John Hostettler

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, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and the distinguished ranking member for allowing me to proceed out of order. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of taxpayers and concerned citizens in my district and across the country, to appeal to my colleagues to help me defend a wasteful bureaucracy. In addition, there is an even more basic principle at issue here that I will touch on in a moment. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to eliminate funding for AmeriCorps and its office of inspector general. Now before I go any further in explaining my amendment, I want to remind everyone in this Chamber of a very important fact. When the VA/ HUD appropriations bill came to the floor last year--it came without any funding for the AmeriCorps Program. In fact, the VA/HUD appropriations bill also passed the Senate-- without any funding for the AmeriCorps Program. It was only in the final omnibus appropriations bill, which was passed and signed into law, that we funded AmeriCorps. Let's not allow our appropriations bills to be held captive again in order to fund a program that goes against the best interests of this country's fiscal health and our children's future. I would also like to remind the Members in this Chamber and the American people, that when President Clinton signed into law the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, he created one of the largest so-called volunteer service bureaucracies in history--that is, AmeriCorps. Not only does this program compete with depression-era programs in size, it also competes with the Pentagon in examples of outrageous spending, such as $900 hammers, and the NEA in ludicrous granting of funds. AmeriCorps was founded upon President Clinton's idea of a new kind of public-private partnership--whereby the Government splits community service costs with the private sector. However, a 1995 GAO audit found that the agency received little support from the private sector, and instead relied heavily upon public support. Less than 12 percent of the program's per-participant costs were leveraged from the private sector. The remaining 88 percent, $309 million in 1994, was funded by the taxpayers. The same GAO report shows annual costs can range from about $22,200 to as high as $66,715 per participant. It isn't surprising then that the GAO audit finds volunteers working for Federal agencies cost the public an average of $31,000 each. I find it quite a paradox that we are paying individuals to volunteer for the Federal Government. I would also like to share with the rest of America what they don't always get to hear: That is, AmeriCorps promotes a politically correct agenda, earning it the name ``P.C. Corps'' by the Washington Monthly. Taxpayers may be shocked to know that AmeriCorps recruits volunteers such as former gang members and ex-convicts to engage in activities such as teaching sex education to children, providing HIV courses to sixth-graders, and using methods such as a soft-core porn novel to teach character development. Moreover, after my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, discovered in congressional hearings that much of AmeriCorps' books were unauditable, the House Opportunities Committee began to investigate. Oddly enough, the committee found a number of questionable grants, including a $400,000 grant to the AFL-CIO to provide financial management training to AmeriCorps grantees. And although the act which established the program clearly states that no funding or participant shall be used to directly benefit any partisan political organization, AmeriCorps has predictably funded liberal advocacy groups. I wonder if the people know that part of a $1.2 million grant to a local coalition in Denver was used to require AmeriCorps members to distribute campaign-related leaflets opposing a city councilman's re- election bid? Fortunately for the taxpayers, this grant was withdrawn after reports surfaced. Such flagrant use of taxpayers' dollars does not even take into account that AmeriCorps volunteers often can be seen at administration photo-ops and media events, bearing their now familiar grey AmeriCorps T-shirts and cheering for President Clinton and Vice President Gore. It's no wonder that the President supports this program, Mr. Chairman. But there is a larger issue at work here, too. How long do we allow the Federal Government to wrestle away the power of the people to join together out of civic virtue in order to meet our communities' needs? At what costs to society and liberty do we allow the Federal Government to demean the entire ideal of citizenship by paying workers to volunteer? My friend, Balint Vazsonyi says, ``The spirit of voluntarism is being choked by coercion.'' Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more. Our Government wants to replace active civic compassion with coercive community service programs. We need to support the kind of civic virtue that promotes private voluntarism--not the kind that is bought with Federal tax dollars by a government that crushes the spirit of citizenship and undermines the value of personal and civic responsibility. Finally, with soaring budget deficits and a more than $5 trillion national debt, I am standing up for the taxpayers who cannot support such a proposition any longer. I believe it was Representative Hoekstra who wrote in regard to AmeriCorps: ``Like many Washington programs, good intentions and bad philosophy equal wasted money and disappointing results.'' Mr. Chairman, AmeriCorps boils down to nothing more than a Federal jobs program. It must be eliminated on the basis of economics and principle. That is why I am asking all of my colleagues to support this amendment to eliminate AmeriCorps funding. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]. (Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to reduce across the board the VA-HUD appropriations bill by 1.9 percent. First of all, let me reiterate the fact that, in fact, we spend $121 million more on VA medical expenditures than we did over 1996 in this bill with the 1.9 percent cut, so that even with the reduction in spending, even with the savings for the next generation, we will increase VA medical expenses by $121 million. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment. My dad was a veteran and he served in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and was on his way into the South Pacific when he got the good news that World War II was over. But my father, who passed away earlier this year, never meant for that victory in World War II to result in a time when his grandchild, who is going to be born later this year, is going to have a $187,000 bill to pay in interest on the debt. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment, and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of all of the people in my district who repeatedly are left scratching their heads over some of the ridiculous things the Federal Government spends their tax dollars on. I am talking about the National Endowment for Humanities and I am in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, how, when faced with a $5 trillion national debt that continues to grow, can we continue to spend money on projects like these: Sex and gender in the middle ages, 1150-1450. This course received $135,000. Let me give a free lesson here and save the money--there were men--and there were women. The fact that we are here today lets us assume some of them had conjugal relations. Representation of gender and sexuality in opera. This course received $34,000. There's another hint: The sopranos are usually women. The bass voices are men--no charge. Here is another example of NEH handiwork. The organization decided to grant taxpayer dollars to fund a proposal by the National Center for History in the Schools. Here is some of what this proposal, which is part of Goals 2000, does: It has plenty of references to Madonna and MTV, but leaves out any mention of George Washington, D-day, the Moon landing and the Gettysburg Address. Diversity is the main theme of the standards, while liberty and prosperity are not even mentioned. A few years back, Madonna stayed in Evansville, which is in my district. She was filming ``A League of Their Own.'' Madonna decided to repay the city's hospitality by criticizing it apparently because it was not racy enough for her tastes. Not only does Madonna insult Evansville, she insults all standards of decency and good taste. Yet this NEH proposal mentions her more than George Washington. Historical standards that elevate Madonna over Thomas Edison present an inaccurate and distorted characterization of U.S. history. She should not be promoted at taxpayer expense, let alone at the expense of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Paul Revere. Our children deserve standards that instill in them a sense of their country's unique place in history, both as a model of freedom aspired to by peoples around the world and as a magnet for those seeking freedom and prosperity. There is nothing wrong with learning about mistakes of the past, but these standards would do nothing more than establish a revisionist history. And that is what the NEH is pushing, a revisionist ``I am sorry for being American'' world view. That is not what the taxpayers of this country want. We should do away with this liberal icon, dedicated to the proposition of promoting shallow pop culture and political correctness to the exclusion of substantive, foundational American history. Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt that these topics are of interest to some people, and I don't mean to belittle their academic interest, but this is the entire point. The means to determine the merit of such things is entirely subjective, so you have a situation where you are guaranteed to be spending taxpayer dollars on things that huge numbers of taxpayers want nothing to do with. When we have to make the tough decisions about how to deal with a more than $5 trillion national debt, we had better be able to see that places like this are where we must start. There are so many private foundations and other private donors who give money for worthy causes. If no one can be found who thinks a particular project is worthwhile, why should the U.S. taxpayer then have to pay for it? We need to be fiscally responsible. We need to balance the budget.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying I am not opposed to logging on public lands. I am not opposed to timber salvage. I think forestry-related industries are very important to our national and local economies. But as much as I am for these things, I am against corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman this country is still in the midst of a fiscal crisis. With more than $5 trillion in national debt, we, the elected representatives of this country, are charged with making the choices in priority that will bring the budget into balance. I know very well that these choices are not always popular. But Mr. Chairman, we simply must take stands if we are going to balance the budget--and we must, balance the budget. This amendment which I am helping offer is a simple solution to a somewhat convoluted Federal program. The amendment strikes $12 million in administrative funding and $30 million in purchaser credits through which the Forest Service subsidizes timber companies as they log on public lands. The subsidy, which of course really comes from the taxpayer, reimburses the companies after they build the necessary roads to harvest timber in national forests. Now, when a company harvests on privately owned land--they pay for the roads themselves, they pay for the land--and then they sell the product. Well, they get to sell the product they harvest on public land--and they do make a bid for the rights to harvest--but they get all of this help--$30 million of free lumber in 1997, to build the access roads. This is pure corporate welfare. These roads are not recreational or fire roads, because there are separate line items for these types of roads. And these are not existing roads--as the funding to maintain those is intentionally left alone by the amendment. Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in this amendment which would prohibit private companies from paying for their own roads should they wish. Some oppose this amendment by saying that if the amendment becomes law, companies may decide it is not fiscally prudent to build such roads. If this happens, I would ask on behalf of the taxpayers in my district, if the companies don't think it makes sense, why should the Federal Government be doing it? I help offer this amendment because we need to be diligent in rooting out this kind of spending, if we are to give the taxpayers of this country what, at the very minimum we should give them--a balanced budget. A vote for the amendment is a vote of fiscal responsibility, toward a balanced budget and against corporate welfare.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to severe thunderstorms, I was unavoidably detained and missed one recorded vote on May 21, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 180, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 436, a resolution providing the rule for consideration of H.R. 3415, a bill to repeal the 4.3 cent increase in transportation motor fuels excise tax. I request that this appear in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I thank Chairman Spence and the subcommittee chairman for their good work. Despite difficult fiscal times, this bill is evidence of a careful keeping of the constitutional duty to provide for defense--a duty which we all took an oath to fulfill. I am especially appreciative of the initiatives taken to improve the quality of life of our Armed Forces. The 3-percent pay raise--the 50-percent increase over the President's budget for housing allowance. The many additions for quality of life projects such as family housing, barracks, and child care facilities. These were all desperately needed by the men and women serving their country. I believe that a continued emphasis on quality of life is critical if we are to recruit and maintain a highly competent voluntary service. This bill obviously benefits those already serving. Less obvious, but equally important, by improving the quality of life of our Armed Forces we will continue to attract the very best to serve. The Armed Forces of the United States are the best in the world. This bill will help to keep it that way.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of preborn children. It has not, however, told us that Government has an obligation to provide this service. This amendment would obligate the United States to make sure abortion services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. It is the obligation that I believe the House soundly rejected last year on so many occasions, and for good reason we should reject it again. For example, despite the assurances from the other side, I believe it is hard to argue there is no subsidy of abortion by U.S. taxpayers in this case. There is a subsidy, though it may be indirect, because everything in our military medical systems is taxpayer-funded--from the doctor's and nurse's education and availability, to the electricity powering the facility's equipment, to the very building itself. In addition, abortion remains a very divisive practice, and allowing abortions to be performed on military installations would bring that discord and dissension right onto our military bases, complete with pickets and the like. I think that the core principle at issue today--whether the Government is obligated to provide a right--is a serious issue with significant ramifications. Does the freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment obligate the Federal Government to provide every interested American with a printing press? I think not. Congress has the clear responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the rules and regulations of the military. We must not make it the policy of the United States to use its military facilities to destroy an innocent preborn life. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this was national policy between 1973 through 1988. There were no abortion mills. There was no picketing. This was what the law was in this country, and it resumed again in 1993 through 1996. This is not a new policy. It goes back to what was policy under the Reagan administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, [Mr. Farr].

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my district, I missed two yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote on May 8, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows and request that these appear at the appropriate place in the record: I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 150, which ordered the previous question on House Resolution 416, a resolution to establish a Select Committee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the United States role in Iranian arms transfer to Croatia and Bosnia. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 151, on passage of House Resolution 416, a resolution to establish a Select Committee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the United States role in Iranian arms transfer to Croatia and Bosnia. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 152, on adoption of House Resolution 417 to provide amounts for the expenses of the Select Committee of the Committee on International Relations to investigate the United States role in Iranian arms transfer to Croatia and Bosnia.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, for this opportunity to celebrate the citizen soldier; the citizen soldier that goes to the very heart of America. The heart of the Reserves is the heart of true Americans, and I congratulate the Army Reserves on its formal 88th birthday. However, I think it is appropriate to note that the spirit which drives what we now call the Army Reserves is the spirit upon which America was founded over 200 years ago. When the British garrison at Boston marched against the Massachusetts provincial military stores at Concord on April 18, 1775, the citizen soldiers at the Massachusetts militia gathered together to drive them back into the city. These patriotic Americans realized that if they did not take it upon themselves, their values, faith, and livelihood were in jeopardy. Fortunately, since the time of the War of Independence, America has always had citizen soldiers ready to protect the liberty we value in America. The Reserves and National Guard are special. I do not want to detract from our professional active services. They are certainly needed, and we could not maintain our defenses without them. But I must confess that there is something special about America's Reserves and the Guard. There is something special about taking the butcher, the mechanic, the engineer, the pilot, men and women who would, in other times, be at home with their children, mowing the lawn and washing the car, and suddenly whisking them into action as needed by their country. There is something special about men and women who do not feel led to pursue the military as a career, but feel strongly enough about their country to be there when needed; people who agree, for modest benefit, to train on a regular basis and develop the necessary skills to operate today's modern war fighting machines. The Reserves and Guard are critical to America. The Reserves and the Guard are absolutely necessary if America is to maintain the level of security that we have been accustomed to. We simply cannot financially maintain our force structure without them. However, even if we could afford to maintain our defenses only with active forces, I am not so sure that this would be the best idea. We must allow Americans the opportunity to be able to stand up and be counted. We must allow them to say, ``I will be there if you need me.'' And frankly, under today's force structure we need them more than ever, which is perhaps our country's highest possible compliment to the Guard and Reserves. Thank God there are Americans who continue to volunteer. Tonight, I salute the Guard and Reserves. I also salute those employers who work so hard to enable their employees to serve. America would not be the same without them. I thank the gentleman again, Ron Lewis, for this opportunity to speak.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will yield, as we have discussed and debated the issue of the force structure drawdown for the active duty forces, one thing that I have notices is absent from all of this, and that is the fact that there are no complaints from the Reserve components of our national security system, no complaints about having to be more active, having to be more accessible, more available for our national security needs. I think that goes to the heart of the points the gentlemen have made, especially earlier in their comments, is that they do have this sense of duty to country, and even at a time when we are using them at the most elevated levels probably in their history, except for the Revolutionary War, there are no complaints. It is strictly, ``I will be there when I am called.''

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Sure does.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, today we are having a very controversial debate about where the truth in budgeting transportation funds really lies. I rise today in support of H.R. 842, The Truth in Budgeting Act. Every time you or I pull into a gas station and fill up our cars or pay a tax on an airline ticket, we are sending money to Washington to build new highways and maintain our current transportation systems. Decades ago, these transportation trust funds were established to collect taxes from transportation users and invest in transportation capital. Today, we find the transportation trust fund balance at $30 billion. The existence of this on-budget trust fund surplus only reinforces the public's belief that they are not getting an honest return for the taxes they pay to Washington. This issue is about tax fairness. Spending and investment in necessary transportation improvements has been held down to keep the balance of the trust fund artificially high in order to mask the true size of the deficit, this is just not honest. Those who pay into the trust fund should be able to count on those dollars going toward the purpose for which they were intended. H.R. 842 does not add to the deficit. According to a March 20, 1996 estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, taking programs off budget does not change total spending of the Federal Government and does not affect spending or revenue estimates for congressional scorekeeping purposes. H.R. 842 does not alter the transportation spending process. Congress will still have to approve every new dollar of trust fund spending. H.R. 842, however, does assure this: When a taxpayer back home pays gasoline or airline ticket tax to the Federal Government, he knows it is going towards building or improving our national transportation system.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a snow emergency in my district that began early March 19, 1996, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, until late evening on March 20, 1996. As a result of this unforeseen delay, I missed the vote on passage of House Concurrent Resolution 48. Had I been able to be here for these votes I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 70.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a snow emergency in my district that began early March 19, 1996, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, until late evening on March 20, 1996. As a result of this unforeseen delay, I missed a number of rollcall votes during consideration of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. Had I been here for these votes, I would have voted as follows: On roll No. 68, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 71, Beilenson, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll No. 72, McCollum, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll No. 73, Bryant, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 74, Velazquez, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll No. 75, Gallegly, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 76, Chabot, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 77, Gallegly, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll No. 78, Canady, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 79, Dreier, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a snow emergency in my district that began early March 19, 1996, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, until late evening on March 20, 1996. As a result of this unforeseen delay, I missed passage of H.R. 2937. Had I been able to be here for these votes I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 69.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I listened to a very impassioned speech from my office from my fellow colleague freshman from Rhode Island, and I had to come down and speak to the fact that I totally agree with one of the points that he made, and that is that this Congress must do what it can do to end these violent crimes in America. But that is just the point. What can this Congress do? Well, there are things that Congress can do, and there are things explicitly placed in our Constitution that speak of those things that Congress cannot do. Specifically, the second amendment to the Constitution, which says this, and I quote, ``A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' What this, what a majority in this House, did in 1994 and what this Government did in 1994 is did what the Constitution said it cannot do. It infringed on the right of people to keep and bear arms. Today I ask for my colleagues' support on this rule and on this bill so that we can undo what this Government did in 1994, what the Constitution said that it cannot do.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, there is truly historic reform in this bill. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Roberts, has succeeded in forming a system that will let the American farmer make his planting decisions based on the market and not on some convoluted formula hatched in a USDA basement office. This bill also recognizes the danger of making this transition too drastically and thus is patterned to let the producer make the switch in a responsible manner. So as a reformer, I support the bill and oppose this amendment. This amendment is about the status quo--and the status quo has done nothing but handcuff the American farmer in terms of the world market and in terms of running a sound business. I urge a no vote on the amendment and a yes vote on the Agricultural Market Transition Act.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dornan resolution. Article 1, section 8 clearly enumerates the powers of the U.S. Congress and it clearly lays forth the power of the Congress to make rules for the regulation and the government of land and naval forces. It speaks very limited to the power of the President as Commander in Chief. It is time to end the concession of this Congress to the executive branch in matters of policy as relates to the military. Support the Dornan language.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I rise today in strong support of this bill. It can be little doubted that proceeding in Bosnia is foolhardy. As I listened to members of this administration, there was no evidence that there is an imminent threat to any political economic institution of this country. Accordingly, many have turned to the Constitution to justify a no vote. I contend that the Constitution will not support such a vote. The Constitution has declared, and I quote from Article II, Sect. 2 that ``The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States.'' However, Article I, Sec. 8, of the Constitution places upon the Congress the following duties: ``To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water'' ``To raise and support armies . . .'' ``To provide and maintain a navy . . .'' ``To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces . . .'' My friends, how can we argue that to limit a planned endeavor of the armed forces is not within the powers granted to Congress. To do so is to give disregard to the express language of the Constitution in favor of an implied power that is largely the product of the Executive branch's own interpretations. Providing forces to the Balkans is an unnecessary endeavor. It is our constitutional duty to address this issue today. We must make the rule, today, that our forces will not be in the Balkans without express congressional approval--it is not in our national interest. This is independent of the terms of whatever peace agreement that may be wrought between the warring parties.