John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some comments that have been made by the other side in this argument, and that is that Congress should not micromanage local law enforcement. I would agree with that 100 percent, but neither should HUD, and that is exactly what is happening in this process; that is why this Congress is defunding the micromanagement of local law enforcement by HUD through this amendment. Secondly, the argument is made that Congress should not tie the hands of local government, and that is not what this amendment does either. This amendment merely states that Federal taxpayers will not give money to HUD to micromanage local law enforcement. We are not saying, for example, that if local government wishes to deprive their law enforcement personnel of the best equipment and, therefore, compromise the safety of their law enforcement officers and the public safety, they are more than welcome to do so, I just do not believe and I think a majority of this House does not believe that the Congress should be a party to that. Thirdly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) just spoke just said that as a result of this amendment, we are going to run Smith & Wesson out of business. It could not be further from the truth. In fact, Smith & Wesson will still be able to continue to compete and potentially win contracts. We simply do not believe there should be a preference in those contracts; and if Smith & Wesson does indeed have the best product at the best price, they will win these competitions and win these contracts. I would say to the gentleman with regard to that issue, if Smith & Wesson is the only company that enters into this type of agreement, which they are at this point, and they are the preferred contractor, what incentive will be there for Smith & Wesson to create a better quality product if there is no competition to obtain a higher quality product? Smith & Wesson could quite simply produce a much lower quality product as a result of a political agenda that is being forwarded and not the consideration of law enforcement safety and public safety. Smith & Wesson will get the agreement with the lower quality product. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a very common sensical amendment. I think the Law Enforcement Alliance of America believes the same thing. The Fraternal Order of Police believes this is common sensical, and I would ask the majority of the House to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the naming of this coalition, The Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, is simply a name given to it by an entity which seeks to forward a political agenda. If the truth be told, according to our correspondence from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the Fraternal Order of Police, that have written the Congress, a more appropriate name would probably be something like this, and I apologize for its length. It would probably be The Communities for Compromising Law Enforcement Personnel and Public Safety in Order to Forward a Political Agenda Coalition. That is what the true name of the coalition should be. We should not forward that political agenda and we should not run around with the intent of Congress by doing so. I would have to say I will be offering an amendment subsequent to this discussion, Amendment No. 25, that will actually talk about the Smith & Wesson agreement itself. We have heard a lot of discussion about the Smith & Wesson agreement, but this amendment is actually to stop HUD from creating this environment of preferences for purchase of firearms for local law enforcement. The gentleman talked about various issues that we should all commonly be opposed to, and he made some points; but some of the points that he made were a little bit outdated in that the gentleman from New Jersey said we should all be opposed to straw purchases. Straw purchases are actually in opposition to Federal law today; and, in fact, we know a young lady in connection to the Columbine tragedy actually made a straw purchase and broke the law as it stands today. So this agreement is not going to stop criminals that will break the law anyway. That is why we call them criminals. It will simply create an environment whereby local law enforcement agencies will feel compelled to purchase equipment that may or may not be in their best interests; and as a result of that, they may compromise not only the safety of their personnel, which is heinous enough, but it would also compromise the safety of the public at large. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, if there is retaliation that is going on as a result of the agreement that Smith & Wesson has taken place, if the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) would talk to his constituents, he would find out who it is doing that, and that is gun owners, gun purchasers, or his constituents who do not want Smith & Wesson to bring in more gun control through the back door by legislating through the executive branch. I would say with regard to the comment of the gentleman from Oregon about law enforcement, having the ability to use proper guns, I think the gentleman has probably seen the news clip of Governor Glendening's attempt to try to get a firearm to become unlocked so that the Governor could use it. The Governor was unable to do so. I am afraid it was very possible that a police officer would likewise run into similar situations on the job. Likewise, the gentleman from Oregon said that there is more regulation for a squirt gun than for the purchase of a real gun. Well, that is intriguing. My 3-year-old recently purchased a squirt gun. I should say his mother did. It was not a straw purchase. But his mother purchased a squirt gun for him. In doing so, my 3-year-old son did not have to fill out paperwork asking if he had committed a crime or if he was an alien of the United States of America. So I am not quite sure that that is accurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE 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, I respond to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) in her assertion that I do not understand what I am doing. I think I understand what I am doing perfectly well, and that is reasserting the Congress' authority under article I, section 1 of the Constitution; and that simply states that all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress. When HUD entered into the settlement agreement with Smith & Wesson, creating all these gun control measures that not only affect Smith & Wesson's relationship to its dealers and to its customers, but the relationship of all gun manufacturers, all retailers, all customers in every transaction, that it takes place in an authorized dealer of Smith & Wesson, they did take a back door to the legislative process. It is my desire, through this amendment, to once again reassert the legislative prerogative of this body; and that is to have the people's House determine what the legislation should be, what the direction of course should be in this policy-making arena, and not to allow unelected bureaucrats to do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would simply call to point that this is a very passionate debate that has taken place tonight, and that is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended to happen. They intended to have passionate debate on issues relating to things as important not only as the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed, but as well the ability for the legislative branch to maintain its prerogative to do just that, and that is to legislate. What this amendment will do is simply stop the legislative activity on the part of the administration in this one small particular area so that the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from New York, everyone else involved in this debate can have that passionate debate; and they can have that passionate debate based on the understanding of the Constitution, public safety, and all other things, separation of powers, Federalism and all that, according to what the legislation should be and what their elected representatives should do. These people in HUD, the BATF, they are there to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. They are not there to faithfully create the laws of the United States. That is what they did in this agreement. Mr. Chairman, I simply ask for Congress to once again assert our legislative prerogative. Defund this agreement. And if the other side wants to create another debate about gun control, they can do that. But that should happen in the halls of this building, the Congress, and not behind closed doors in the bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, why are we considering this legislation today? How is the offering of prayer at a football game unconstitutional? The root of this debate can be traced to 1962 when the Supreme Court opined in Engel versus Vitale that, quote, State- sponsored, end quote, prayer was unconstitutional. Why? Because the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment had erected a wall of separation between church and State and that that wall had been applied to the individual States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. Where did that logic come from? It was a line of reasoning that was expounded by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 when he stated, quote, my study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment and the expression of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that the provision of the amendment's first section were intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States, end quote. Today, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to rehash all of Justice Black's research. Fortunately, all that is necessary today is to ask a simple question: What was so apparent in the justice's research that escaped the knowledge of people who actually voted on the Fourteenth Amendment itself? The Blaine amendment was an amendment to the Constitution that was introduced in 1875 by Representative James Blaine of Maine and it would have become the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It was introduced and it stated in relevant part, quote, no State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Speaker, if the Congress at that time believed that the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States, why was this amendment even brought up for consideration? The question is, would it not have been the main reason for dismissing the amendment the fact that it was unnecessary, given the fact that the Blaine amendment was introduced 8 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment? In fact, in the 44th Congress that considered the Blaine amendment, 15 Senators had been Members of the 39th Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and 12 others had participated in the ratification or rejection of this amendment by the State legislatures. Likewise, 50 Members of the House of Representatives had similar backgrounds. In fact, Mr. Blaine voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply the Bill of Rights to the States and if we do not want any more thorough exercise of this we can simply go to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution that says this: Additionally, the first clause of the proposed amendment provided that no State shall make any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is an indication, says the Encyclopedia of the U.S. Constitution, that Congress did not believe in 1876 that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, incorporated the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say amen and ask for consideration and approval of the resolution.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding me additional time. Just simplifying, the gentleman was unsure of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Congress that adopted it, in that section 5 they said the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Therefore, they did not believe the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and so they gave themselves the capability to, by statute, enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and grant all of us the liberties we so greatly enjoy at this time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, that preserves the rights of all women, both born and unborn. In the famous book Animal Farm, the elitist pigs state, ``All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.'' Unfortunately, this doctrine has been applied in our laws for too long, especially in regards to the unborn and their legal status before the law. H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, gives unborn victims of violent Federal crimes equal legal status and protection just like any other victim. The bill says a person, no matter the stage of development, should receive equal protection of the law. It is that simple: Equal protection under the law. This echoes the principles that lay at the very foundation of our constitutional government: That is that all of us are equal. Those opposed to this bill say, ``No, not in this case. We cannot provide equal protection to an unborn person in the womb, because they may not be a person.'' Well, we have already heard the tragic story of Jasmine Robbins. The law can punish the criminal for beating of the woman but not for the death of the unborn child in her womb. This is not fair. This is not right. Some have concluded that since the Supreme Court has determined that, ``fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment,'' that the case is closed. However, we are a government of laws, not the arbitrary decisions of men. Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court made that fateful statement. Then, 10 years ago, the Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares, ``The life of each human being begins at conception.'' Furthermore, we are a government where even the smallest in our society is allowed to rise and say the majority is wrong. The smallest in this case are the pre-born children in their mother's womb. Let us not turn our backs on these principles. Let us do our jobs by stating that the laws apply to all people, all women, born and unborn.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the debate in my office, I could not help but realize that there are times when students all across the United States tune in to C-Span, and not only students in school but individuals tune in to find out how their government operates, even to learn a little bit about constitutional issues, and how constitutionally the branches should operate, sometimes referred to as co-equal, discussions of separation of powers, and the like. I find it intriguing that in many of these discussions and debates there are a great many people that rely on the opinion of the Supreme Court, somehow giving the inference to those who view and those who want to learn a little something about government when they view C-Span to believe that the Supreme Court guides the decisionmaking of the United States House of Representatives or United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is a very intriguing doctrine. It is one that I know is stressed in many law schools. However, I am not an attorney, I am not a lawyer. I do not really know a lot about what Supreme Court Justices have said in the past about the Constitution. All I know is what the Constitution says. We have to go back from time to time and actually read the Constitution, which the Framers made very simple so that an individual that was not a trained attorney could realize just what in fact the government was recognizing as rights, for example, in the Bill of Rights. This is so prevalent in days gone by that Congress and the President have not felt the need or an obligation to give in to the wills and whims of whoever may be sitting on the Supreme Court, in that President Jackson, in his veto message regarding the creation of the Bank of United States on July 10, 1832, spoke directly about this issue of what Congress or the President should do with regard to the opinion or decision of the Supreme Court, when he said, ``Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others,'' for example, the Supreme Court. ``The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the executive.'' Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on quoting from people who actually knew what the Constitution says, and were not necessarily impressed by the opinions of another branch of the Federal Government. What I want to say in conclusion is that the gentleman from California has offered a great deal to the debate on the Constitution itself, and specifically the Second Amendment. I believe his motion to instruct is reasonable, rational, and bottom line, constitutional. I thank him for doing it. Point of Order

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1691. I would like to say that I am pleased to be submitting these remarks, but I am not. I know that the drafters and supporters of the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) share many of my beliefs about faith, government, and the Constitution, and it is not often that I find myself in disagreement with their views. But on one major RLPA issue, my conscience convicts me that in trying to right what many perceive to be wrong, Congress today is taking a major constitutional step in a dangerous direction--a constitutional step that I cannot in good faith support. It is a constitutional step that I believe may well undermine the protections for religious freedom under which Americans have prospered for over two hundred years. Today, because of a disagreement with the Supreme Court of the United States, and in keeping in line with the myth of the Court's supremacy over the other branches of government, we are seeking to change the nature of our right to the free exercise of religion. We are seeking to re-write our liberty. Because the Supreme Court has boxed Congress in, Congress is choosing to fight for the moment, Congress is trying to find any basis, whatsoever, to strike a blow for religious liberty. But we must not move in haste. Such haste may lead to unintended consequences. For as this legislation is drafted, one issue we are going to address, what is really being raised as an issue, is whether the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion will be a fundamental right protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, or merely an element of interstate commerce, which is not a right at all. This is not insignificant. By relegating religious liberty to Congress' power to regulate commerce, as the RLPA does, Congress may be opening the future to the end of liberty as we have been privileged to know it. Yes, some are burdened by the Supreme Court's treatment of the free exercise clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. I am not unsympathetic to believers who are suffering for their faith. But we must also consider the future ramifications of our actions. This future may well entail debates focused not on the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion, but on something that is not a right at all. That something is Congress' simple power to, and I quote from the Constitution: ``regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.'' In form, the argument today is not new. It is a form of the age-old question of whether the end justifies the means. While one might struggle with whether the end justifies the means, we must not ignore that the end will always, in some manner, reflect the means. This is especially true when we are determining the constitutional basis for our actions. We must today pause and ask ourselves, will our children and grandchildren, even to the fourth generation, look back at this day and say: There was the beginning of the end. There was the day when Congress--though well intentioned--cheapened our liberties. There was the day when Congress ceded the moral and intellectual argument that there is a fundamental right, independent of incidental affects on commerce, independent of what a particular congress might define as commerce, a right which our founders' cherished so much that they set it forth separately in our Bill of Rights. No, I do not relish being here today opposing my friends. But what we are doing today is wrong and I cannot simply turn my head. It does not matter that Congress has used the commerce clause in unprincipled ways in the past. It does not matter that we have been unable to come to an agreement as to how to proceed in light of the Court's rulings. Truth is truth. The free exercise of religion is a right, not because of any possible connection to commerce, but because it is a right given by our Creator. Our founders wisely sought to give special protection to these rights. Today, I fear that we are ignoring this wisdom for merely short term, but by no means permanent, gratification. I hope that my fears will not be realized.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, for four centuries, in different forms and on different days, during prosperous times and times of crisis, Americans have set aside days to give thanks to God or seek his will. The Pilgrims did so in Plymouth in the early 17th century. The Continental Congress issued proclamations of public thanksgiving in 1777 and 1780. On June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin called for daily prayers as the delegates convened. Quote, the longer I live, said Franklin, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that, quote, except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it, unquote. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages, end quote. George Washington called for days of prayer and thanksgiving while general of the Continental Army and while president of the United States. John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson issued proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving while serving as State governors. In 1863, in the middle of a destructive Civil War and shortly after the death of his second son, President Abraham Lincoln recognized the merciful hand of God in his life and in the life of his Nation. On October 3, Lincoln issued a formal proclamation passed by an act of Congress, initiating the First Annual National Day of Thanksgiving. While acknowledging the hardships caused by the Civil War, Lincoln chose to focus on the blessings bestowed by God. Quote, the year that is drawing towards a close, Lincoln wrote of the bloodiest year in American history, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. After listing those bounties, Lincoln's proclamation continued: No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people, end quote. The list goes on and on, but a single theme emerges. Throughout our Nation's history, Americans and their elected representatives have made it a priority to set aside days to acknowledge God's goodness, thank Him for His many blessings and seek His will. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the resolution of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, I do.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. It was earlier this year.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. This is a concurring resolution to ask for a day for the whole country once again to set aside prayer and thanksgiving and fasting.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage in a colloquy on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman's amendment includes language to alter the current definition of safety device. Specifically, the amendment modifies the definition by adding a new subparagraph which states, ``A device that is easily removable from a firearm and that, if removed from a firearm, is designed to prevent the discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have access to the device.'' Saf-T-Hammer and other companies across the country are currently developing cutting-edge technology that provides gun owners added safety through a more easy-to-use device. This device renders the gun inoperable when the top of the hammer is removed. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the changes to the definition of safety device included in this amendment will provide greater clarification to include devices such as Saf-T-Hammer as ``safety devices'' under Federal law?

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress has the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District, as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States. This section of the Constitution is not hard to understand. The words ``exclusive'' and ``all'' are hardly vague and ambiguous. The fundamental right guaranteed in the Second Amendment is a right of all United States citizens, including those who find themselves in the district. How can anyone rationally argue that the District of Columbia ban has rid this city of guns? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) correctly argues that, as the crime rate goes down nationally, Washington, D.C. continues to be a bastion of violence. Criminals know where the largest population of helpless victims reside. Let us make sure that they do not think it is in Washington, D.C.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply make a clarification of some statements that were made earlier. That is that the Congress of the United States does not have the authority to speak on the constitutionality of issues, but rather that must be left in the hands of the Supreme Court. I would simply remind my colleagues of the oath of office that each Member takes. That is, that I, name of Member, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God. At no time here does this say that Members of Congress will in fact support and defend the Constitution according to what the United States Supreme Court or any other Federal court says. Secondly, the issue has been brought up with regard to the 1803 decision of Marbury vs. Madison, but as Lewis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service reminds us, Chief Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury represents what many regard as the definitive basis for judicial review over congressional and presidential actions, but Marshall's opinion stands for a much more modest claim. In fact, the specialist goes on to say that ``Marshall and the Supreme Court did not require Jefferson to actually seat the magistrate in question, not because of any constitutional problems, but because they simply realized that Jefferson and Madison would simply disregard their writ.'' As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted, the court could stand hard blows but not ridicule, and the ale houses would rock with hilarious laughter had Marshall issued a mandamus that the Jefferson administration ignored. Please support the gentleman's amendment.