith & Wesson dealers must include the following restrictions on all firearms sales, regardless of make. This includes Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Colt, and so on. In order to continue selling Smith & Wesson products, dealers must agree to, one, impose a 14-day waiting period on any purchaser who wants to buy more than one firearm; again, all makes. Did Congress authorize such a restriction? Two, transfer firearms only to individuals who have passed a certified safety examination or training course. Once again, all makes are covered. Did Congress authorize this restriction? Three, the agreement authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to sit on an oversight commission to enforce provisions of the coerced agreement. When did Congress authorize the BATF to enforce private civil settlement agreements? Four, this agreement requires the BATF or an agreed upon proofing entity to test firearms. Did we do this in this Congress? Five, the agreement mandates that Smith & Wesson commit 2 percent of their revenues to develop authorized user technology and within 36 months, not immediately, 36 months to incorporate this technology in all new firearm designs. I would say as an aside, with regard to the debate that happened concerning my previous amendment, some speaker said that this would happen immediately. But, in fact, the agreement says that 36 months from now this must happen. It appears HUD likes unfunded mandates. Did Congress authorize this unfunded mandate? I could go on and on, but time prevents me from doing so. What is the result of this legislation through litigation tactic employed by HUD? Well, a few days ago, Smith & Wesson announced that it would shut down two of its plants for a month, leaving 500 workers with an unscheduled vacation. But is this not really what HUD wants? We should not allow HUD to legislate through litigation. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, to take the power of legislation out of HUD's hands, and return it where the Constitution requires, the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Bartlett).