John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, my friends, can 3 inches really be our guide to death over live? Can 3 inches determine the definition of ``person'' under the 14th and 5th amendments? Have we become so hardened in our hearts that not even the killing of a child during birth can be recognized as wrong? It was not always so in America. At one point in our history, ``We held these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life * * *.'' God have mercy on us. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1833, the partial birth abortion ban.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to strike down the District of Columbia's so-called domestic partners ordinance, a misguided statute that Congress has blocked the District from implementing for the past 3 years. In fact, this city act has never been implemented, which is a critical point that needs to be made. It is time today to put this bad bill to a final rest and clear away this issue so the District and the Congress can begin building a more constructive relationship. Congress has never seen fit to appropriate $1 for this legislation, and act that seeks to provide health care and extend other legal benefits to domestic partners defined as those unmarried couples who are over 18 and who live together. Many, I'm sure, will oppose my amendment today, saying Congress is meddling in the District's matters. Or, even worse some my claim, Congress is meddling in a place where we never should venture: the bedroom. Perhaps there will also be a few here today who will castigate me for offering legislation based on what is the preferred over that many will say is the perverted. Such is the nature of our debate. I am offering legislation today to make an important public policy statement about families in our Nation's Capital, the very seat of our whole Nation's Federal Government. This legislation is not about extending health care benefits to the needy. I can guarantee you that there are an infinite number of ways that the city can do this without enacting a domestic partnership law. This amendment is about right and wrong, about the proper role of government in general and about the appropriate role of the Federal Government in involving itself in the affairs of the Nation's Capital. Supporters of my amendment seek to affirm the positive, not to cast stones at those engaging in alternative lifestyles. We seek to lift up and honor the family, not to put down and shame anyone who does not make a commitment to furthering the family. But let me address those opposed to my measure before I highlight the important public policy aspects of my amendment. First, striking down this statute, which Congress has thrice blocked from being implemented, is not meddling in the local government of the District of Columbia. Congress has a clear, express, unquestioned constitutional responsibility to direct the District of Columbia, the Federal City, especially if the passage and implementation of poor public policy is at hand. Yes, Congress passed home rule, and gave the District's local governing authority greater power to enact ordinances on matters where the Congress had otherwise been silent. But this body never gave up our authority, nor renounced our responsibility to oversee our Nation's Capital. On the contrary, we reserved those rights, as we needed to under the Constitution. The statute at issue today confirms the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution and the wise heads in a prior Congress which preserved this role for the Congress in Washington, DC. We have the right and the responsibility to act and that includes the repeal of any District act at any time. The District of Columbia is the Nation's Capital, the Federal City, our national government's seat. This seat cannot and should not be kidnaped by any group--of the left or right--to make political statement. We have the right and indeed I would argue we have the responsibility to act in this matter and strike down the Domestic Partners Act. Now while we are [[Page H 11657]] on the issue of the Constitution, I cannot forget to point out that during hearings that were held on this issue in 1992, a number of significant public policy issues were raised by many legal experts including the fact that this act quite possibly is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1994, which renders this act unconstitutional. Now other who oppose my measure will say I seek to inject congressional authority and oversight in a place it should never go-- the bedroom, They will again offer the well-worn phrases about consenting adults being able to engage in whatever consensual acts they wish. Well, I point out at the outset of this debate that this bill is not about sex. I know that admission will disappoint many; I can see stunned staffers looking up from their overheated word processors now as they prepared to defend sexual promiscuity and sexual orientation and sexual everything else. But that's the wrong speech. The issue before this Congress is whether we will allow the District to carry a statute on its book that allows a domestic partner, a person so vaguely defined that it can be a homosexual lover, a same-sex lover, a roommate, a member of one's extended family, a homeless person one invites into their abode, to enjoy health benefits and other legal rights by virtue of their so-called partnership with a District of Columbia government employee or any other individual for that matter. The problem with this act is the statement it makes about family, equating the support we give families as a society and as units of government with loosely affiliated partners. It equates the faithful familial ties that are the bedrock of our society's stability and the loving environment in which we rear the next generation with a roommate or a casual live-in lover or a down-on-their-luck friend who moves to get health benefits. Still others may rise today and say I am only disparaging gays and lesbians to satisfy a personal mean streak or to win political points at home with certain groups. This argument, too, misses the mark. My amendment seeks to lift up the positive, to value the valuable, to hold up the ideal. Government, I believe, has every right to uphold the ideal, to esteem, to value, to honor the best. Society, and society's tool of government, has a clear right and, indeed, a clear responsibility to encourage the preferred. We need to honor traditional families, which are the Nation's best hope for emotionally healthy and happy, well-adjusted citizens who can govern themselves and continue this experiment in self-government we call America. Government can give preference to the best for our people--the best by any standard, whether health indicators or happiness measures, without punishing or singling out the aberrant, the alternative, the less-than-best. We as a Congress must stand up and say that we are familiar with the social research, we are familiar with the findings of the caring professions and mental health, we know the conclusions of the health care workers. All point to the dire need in our Nation today for stable, two-parent loving families that will honor all family measures, especially their children. The DC statute denigrates that loving, sacrificial commitment by turning these relationships into a menu of economic goodies to be grabbed by simply going down to the Mayor's office and signing in. Living together? Come on down for health care and more. Shacking up? Then you need to sign up. This is hardly the basis of sound fiscal stewardship or enlightened public policy, which the American taxpayer and the American citizen can expect, especially from our Nation's Capital. But whether we agree with the misguided policy, the backhanded slap at the family cannot and should not be tolerated by this Congress. We have thrice blocked this poor piece of work. Today we need to kill it and put this issue behind this Congress for good. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the former fighter pilot and colleague of mine in the Committee on National Security.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would just like to reiterate the points that need to be made in consideration of this amendment. First of all, we have a constitutional obligation in this issue. Article I, section 8, clause 17, is that authority under which I am offering this amendment. Section 601 of the Home Rule Act further returns to the Constitution on Congress' ability to legislate here. Also, there is the issue of ERISA preemption. We are also considering the moral and legal erosion of the traditional family in this. We also must then point out, Mr. Chairman, that in all practical terms this legislation has never been implemented. This Congress has never appropriated $1 for the implementation of this legislation in this legislation's history, and so that must be reiterated. I would like to also point out, as I am, that there is something very wrong with a piece of legislation that says this, that a person may register a new domestic partner after a waiting period of only 6 months. Thereby, a person could feasibly put two domestic partners a year onto his or her health plan every year for the rest of his or her life. Mr. Chairman, I am coming up very soon now on 12 years of marriage. Marriage is an institution in this country that I believe needs to be edified and exalted, and our Congress should do its part. I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, while I come to the floor to express my overwhelming support for this reconciliation bill, I want to make a very important point. This debate today is about so much more than the nuts and bolts of achieving a balanced budget, about accusations that Republicans are giving a tax break to the wealthy or about irresponsible individuals calling an almost $2,000-per-person increase in Medicare, a spending cut. This is about doing what is right, what is decent, and what is required of us to do if our children and grandchildren and our parents have any chance of surviving the failure of past generations of lawmakers to exercise any kind of fiscal responsibility. This is plainly and simply the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, as I know when I sit down we are going to hear some remarks about those people in my district impacted by this bill, but these are from the same folks that said they were concerned about health care for the elderly but when faced with Medicare's imminent bankruptcy, they chose bankruptcy. We said we want to cut taxes for working families, but they did not. We said we want to balance the budget, but they did not. Mr. Chairman, I think it just goes to show that adage, you can fool the country once, shame on us, fool the country more than once, shame on those.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dornan amendment and in opposition to the DeLauro amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the Defense authorization bill passed earlier this year this Congress placed limits on the use of U.S. military facilities for the practice of abortion. We now face this very same issue in the context of appropriations. Those who oppose these limits argue that their position is simply a ``matter of fairness.'' Despite my questioning whether we can have any substantive discussion of fairness without including the preborn, and despite my profound disagreement with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Roe versus Wade decision, I want to concentrate on what I see as the real issue at hand. 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. The DeLauro amendment, I believe, would obligate the United States to make sure abortion services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. There are many reasons why we should not obligate the military to provide facilities and services for abortion. 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. I believe there is a subsidy, though it may be indirect, because everything in our military medical systems is taxpayer-funded--from the doctor's education and availability, to the electricity powering the facility's equipment, to the very building itself. In addition, abortion--while declared legal by the Supreme Court-- 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. Some would also argue that it is especially offensive to make the military--an institution dedicated to preserving innocent life by deterring aggression--the provider of a procedure that ends innocent life. While it is offensive, I think that the core principle at issue today--whether the Government is obligated to provide a right--goes beyond the unique circumstances of the military. The freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment, for example, does not obligate the Federal Government to provide every interested American with a printing press. Pushing this notion further, I ask, should we allow military facilities to be used for prostitution where it is otherwise legal? 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. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the Dornan amendment and against the DeLauro amendment. I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to the gentleman from Maryland's amendment to strike the very reasonable provision in this appropriations bill to restrict abortion coverage in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We have heard arguments that the prohibition to deny abortion insurance coverage to Federal employees would mean that Congress would violate a woman's right to choose an abortion. This is simply incorrect. Individuals who wish to purchase abortion insurance coverage are free to do so in the marketplace and individuals who wish to end the life of their unborn child can also do so, but at their own cost. Americans should not be required to subsidize abortion on demand. We are responsible for how we spend every tax dollar that the Federal Government collects from the American taxpayer. And from these tax dollars, the Federal Government currently contributes approximately 72 percent of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its employees. Thus, taxpayers pay a majority of the funds to purchase health insurance for the Federal civilian work force. This plan is not like any other health plan. This is the health benefits plan for the employees of the Federal Government and therefore, the American taxpayer needs to be considered as it is their money we are spending. This is not about discrimination, this is not about a woman's right to choose. This is about protecting American taxpayers from paying for something that violates their very core values and beliefs. I firmly believe that killing an unborn child cannot be compared to every other medical procedure. Unfortunately, ending a pregnancy by an elective abortion may be an option that is available to every woman in this country. This fact does not in any way require that the American taxpayer be forced to finance these morally objectionable procedures. This is not health care. I would contend that this is anything but and I urge you to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. Mr. Chairman, we who serve on the National Security Committee have placed limits on the use of U.S. military facilities to make it clear those facilities should not be used to provide abortions. Those who oppose these limits argue that their position is simply a matter of fairness. Despite my questioning whether we can have any discussion of fairness without including the preborn, and despite my profound disagreement with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Roe versus Wade decision, I want to concentrate on what I see as the real issue at hand. The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killings of preborn children. It has not, however, told us that government has an obligation to provide this service. The DeLauro amendment, I believe, obligates the United States to make sure abortion services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. There are many reasons why we should not obligate the military to provide facilities and services for abortion. 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. I believe there is a subsidy, though it may be indirect, because everything in our military medical systems is taxpayer-funded--from the doctor's education and availability, to the electricity powering the facility's equipment to the very building itself. In addition, abortion--while declared legal by the Supreme Court-- 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. Some would also argue that it is especially offensive to make the military--an institution dedicated to preserving innocent life by deterring aggression--the provider of a procedure that ends innocent life. While it is offensive, I see the true issue here to be whether Government has an obligation to provide a right declared by the Supreme Court to be embedded in the Constitution. I think not. In addition, Congress has the clear responsibility and right, as outlined in article 1, section 8, to provide for the rules and regulations of the military. But I think this general principle is true beyond the unique circumstances of the military. The freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment, for example, does not obligate the Federal Government to provide every interested American with a printing press. Pushing this notion further, I ask, should we allow military facilities to be used for prostitution where it is otherwise legal, such as Nevada or Thailand? I think not. It should not be the policy of the U.S. military to use those facilities to destroy an innocent preborn life. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against the DeLauro amendment, and urge all my colleagues to also vote against it.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Dellums- DeFazio amendment to this defense bill. The Constitution makes clear that it is the responsibility of Congress to provide for the defense of this Nation. Indeed, 6 of the 18 powers granted to Congress by article I, section 8, deal with the Congress' role in providing for national security. This, my friends, is the first and most important role of government. To me then, the question concerning ballistic missile defenses must be, ``Are such defenses necessary for the protection of our people?'' The hearings I have participated in the past 5 months allow me to state, with no reservation, that the answer is yes. According to the March 9, 1995, testimony of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, the director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, more than 25 countries possess or may be developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Today, more than 15 nations have ballistic missiles. By the year 2000, perhaps 20 nations will have them. Given our inability to guarantee that these missiles and weapons of mass destruction will be in safe, sane, hands, we have no choice but to deploy defenses against them. And the question that ultimately arises is this--``But Congressman, what does it cost?'' My answer is, what is it worth to protect us from global blackmail, terrorism, or a missile accident? What can we say to the next generation when they are held hostage by a foreign nation who claims to have a missile aimed at New York City or Evansville, IN? How can we live with [[Page H5953]] ourselves if Oakland, CA, or Sumter, SC, are blown away by the accidental launch of an ICBM? We have no choice. Our consciences and our constitutional duty demand that we defend America from missile threats as soon as is practical. Folks, the technology is there, it is up to us to use it. I urge the defeat of the Dellums amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of America's contract with our children. The gentleman from Wisconsin deserves a great deal of credit for bringing such an honest, aggressive, and thoughtful budget proposal to the floor. This resolution has it all and does it all. This is not an either or situation regarding the Committee on the Budget's version, but it is a real alternative for those of us that are willing to take that extra step toward fiscal responsibility. I admit, there are things in this budget with which I do not agree. While I support the concept of this resolution, I am concerned about the funding levels for national defense and what I believe is necessary to protect our country's borders, but this resolution is a tradeoff. The tradeoff is between committing an additional $600 billion to the national debt over the next 7 years, and no longer mortgaging the future of generations to come. The interest alone on this $600 billion amounts to over $40 billion in the year 2000. We could ignore the cries from those who claim this budget is unfair, and that we are mean spirited because we care about our children's future, and we should jump at the chance to balance the budget as soon as possible.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act reauthorization. We have a chance, with this bill, to provide a great amount of regulatory relief to the American farmer. Farmers depend on the land to make a living, so they are last ones who want to jeopardize ground water with poor ecological practices. But an out-of- control bureaucracy has caused nightmare after nightmare for farm families by implementing a ridiculous definition of wetlands that prohibits producers from farming or improving their property because of puddles in their fields. I am particularly distressed that the National Academy of Sciences would sacrifice sound science for the sake of partisan politics, as shown by the timing of their recent release on wetlands. I commend my colleague, Mr. Shuster, my colleague, Mr. Hayes, and all the others who had a role in providing this much-needed sanity. I urge my colleagues who are interested in getting the government out of the American farmer's way, to support H.R. 961. Oh, by the way, did you notice the Republicans just produced a balanced budget?

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon because Americans are overtaxed. Because of this, I support my colleague Mr. Archer's bill to lower taxes. There is a growing realization in this country that we cannot afford to operate on deficit budgets. We spend too much money primarily because we are involved, at the Federal level, in too many things. If we really want to control spending, we must come to grips with the fact that the Government is entirely too big. Day after day, special interest groups file through this city claiming that they understand the need to reduce Federal spending but that their program only costs a little relative to the size of the budget. This reminds me of the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers' boast that progress is being made regarding the size of the national debt as it relates to the national economy, while the national debt gets larger and larger and larger. These interest groups, and some of my colleagues, are missing the point. Government is too big. But the mindset that still has a formidable presence in Congress is to see how little in Federal spending we can get away with cutting. Oh, they say, the voters are really mad about the deficit and debt, so we'll have to cut some things, but maybe not too much. Even among Members who say they want a balanced budget, there seems to be a large group that isn't interested in cutting $1 more than needed to do this. The chief reason why there is resistance to cutting taxes, even among those who campaigned in favor of tax cuts, is that if you cut taxes, but are striving for a balanced budget, you have to cut spending that much more. The current argument against cutting taxes is that it is irresponsible to do so in the face of a $5 trillion national debt. My response is this: We have this debt not because of the tax rate but because of this body's insatiable lust for spending. What is irresponsible is for because we have developed a mindset that Uncle Sam has to do everything. I am willing to trade being called draconian and mean spirited by the liberal media and the liberals on the other side of the aisle in exchange for being about to tell my constituents that I voted to cut spending enough to balance the budget. I am willing to tell voters I voted to cut their taxes while at the same time voting for heavy spending cuts. I am willing to do this because I have come to a conclusion after 3 months in this city--the powers that be in this city--and I am not referring to Members of Congress--don't care about the taxpayers of my district. The powers that be in this city don't care about the future of my children. The powers that be in this city don't care about balancing the budget. The powers that be in this city only care about feeding their faces in the Federal trough. As a result, since the powers that be in this city have set their faces against the taxpayers in my district, against the future of my children and against balancing the budget and retiring the debt quickly, I am setting myself against them. So when you tell me that if we cut taxes that means we will have to cut spending that much more to balance the budget, my response is: ``That's the whole point.'' You have heard and will hear from our friends on the left that we're about to repeat the same cycle that brought massive deficits and debt in the 1980's. Let's look at what the Kemp-Roth tax cuts did and what happened to spending at the same time. Early in the 1980's, President Reagan delivered on his promise of deep, across-the-board tax cuts. Aside from the 20 million new jobs and the longest and largest uninterrupted economic recovery in postwar American history, the tax cuts brought 14 years of increased Federal revenues. Total Federal revenues went from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1993. Total individual income tax revenues went from $244 billion in 1980 to $509 billion in 1993. Congress cut taxes considerably and doubled Federal revenues. You can't blame increasing deficits and debt on something that caused revenues to double. So why did the deficit go up by 250 percent? Because during this same time period spending went up by $800 billion or 130 percent. The increase in spending was $200 billion greater than the increase in revenues caused by the tax cuts. That's why the deficit and the debt went up. Remember this when our friends on the left tell you that cutting taxes will increase the deficit. That's only true if we abrogate our responsibility to cut spending, and I'm not going to do that. Now, let's remember just what is being proposed here. The American Dream Restoration Act stated that families should receive a tax credit of $500 for each child under age 18. This credit is available to families earning up to $200,000. A segment of that credit is available to families earning up to $250,000. That there is an earnings limit at all is in itself a compromise. That there is an earnings limit at all--make no mistake about it-- constitutes redistribution of wealth, albeit on a small scale. The opponents of this bill say it is wrong to offer a tax credit to families earning up to $200,000. That means they believe it is OK to exclude these families, no matter how many children they might have, solely on the basis of the fact that they earn more money. Although these families are just as capable to taking the $500 or $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 and investing it or spending it, the mindset on the left says the Federal Government needs that money more and that those families do too well to qualify for tax relief. Now, this idea to sock it to the so-called rich is nothing new. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal quoted some IRS statistics showing that, in 1992, before the Clinton tax increase, households making more than $100,000 accounted for 3 percent of all tax returns but paid 39 percent of all Federal income taxes. The same editorial notes that households making more than $100,000 reported a total income of $858 billion, of which $512 billion remained after taxes and deductions. If each of those families was forced to pay everything past $100,000 in taxes, which everyone in this Chamber would agree is an asinine concept, the Government would have collected an additional $135 billion in tax revenues, less than half of the budget deficit that year. The point is that the effort to exclude families because they make more money is simply caving in to the shrill, yet baseless--the much- publicized yet anemic and the intimidating yet foolish cry from the left that the tax credit favors the rich. The fact is, those of us who know the tax cut package is good for the economy should have the courage to vote for a package that includes the provision to give a $500 per-child tax credit to families making up to $250,000, a 50- percent capital gains tax reduction, a front-loaded IRA, a repeal of the Clinton tax increase on social security benefits and an increase in deductions for small businesses. We can do this and balance the budget if we have the courage to cut spending and ignore the special interests that dominate this city.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, for the past 30 years in this country we have conducted a social experiment. More than $5 trillion has been spent on this experiment, aimed at exterminating poverty in the United States. Despite this massive outpouring of taxpayer dollars, poverty actually has increased. The people sitting in the coffee shops in Vincennes, IN, understand from this data that letting Washington, DC, handle it is a bad idea. The people on the job site in French Lick understand that taking more and more of their tax dollars is not only bad for them, but it does not help the people it is supposed to help. The people dropping off their kids at school in Chandler understand the local officials and other residents of communities have a far better perspective on dealing with the problems of the economically disadvantaged than do career bureaucrats in a Washington, DC, office. Washington, DC, does not have the answers; the people of the eighth District of Indiana and all the other districts in the U.S. do. This is why I am introducing an amendment calling for repeal of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and block granting cash to be used by the States for food assistance to the economically disadvantaged. Funding would be frozen at fiscal year 1995 levels, around $26.25 billion. This would bring a savings of $18.6 billion over current Congressional Budget Office baseline levels. The savings come from ending the individual entitlements status of the programs. The amendment also includes a work provision calling for able-bodied individuals who are under the age of 60 and who are not at home alone with a dependent child to work at least 32 hours each month. Only 5 percent of the grant funds can be used for administrative costs, meaning 95 percent of the funds go to food assistance. I signed the Contract With America, Mr. Chairman, not for political gain, but because I though the policies it espoused were good policies. This amendment returns to the original concept of H.R. 4, which included the block granting of food stamps. There are concerns raised by some about how well the States will administer the program. While I resist the temptation to answer this with ``They can't do any worse than has the federal government,'' I think the testimony from Ag Committee hearings, the track record of the Federal Government and the feeling of the public at large bear testament to the fact that it is time to give this program to the States--as the other committees have decided to do with many of the other programs. It seems we need to be reminded that the taxpayers providing funding for taxpayers' money, not money belonging to the Agriculture Committee or to the Congress or to the Federal Government. It belongs to the people. We should, therefore, take the administration of the program closer to the people. Governor Thompson and Governor Engler among others have shown just how innovative and effective welfare reform at the State level can be. I do not question the sincerity of my Republican colleagues' belief that they can reform the program at the Federal level, rather I sincerely disagree with the policy itself. Under Federal guidance, food stamp spending has increased nearly 300 percent since 1979. Today more than 28 million people in the United States receive food stamps. For true and comprehensive welfare reform to take place, we at the Federal level must let go and let the more local bodies of government-- along with the private sector responsibility. This is what has been done in much of this welfare reform bill, and this is what should be done with food stamps. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield en bloc half of my time to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 25, printed in House Report 104-85.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first state the reason why the Committee on Rules most probably ruled this amendment in order was given the fact the recent CNN-USA Today-Gallop Poll says that 60 percent of Americans believe the budget deficit should be cut by cutting food stamps. Not by reducing the increase in spending in food stamps, and not even by freezing the expenditures in food stamps as this amendment calls for, but by cutting food stamps. Sixty percent of Americans believe we have got to return to fiscal responsibility by reducing this program. In conclusion, the staff of Governor Pete Wilson of California contacted our office today and said that this amendment was vital to the total welfare reform that must happen on the State level. It gives the States the ability and the capability to have real welfare reform on the local level.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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