[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10513-H10519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ROCKFORD RESCUE MISSION: BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER TO SOLVE 
                           COMMUNITY PROBLEMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meyers of Kansas). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today 
to praise the efforts of the Rockford Rescue Mission in their winning 
fight against homelessness, addiction, and poverty. For more than 30 
years, the Rockford Rescue Mission has provided food, shelter, job 
training, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation to the most needy in the 
Rockford community.
  In 1964, Mr. Stewart, a recovering alcoholic, recognized that there 
were a number of men in downtown Rockford who were either alcoholic, 
unemployed,

[[Page H10514]]

undereducated, lacking direction, or a combination of these. Mr. 
Stewart saw that these men congregated in relatively the same area and 
felt that there had to be some way to reach them and help them find 
direction back to being contributing members of the community.
  With just $9.63, Stewart rented a small building on Kishwaukee 
Street, and the Rockford Rescue Mission was born. He took in the 
homeless. He fed them, gave them a place to rest, and helped in every 
way he could to see these men back to being part of the community 
instead of wayward outcasts.
  Mr. Stewart asked his pastor and his wife, the Reverend Gerald and 
Nadine Pitney, to take over the directorship of the Mission. Reverend 
and Mrs. Pitney agreed and began a life-long, family commitment to 
serving and helping the poorest of the poor in the city. The Mission 
started small, serving only a few single men needing food and shelter.
  Over the years, the needs of the Rockford community changed. More and 
more women and families needed help and direction. As these demands 
developed, the volunteers and limited staff worked tirelessly to expand 
the facilities and types of assistance they offered to meet Rockford's 
growing needs. Today, under the leadership of the Reverend Perry Pitney 
(the son of the Reverend Gerald and Nadine Pitney), the Rockford Rescue 
Mission is continuing its efforts to adjust to the changing needs of 
the community.

  Reverend Perry Pitney, recognizing that the needs of Rockford's 
homeless have changed dramatically since the Mission first opened, 
stated, ``The reality of who the homeless are has changed dramatically 
over the past few years. The idea of old, alcoholic male drifters 
passing through a community is now a proven myth. Homelessness is a 
local issue and must be dealt with locally.''
  The needs of the homeless in the Rockford community continue to grow. 
In 1995, the Rockford Rescue Mission served over 80,000 meals, housed 
over 18,000 people, and gave away over 87,000 food items, clothing, and 
household necessities. Now the Rockford Rescue Mission is looking to 
triple its size. In doing so, they will expand their programs for 
outreach into the community. The current facilities cannot keep up with 
the overwhelming number of people searching for a place to begin again. 
The Rockford Rescue Mission is dedicated to the future of Rockford and 
is committed to keeping its doors open to everyone seeking help.
  The staff of the Mission wants Rockford to continue being a city of 
hope. The expansion of facilities and services will help supply the 
tools necessary to fight a winning battle against homelessness and 
poverty. This is a picture of what some of their new facilities will 
look like.
  Homelessness, poverty, substance abuse, and unemployment are not 
problems unique to Rockford, Illinois. Nearly every community in this 
nation faces these problems. Clearly, our communities are all searching 
for workable solutions to help those of our neighbors looking to start 
over. The Rockford Rescue Mission has set itself apart as a model of 
compassion with real results.
  Help: that is what the Rockford Rescue Mission is all about. 
Compassion: that is what drives the staff and volunteers to commit 
themselves to the betterment of the futures of men, women, and families 
in need. In turn, the entire Rockford community will have a better 
future.
  I come to the floor of the House today to congratulate the Rockford 
Rescue Mission for more than three decades of service to people. In the 
best traditions of the United States, they have lived and taught 
compassion. They are expanding their efforts to reach more people. They 
have started work on renovating two buildings which will provide space 
for a thrift shop, the Helping Hand program, emergency services for 
men, women, and families, and a men's recovery program. The Mission 
realizes that programs to help children must be stepped up, curbing 
gang participation and violence. The Mission realizes that the cycle of 
poverty and homelessness is often perpetuated generation after 
generation. Reaching the children and breaking that cycle is of 
paramount importance.
  Too many organizations today say, ``All we need is more government 
money, more Federal grants, and we can accomplish the task.'' But 
Rockford Rescue Mission has accomplished all this without any 
government money. They did it on their own, meeting their obligations 
through donations from individuals, churches, and businesses. They have 
succeeded in helping the Rockville community by involving the Rockford 
community. The Rockford Rescue Mission has done more to fight poverty 
and homelessness than most government programs. Why? Remember what 
Reverend Pitney said, ``Homelessness is a local issue and must be dealt 
with locally.''
  The Rockford Rescue Mission on South Madison Street in Rockford, IL 
has provided day to day survival assistance for three decades. Their 
philosophy is to help ``All whom we can, in all ways we can, as long as 
ever we can.'' Day after day for 30 years, the Rockford Rescue Mission 
has helped the neediest of the needy with no questions asked. The 
Rockford Rescue Mission has helped find food, shelter, clothing, and 
guidance for the homeless, the battered, the addicted, and the hungry.


                           judicial taxation

  Madam Speaker, we hear over and over how the Government must spend 
more money here and there. Who is the government? Is it us, here in 
Congress? Is it the bureaucrats inside the beltway? No. It is the 
average American person.
  Who is the average American? The average American is the one who gets 
up at the crack of dawn fixes the childrens' breakfast, reads the 
morning paper, takes the dog out for a walk, kisses the spouse good-bye 
as one and in many cases both leave for work.
  The average American goes to work to support the family, pay the 
bills, maybe sometime save enough to buy something new, or go on 
vacation. The average American wants a good life, and strives hard for 
it. The average American is competitive and wants to get ahead; no 
doubt wants America to get ahead.
  So, I ask again, who is the government? My colleagues, the Government 
is the people--the average American person, who puts in a hard day's 
work.
  But in today's society, as I alluded to a moment ago, it is becoming 
the norm--in a two parent household--that both parents must work to 
make ends meet.
  Each person must work about a third of the day or more in order to 
cover the costs that each government (local, State and Federal) 
requires in order to operate.
  Is it any wonder that Americans are upset when their government 
simply suggests that more money will take care of a problem; that more 
money is going to solve an inconsistency?
  I want to take some time tonight to explain what is happening in a 
school district in Rockford, IL.
  People living in Public School District 205 are dismayed over the 
sharp increase in their property taxes as a result of a Federal court 
remedy in a disegration lawsuit against the school district. The 
compliants I have received from people include the fact that taxpayers 
are funding millions of dollars for a school master, attorney's fees, 
consultants, etc., while seeing little money going to educate their 
children. They complain, and rightly so, that huge spikes in real 
estate taxes are making homes in Rockford very difficult to sell. 
Seniors have advised me they can barely pay the taxes on their homes. 
This situation with the Rockford schools is dividing and devastating 
the city.
  Rockford is not the only community affected by judicial taxation. 
There are numerous school districts having the same problems we are. 
The Federal judge in Kansas City, MO ordered taxes increased and spent 
over $1 billion, and there has been little improvement in the school 
system or with regards to desegregation numbers. Lawyers, masters, and 
consultants have been the beneficiaries of these court orders while the 
children's education has seen little improvement.
  The people of Rockford continue to be placed in a situation where the 
Federal court enters remedies to be paid for with a checkbook that has 
no limits.
  I know many of the people in the city of Rockford. They are not 
segregationists. They are concerned Americans. They are concerned about 
their neighbors. They are concerned about the

[[Page H10515]]

quality of their schools and their children's education. But they are 
also concerned about making it through life. They are concerned about 
their living expenses. They are concerned about making ends meet. They 
are concerned about putting food on the table. They are concerned 
average Americans.

  But, a law suit is filed. A judge makes a finding that there is not 
racial equality. The first thing that is needed--money. Money will 
solve the problem, so we need to raise capital in order to bring about 
equity.
  Isn't anyone asking or wondering--Is there another way? What happens 
when the people are tapped out?
  What about all of the additional daily expenses: other taxes, bills, 
food on the table?
  I want to discuss constitutional authority and the expense of taxes 
for a moment.
  The Constitution is the document that grants the authority to 
Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. Nowhere within that 
document does it say that anyone at the Federal level of government 
other than Congress can institute a tax increase, period. That's what 
it says, that's what it should mean.
  But, a Federal judge, practically anywhere across the Nation, still 
will continue such tax mandates from on high. The people who are 
affected still will have to pony up expenses, whether they be to pay 
for the judicially imposed taxes, or to fight the imposition in court--
which again takes money.
  Judicial taxation is not, however, limited to school districts. 
Federal judges have ordered tax increases to build public housing and 
expand jails. Any State or local government is subject to such rulings 
from the Federal courts.
  Now, are we seeing a pattern here? Does it really take more money to 
resolve a problem?
  The Federal Government needs more money; so, it raises taxes. We've 
seen it done, several times over the past 20 years. Yes, we've seen in 
both Democrat and Republican administrations. We have seen it twice in 
the 1990's. Most recently, we had the largest tax increase in the 
history of this Nation--the $268 billion Clinton tax increase--to pay 
down the deficit and bring down the debt. Guess what, spending has 
continued to rise. The debt has continued to increase to over $5.1 
trillion. That is a lot of money.
  Remember that State governments still must operate. That costs money. 
Local governments need money to operate.
  Now, in addition to all of that, we have a situation in which a 
Federal judge orders a community to pay more for something that is not 
necessarily their fault. Whether it be for a new jail--because of 
overcrowding, or to build a new school--because the ones that were 
closed down were not good enough. Remedies are necessary, but we must 
always examine the costs.
  American parents, Rockford citizens, have always been concerned about 
the economic well-being and competitiveness of their children. No one 
has a greater stake in good jobs at good wages than do the parents who 
nurture and support their children. This will not change.
  Parents know that excellent schools exist all over America. These 
schools often excel in spite of, not because of, out-of-State 
administrators or Federal judges. Parents ordinarily seek out schools 
that are friendly, familiar, and near. In so doing, they help create a 
sense of the school as a community dedicated to learning.
  Researchers have found this sense of community to be an indispensable 
factor in academic success. Yet it is precisely this community that 
will be lost if the impact of un-democratically raised taxes continues 
this upward fashion.

  Well, in school district 205--this Federal judge's order is tearing 
the community apart. People are fleeing the community because they 
don't have the money to pay for the extra expenses. I say again--the 
situation in Rockford, IL, is dividing the devastating the city.
  Even Bill Clinton stated in his acceptance speech at the 1992 
Democratic National Convention, ``governments do not raise children--
parents do.''
  If we are to take this seriously, that government cannot buy love and 
equality for children any more than money can buy happiness for adults, 
we must remember the forgotten American.
  We are currently entering into a debate on reforming the Federal Tax 
Code. We will be studying the impact of Federal tax policy on personal 
savings and spending, the impact on State and local governments, as 
well as the overall effect on the economy.
  One additional area that Congress needs to address is the impact 
judicial mandates and taxes on State and local governments. Actions by 
Federal judges that directly or indirectly force a State or local 
government to raise taxes have had serious impacts on our Nation's 
economy. In many cases, remedy decisions have forced State and local 
governments to increase taxes, putting more pressure on take home pay 
or affecting property values.
  Everywhere you look, someone is getting taxes for this or that 
reason. A nickel here, a nickel there, doesn't seem like much. Now, 
multiply that out, over the long term. Before long, it adds up to $50 
here, $50 there. Not much, some say. Guess what? It is a lot of money.
  The forgotten American pays every single day--the one who gets up at 
the crack of dawn. Members here in Congress have the task to check the 
spending.
  I have introduced legislation which places very strict limitations on 
the power of a Federal court to increase taxes for purposes of carrying 
out a judicial order.
  This legislation is not about desegregation or any other decision 
where a Federal law has been broken. It is about taxpayers paying for 
Federal court remedies involving the raising of taxes without the 
permission of the taxpayers--this is taxation without representation. 
The remedy should be tempered by the community's ability to pay for it, 
without raising taxes.
  If the school board, municipality, or State government feels that 
taxes have to be raised, then it should go to the people and ask for an 
increase. Otherwise, the school board should work within its mans. 
There is no such thing as a school district dollar just as there is no 
such thing as a Federal tax dollar. The money belongs to the people. 
Judicial taxation is a back door method to take people's hard earned 
money without representation.
  I am not criticizing Federal judges. Our judges are honorable people. 
But a judge works within the parameters of the laws available to him or 
her. The purpose of my legislation is to make it very difficult for a 
Federal judge, who is an unelected official, to raise taxes, and 
therefore press him or her to work within the budgetary constraints of 
the State or local government.
  Any lasting result that could come out of a judge's remedy decision 
must come from the community and must have the people behind it. There 
has been no success in cases where judicial mandates alone act as the 
remedy. As I mentioned before, there are many people who are willing to 
make a positive contribution to solving these problems. By relieving 
the State and local governments of the burden of judicial taxation, the 
people of a State, city, or school district will be able to step 
forward and be part of a solution that is best for the community.

  Let me be explicitly clear that I am not talking about whatever 
remedies are made by the court. I am talking about how to pay for 
whatever remedy results from any decision. That is where Congress can 
have input into this area. I take no position on what remedial actions 
may be enacted--that is a matter of the elected officials on the State 
and local level, but I am constrained to take a position on how those 
remedies are funded. This becomes a Federal function because this is a 
Federal judge applying Federal and constitutional law.
  Congress must act on tax reform in all areas. The power of unchecked 
taxation is a very serious threat to our system of government, it is a 
threat to the average American who is trying to make ends meet.
  Government--every single one of us--cannot continue to stand idly by 
and watch the tax dollars be raised and spent unchecked. We have an 
obligation, as the guardians of the Federal purse, to make sure that 
the money of the forgotten American is spent wisely.
  Because we must remember how hard the average American, the forgotten 
American has to work in order to pay

[[Page H10516]]

for the bed where he or she sleeps, pay for the food and coffee they 
eat and drink for breakfast, pay for the food that they pack for their 
kids' lunches, pay for the gas to power the car that they must buy, and 
go to work and come home to the house that must be paid for. This is 
the forgotten American who pays, not only for the bills in everyday 
life, but for the tax bills that run the American Government. It is for 
these people that we, ourselves, must work hard to make sure that each 
and every tax dollar is raised and spent correctly and wisely.
  The time for reform is now.


             the drug issue--it's everyone's responsibility

  Madam Speaker, this evening I also want to discuss one of the biggest 
problems facing this nation: illegal drug use.
  Statistics show that illicit use is rising at an alarming rate. Drug 
use among our nation's children has more than doubled in the past four 
years--a staggering rate of increase.
  The scourge of illicit drugs is rampant in our society. How do we 
know this? Well, we read it in our local newspapers everyday; we hear 
about it on the daily radio and television talk shows; we see it on our 
nightly news programs.
  Some may say that this saturation reporting is desensitizing the 
general public to the problems that drug abuse is causing in America's 
communities, homes and schools, and with our children--our future.
  I've heard a lot of rhetoric from both political parties about drug 
abuse. However, this is not a partisan issue. Drug abuse knows no 
political ideology.
  Let's take a look at some of those alarming statistics from some 
recent studies. On August 1, 1996 the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services reported:
  Drug use among teenagers has skyrocketed--from 1992 to 1995, and 
overall drug use among those 12 years-old to 17 years-old has gone up 
78 percent;
  Marijuana use from the same period more than doubled at 105 percent;
  Use of the hallucinogenic drug LSD also more than doubled at a 103 
percent increase; and
  Cocaine use increased a staggering 166 percent for that time frame.
  Another study--this one from Luntz Research, shows that among 
teenagers up to the age of 17:
  60 percent say they can buy marijuana within one day;
  62 percent have friends who use marijuana;
  58 percent have been solicited to buy marijuana; and
  58 percent know someone who personally uses hard drugs such as LSD, 
heroin or cocaine.
  This is staggering as much as it is tragic.
  There is a study that is particularly disturbing. It is a survey, 
apparently the first of its kind, that asked parents and teens about 
attitudes toward drugs. Sponsored by Columbia University's Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse, it found that:
  Two-thirds of baby-boomer parents who experimented with marijuana as 
teenagers expect their own children will do the same;
  Overall, that 46 percent of the parents surveyed said they expect 
their children to try illegal drugs;
  Forty-nine percent--almost half--of parents surveyed knew someone who 
uses illegal drugs today; and
  One-third of parents have friends who currently use marijuana. These 
are friends of the parents.
  These studies reveal a common theme: that drug use is on the increase 
and there seems to be a growing apathy about its misuse. The message 
that drug use is bad for society is somehow getting lost.
  It is not just the numbers; it is the simple fact that people feel 
that there is a need to experiment and use drugs, and that it is 
somehow expected. In areas around the country, it seems to have become 
almost a right of passage for our adolescents into adulthood.
  Is this the message we want to send? Of course not. Drug abuse reaps 
deadly consequences. Almost three-quarters of all crime is somehow drug 
related. Drug abuse sets the stage for death by overdose and suicide. 
There are scores of accidents caused by drug use. Make no mistake about 
it: drugs have an impact on each and every member of our society, and 
we must do something about it. And I don't mean we, as Congress. No the 
we I am talking about is everyone in our country.
  The issue of drugs is not, and should not be, about election year 
politicking. It is and must be about attempting to deal with this 
scourge, this blight on our nation. Who's to blame? That is the 
political question. What to do? That is the real question. Let's not 
talk about blame; let's talk about what to do.
  To answer that question we must begin by asking ourselves whether we 
have done what we can to work against this national disgrace. Drug 
abuse knows no race, no political persuasion, no economic class, no 
gender. It is everyone's problem because it affects everyone.
  That is why everyone must do his or her part to work for a lasting 
solution. It starts at home. The effort begins with parents and 
guardians. The responsibility continues with our schools--it takes 
constant reminders from our teachers and administrators about the 
problems of drugs. The responsibility is with our media and 
entertainment industry, and it continues with our business leaders. 
Responsibility is with our elected officials--Republican, Democrat, and 
Independents.
  Our children need guidance and role models so that when they come of 
age they can exercise individual responsibility and make the right 
choices concerning drugs.
  But is the next generation being given the direction it desperately 
needs? When I look at the Columbia University study, it makes me 
wonder. Joseph Califano, president of the National Center on Addiction 
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University and a former secretary to 
the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare states:

       That the baby boomers appear to be so ambivalent and so 
     resigned to drug use by kids is very disturbing. They should 
     be mad as hell. Instead, they're saying there's nothing we 
     can do about it.

  In the past, Mr. Califano astutely remarked:

       Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are 
     illegal because they are dangerous. Not all children who use 
     illegal drugs will become addicts, but all children, 
     particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to abuse and 
     addiction. Russian roulette is not a game anyone should play. 
     Legalizing drugs is not only playing Russian roulette with 
     our children. It's slipping a couple of extra bullets in the 
     chamber.

  He makes a good, solid point. People should care about drugs, drug 
abuse and society's attitudes about it. Congress, most of all, should 
never discuss legalization of drugs. We should be discussing how to 
keep people from using drugs at all.
  I want to discuss how one member of this body thought he could make a 
difference. He is Representative Rob Portman. Mr. Portman saw a problem 
and decided he wanted to address it head on. When he found that it 
worked, he decided to share this information with other members of 
Congress. It is something that is based in common-sense, indeed. It is 
the Community Anti-Drug Coalition.
  This coalition is an attempt by participating members of Congress to 
mobilize the local communities in conjunction with local law 
enforcement; schools; parent/teacher associations; community clubs--
such as the Lions and Rotary Clubs; the media--television, newspaper 
and radio; churches; state and local politicians; local, state, and 
national anti-drug and rehabilitations services to jointly arrive at a 
solution to end illegal drug use and drug abuse. The effort is to get 
everyone involved in community-wide, and by extension, a nation-wide 
anti-drug awareness project. It is a very exciting opportunity for 
members of Congress to utilize their public offices as a soap box and 
encourage all members of their communities to get involved in the 
simple message that we all know to be true: Drugs are dangerous, drugs 
are bad, people should not use drugs.
  I encourage everyone watching at home and members here in the chamber 
to get involved. This is a problem that needs a comprehensive solution. 
The solution involves participation and action by all segments of the 
local community and at all levels of government. Let's not wait any 
longer.

                              {time}  2200

  Lastly this evening I am going to be joined by my colleague, 
Congressman

[[Page H10517]]

Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. It 
was with some interest, as I was coming out to Washington earlier 
today, that I read in USA Today and went out and took a look at what 
the Associated Press [AP] had to say about the similar article that was 
in USA Today. It is described by Bruce Babbitt, one of the members of 
the President's administration. He describes it as ``It is a great win/
win situation for everyone.'' And you take a look at it and say, now, 
what would somebody in the President's administration be calling a win/
win, a win/win for everybody. If it is a win/win for everyone, it is a 
win for those of us in Washington, it is a win for the American people 
and whatever projects.
  And when you get beyond the win/win, what you find is that it is, 
quoted in one of the Washington papers, Babbitt proposes a new tax.
  You were talking earlier in your special order about taxes. We know 
how much the American people are taxed. And it appears that for Mr. 
Babbitt and for the President, perhaps that number is not high enough 
yet, that when 38 cents of every dollar that the American family earns 
goes to pay taxes at the local, the State or the Federal level, maybe 
that is not quite enough; that when the average American family works 
until May 7 of every year to pay that 38 cents or to pay their share of 
State and local and Federal taxes, Mr. Babbitt and the President still 
do not believe that that is enough. When they figure out that the cost 
of government, when you not only take the cost of taxes that we 
directly pay, but you add in the indirect cost of government and the 
rules and regulations and that we work, that the average family works 
until July 3 to pay those additional costs, we find out now what 
Independence Day means. It has a whole new meaning.
  It no longer means independence from the tyranny of taxation with no 
representation, but in today's world, it means that on July 4 is the 
first day that the average American keeps what they earn on that day 
and they do not send it to one form of government or another or are not 
paying for the cost of regulations.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, what happens during the month of July 
and August is that the average American decides to go on vacation.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, what in the world does vacation have to 
do with new taxes?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Well, Secretary Babbitt has found a way to tax the 
accoutrements of vacation.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. What is that?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Things that you use on vacation.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I believe that we ought to be fair to 
Mr. Babbitt, and I have misspoken myself. We are not talking about a 
new tax. The fee or the--excuse me, the term that the Secretary uses 
is, U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt would put a, not a tax--a 
surcharge on outdoor-related equipment, and so it is not a tax.
  Later on now the AP goes on to take the liberty of describing a 
surcharge as a tax, but Mr. Babbitt has not called it a tax. He is 
working with, teaming with a wildlife group. And they also do not use 
the term ``surcharge'' or ``tax.'' They call it a ``user fee.'' This is 
what I think is interesting. We will talk a little bit about the 
amount. We will talk about the amount.
  But listen what they say about a user fee, which Mr. Babbitt calls a 
surcharge, which the Associated Press calls a tax, and which you and I 
would probably call a tax because what it means is that an American 
citizen is taking some money and sending it to government, and that is 
typically a tax.
  But they go on to say, make sure that the user fee must not act as a 
barrier to a product's sale. The user fee must not act as a barrier to 
a product's sale. So obviously, again, this is a case of companies and 
small businesses, because we will go through the list, these things are 
sold by small businesses. These small business people in America just 
must be making excess obscene products.
  I know that the distinguished chairwoman in the Speaker's chair this 
evening is chairing the Small Business Administration and cannot 
participate in this dialog. But I am sure if she had the liberty to 
participate in this dialog, the meetings and the hearings that we have 
had with her, she would clearly indicate that small businesses are 
under tremendous pressure and that any attempt to go back to small 
businesses or the American people probably would be hindrance to the 
sale of a new product.

                              {time}  2215

  This is naive people in Washington saying we can charge people more, 
but of course it will not be a barrier to sale of more product. I 
gladly yield.
  Mr. MANZULLO. You know, what is interesting is what is going to be 
taxed. I mean film.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Gentleman give an example?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Film. Secretary Babbitt wants to put a 2 to 3-percent 
national sales tax on cameras, film, lenses and, look at this, an 
outdoor sleeping mat.
  Now there is no tax on a mattress inside the house, no national tax, 
but if you sleep outside, he wants to have a 5-percent outdoor 
recreation equipment.
  We just bought my son a mountain bike. We do not live in the 
mountains, but we bought him a mountain bike, and he wants to put a 5-
percent tax on mountain bikes.
  Look at the list of things he wants to tax: backpacks, camping 
stoves.
  I have Century Tool located in the district that I represent, and I 
am going to talk to them tomorrow and say: ``Look at Secretary Babbitt, 
wants to put a 5-percent surcharge because people cook outside, that 
somehow they're to be penalized for that.''
  Camping utensils, canoes, canteens; 5-percent tax on canteens, 
climbing equipment, compasses.
  Secretary Babbitt needs to perhaps have a compass to find his way out 
of this tax hysteria, but he wants to have a 5-percent tax put on 
compasses, cooking bags, floatation vests, hiking boots, kayaks. The 
whole ski industry would be subjected to now a new 5-percent tax: skis, 
poles, boots.
  Sleeping bags. My kids have sleeping bags; they never slept outside. 
They sleep on the floor of the family room.
  Snow shoes, Tents.
  Every tent in America would be subjected to a new 5-percent Babbitt 
tax, Babbitt-Clinton tax. And canoe paddles, or prepacked camp foods.
  That is interesting.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I mean you are getting to the fun parts now. I mean we 
think about it, the list that you have just gone through. Backpacks? 
The majority of backpacks in this country--
  Mr. MANZULLO. Is for school.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Go to schools. It is the kids.
  I have got three kids, 14, 11 and 8. They all go to school every 
morning with backpacks. Those now next year, when we go out and buy 
them with a Clinton, new Clinton-Babbitt tax, those backpacks will cost 
5 percent more.
  But you forgot a couple of interesting things in there because 
obviously it is clear that Mr. Babbitt believes that government is not 
taking enough money, and otherwise he would not be proposing it. But 
remember this is a big number. This is a 5-percent tax. In Michigan our 
sales tax is 6 percent. You now tack on a 5-percent on top of that so 
he obviously believes government is not big enough and is not spending 
too much and he wants a little bit more money. But he also believes 
that the IRS is not big enough because we are going to have to come up 
with rules and regulations to implement this. We are going to tax 
certain camping utensils, but only those that are connected or folding. 
So, if it does not connect or snap together or fold, you do not pay the 
tax.
  Mr. MANZULLO. So if a Swiss army knife has a spoon on it or a fork, 
that would be taxed, but a smaller Swiss army knife would not be taxed.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If it only had knives, and if it had just the blades 
with no forks----
  Mr. MANZULLO. Screwdrivers and things like that.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I do not know, but we would have a bureaucrat at the 
IRS who would make that call.
  Mr. MANZULLO. And what about talking about----

[[Page H10518]]

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Do not go to the calls yet, but take a look at another 
one, the floatation vests.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Floatation vests?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Floatation vests. Select, and for those--you know, this 
is, I am glad that they have already got the bureaucrats involved 
because for most people, floatation vests are just kind of like life 
preservers. But are we going to tax all floatation vests, or are we 
going to go to the IRS and come up with a set of rules and regulations 
that say these vests are taxed, taxed as 5 percent, and these are not? 
We are only going to tax selected classes of life preservers, but of 
course we are not going to tax standard lifeboat vests.
  You know, there is stuff on here. You outline the skis, polls, boots. 
That includes cross-country and downhill. Make sure we do not forget 
snowboards; they are now on the list. I do not know what a stuff sack 
is, but they are going to be taxed.
  Now let us go on. So we have covered--if you are going to have any 
fun outside, you know you can figure you are going to pay 5 percent, 
and it is not on this list, but I bet it soon will be: rollerblades 
will be on there. I cannot imagine not having rollerblades.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Well if you have skis, you have to have rollerblades as 
a matter of equity----
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Otherwise it would be discrimination.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Right.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. But then going on to the category that you were talking 
about: cause. For those of you that have bird feeders in your backyard 
you will now know that we are going to have the Clinton-Babbitt 
backyard and wildlife products tax.
  Mr. MANZULLO. At 5 percent.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Five percent, the Backyard and Wildlife Products Act. 
Five percent. And what are we going to tax here? We are going to tax 
wild birdseed and other wild animal feed except seed that is packaged 
for pet feed.
  All right. So we are going to have somebody in Washington again 
describing, you know, what is pet feed and what is wild animal feed.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, would birdseed for robins and birds 
that are not considered to be wild, would that be taxed?
  Perhaps the tax would be based upon the tax people would have to come 
to your backyard and determine which birds were eating the seed, then 
have a proportionate tax based upon that.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, and I would guess that if you took your seed that 
was packaged for pet feed and you ran out of wild bird feed but you 
took your seeds for pet feed and you used it outside for a wild bird, 
you know, you would be breaking the law.
  Mr. MANZULLO. But what if your pets are wild birds?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Well, if it is a pet and it is wild, then it cannot be 
your pet. But I bet we would have a regulation on defining when a pet 
is a pet and when it is wild it is not.
  Mr. MANZULLO. And would the gentleman comment on whether or not the 
new Clinton tax would impact birds that decided to be hygienic and take 
a bath?

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, we cover that, or excuse me, the Clinton-Babbitt 
tax covers that because we do have a tax here on wild birdbaths.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Wild birdbaths.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Wild birdbaths, and we also have a tax on wild bird 
houses, bat houses, squirrel houses and houses constructed for use by 
other wildlife, nest platforms for wild birds.
  Mr. MANZULLO. And You know what is amazing about this is that Mr. 
Babbitt, claiming to be a conservationist, would want to try to do 
everything possible to encourage the wisest use possible of our natural 
resources and to encourage people to feed the wild birds in the 
backyard, and instead he wants to impose another tax.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I beg to take exception because I take Mr. Babbitt at 
his word. He does believe that he is doing the best for wildlife 
because what he is doing is he is saying: ``You as American citizens 
don't know what to do for wildlife or the birds in your backyard. Send 
me the tax because when I collect the money, States would then apply 
for the money to fund specific projects and would be required to match 
25 percent of the Federal grants.''
  So this is not about protecting or preserving the environment; it is 
just about how we do it. You pay the tax, you send the money to 
Washington so that the bureaucrats here in Washington can figure out 
what projects are best to do, and you know you cannot do that at the 
State level. We have got to have people in the Interior Department who 
are going to get this money from the IRS, who will then review the 
grants, and this is, you know, goes back--you are aware of the myth 
project that we have been working on, the myth that says only 
Washington can do things right. This is going to create a new 
department on not Independence Avenue, on Dependence Avenue, because it 
is going to be once again bureaucrats making decisions.
  In this case they are taking your money that you are going to buy 
birdbaths, birdhouses, bat houses, birdseed and this even goes on. You 
got a hummingbird feeder in your backyard.
  Mr. MUNZULLO. So what?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. You got to pay taxes on the hummingbird feeder. If you 
go to the grocery store and you buy suet and you put it in this little 
mesh thing, I am sorry, that is now taxed. You have to pay.
  Mr. MANZULLO. It is a tax on fat.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. A tax on fat.
  Mr. MANZULLO. And if the gentleman will yield, then there is a 
special tax, a 5-percent tax on books, videos and audio. We have a CD-
ROM that we play on the back porch of our farm. We call R. Olsen. 
Occasionally an eagle will stop by on its way to the Mississippi River, 
or a great blue heron, and we have the Roger Torrey Peterson bird 
guides, the tremendous bird guides, the books that you buy so you can 
examine and identify the birds in your backyard, and those audio tapes 
of wildlife calls, you know, the owl tapes, you know what I mean. We 
play those at night, and the owls, you can see the owls fluttering 
around, and we take the flashlight, teach the kids about nature.
  My wife is a biologist and loves to teach the kids about the 
environment. All that will be subject to another 5 percent tax, talk 
about an additional tax on educational materials.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, it goes on. We have talked 
about outdoor recreation equipment, backyard wildlife products, books 
and videos. You talked about the binoculars or may be we have not 
covered that yet; binoculars, hand lenses, spotting scopes, tripods, 
window mounts. Sorry. Those all now also have a 5-percent tax.

  This now goes on, talks about recreational vehicles, RVs. Now the tax 
rate is much lower on this.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Starting lower.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. What is that?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Starting lower.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. But we all know once a tax is in place, we do not raise 
it. Well, maybe that is not right. Usually when we have a tax in place 
it provides a floor from which to raise it, but you go out and buy an 
RV, or you go out and buy a sport utility vehicle--you know, a camper, 
a motor home a travel trailer or any of this. We are now talking about 
a quarter to a half a percent tax on these items.
  You know we have been joking about this, about what the Clinton-
Babbitt tax looks like, because I mean it is, it is taking more money 
out of the system, it is moving decision-making to Washington. But this 
is a serious proposal, and this is indicative of what this 
administration believes. They believe Washington does not have enough 
money, that the American people are not even intelligent enough to make 
basic decisions about wildlife in these types of things, and they want 
more, they want more rules and regulations, and they want to grow the 
IRS, and they want more of our money, and they are blatantly going out 
and talking about increasing taxes and not talking about tax 
simplification. This is complicating the tax code, and it provides 
another avenue for Washington to suck a little bit more money out of 
our pockets and feed it to the bureaucrats here in Washington.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman, and I just wanted to take a 
brief moment here, that Sunday I heard a speaker, and he mentioned an 
item that I think would be very appropriate here, although it is very 
enlightening to hear the gentlemen discuss this issue. But he mentioned 
about a

[[Page H10519]]

speaker who had a speech prepared, and everyone started leaving, and 
more people left, and more people left, and more people left. Finally 
there was only one left. So he went and finished his speech, then went 
to thank the gentleman for staying, and the gentleman says: ``The only 
reason I stayed is because I'm the next speaker.''
  And I thought I would mention this at this time.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, we thank the gentleman for staying.
  Mr. MANZULLO. We thank the gentleman for staying. Does the gentleman 
from Michigan have anything else to add?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We are going to hear a lot more about this issue and 
others like it. We on our side of the aisle, we have pushed for family 
tax relief. We believe that Washington already collects enough of our 
money and we do not want any more money in Washington. We want to 
return it back to families. We want to return it back to small 
businesses, because we believe the best engine for growth in this 
country are small businesses and Americans deciding the priorities for 
where they spend their money.
  This I believe is just the beginning of a whole new series of taxes 
that a Clinton administration would love to put on the American people. 
You and I were both here in 1993 when we in this Congress, you and I 
both voted against it, but when we in this Congress came forward and it 
passed the Clinton tax increase, where again it became very clear, 
government is not big enough, we do not have enough money, we want 
more. This is just what I believe is the first scheme to get more money 
from the American people.
  I think it goes after it exactly the wrong way. It taxes the very 
things that are important to families, that are important to children. 
It hides the tax, because it would be a tax at the manufacturer's 
level, not at the sales tax level, so once again people will be paying 
taxes and they will not know that it is actually going to the Federal 
Government. At the same time, it does it in such a way that much of the 
tax dollars that will be raised will be used to fund bureaucrats here 
in Washington.
  The gentleman and I, we are talking about tax simplification, we are 
talking about going to a flat tax, we are talking about going to a 
consumption tax, or anything that takes the huge array of IRS tax 
booklets, so we could actually go fill our taxes out on a postcard or 
whatever. All this represents is a whole new series of taxes, 
complicated taxes describing what camping utensils will and will not be 
taxed, which flotation vest, which hiking boots. It is absolutely the 
wrong way to go at this time, or almost at any time.
  I cannot see any time where this kind of a tax in this kind of a 
direction would be appropriate. But it is an important lesson I think 
for the American people to understand that this is what the Clinton 
administration is talking about. This is the direction they are going.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, and we have at times 
tried to put a bit of levity into Secretary Babbitt's and President 
Clinton's proposal to increase taxes on things such as bicycles, 
mountain bicycles and outdoor sleeping mats. I think it is a dark day 
in America when the administration would come to the American people 
and say, because you use the outdoors, we are going to tax you.
  We are talking about a hidden 2 percent to 3 percent tax on a camera, 
on films. We are talking about kids that buy binoculars to look at 
birds and other animals in the fields, we will have a 5 percent hidden 
tax. We are talking about a simple book that talks about nature.
  Is that not interesting? You can have a book that describes how to 
rearrange the inside of a house, that would not be subject to a tax, 
but a book that talks about how to examine birds and wildlife and 
things outside--ostensibly even plants--would be subject to a tax.
  This is the forgotten America of whom I have spoken so many times in 
this Congress, the person who gets up at the crack of dawn, packs the 
lunch. Perhaps both spouses go to work; one of them is working solely 
for taxes. They get the kids off to school, they write the checks, and 
they ask themselves in the morning, why is it that we are working 
harder than ever in our entire lives and taking home less money?
  The answer is very simple, because government at all levels is too 
big. What is even more dangerous about this new proposed Babbitt-
Clinton tax is the fact that Americans will be paying a tax and not 
even know it is a tax, because the tax will be buried into the cost of 
the manufacturer's product.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Madam Speaker, 
think of the arrogance that is used to describe this tax, the arrogance 
toward the American taxpayer, because they say the user fee must not 
act as a barrier to a product sale.
  Do these people never get outside of the beltway? Who thinks that the 
average American family, the parents that pack their kids off to school 
in the morning, that they have an extra 5 percent to pay for backpacks, 
for compasses, for dry bags, sleeping bags, hiking boots? No big deal, 
it is only 5 percent. They have that.
  They talk about the pressure on the family, and the financial 
pressure, but then it is kind of like where are they coming from? Five 
percent, of course they can; hey, they have 5 percent more to send to 
Washington. And they do it on a whole range of things.
  It is an arrogant way of taking a look at the American family and 
saying, we in Washington need 5 percent more, and you, at the family 
level, you have it. You can afford to easily give us 5 percent, because 
if we ask you for 5 percent more, that will not be a barrier to you 
being able to buy this product.
  Where have they been? And maybe it is time for the Clinton-Babbitt 
team to get outside of the beltway and talk to some real Americans, and 
find out how much 5 percent means to them.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record this teaming 
with wildlife product list which shows the proposed tax on the 
products.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                   Teaming with Wildlife Product List

       The following list is a draft of those products being 
     considered for a user fee. Before this list is incorporated 
     into the draft legislation, we are asking companies, 
     customers (users) and coalition members to provide feedback 
     on this list, as well as other details of the proposal. The 
     products listed below would have a graduated user fee of \1/
     4\%-5% of the manufacturer's price. The user fee must not act 
     as a barrier to a product's sale. Beside each category is a 
     suggested level for the user fee. Feedback from companies and 
     consumers will help determine the final list of products and 
     the percent to apply to each.
       Outdoor Recreation Equipment (5%): Backpacks, Camping 
     stoves, Camping stove fuel, Camping tarps, Camping utensils 
     (connected/folding), Canoes, Canteens, Climbing equipment, 
     Compasses, Cooking kits, Dry bags, Flotation vests (selected 
     classes--not standard life boat vests), Hiking boots, Hiking 
     staves, Kayaks/spray skirts, Mountain bicycles, Outdoor 
     sleeping mats, Skis/poles/boots (cross-country, downhill, 
     telemark), Sleeping bags, Snowshoes, Tents, Paddles, Portable 
     water purifiers, Prepacked camp foods, Scuba diving masks/
     snorkels/goggles/flippers, Snowboards, Stuff sacks, Wet 
     suits/Air tanks/Regulators/Spearguns, Whitewater rafts.
       Backyard and Wildlife Products (5%): Wild bird seed and 
     other wild animal feed (except seed packaged for pet feed); 
     Wild animal and wild bird feeders such as hummingbird 
     feeders, suet feeders and other types of feeders; Wild bird 
     baths; Wild bird houses, bat houses, squirrel houses and 
     houses constructed for use by other wildlife; Nest platforms 
     for wild birds.
       Books, videos, Audio (5%): Field guides to bird 
     identification, nest identification, animal tracks, mammals, 
     fishes butterflies, insects and other animal groups; ``How-
     to'' guides such as wildlife viewing guides, hiking and 
     paddling guides, etc.; Audio tapes of wildlife calls; CD-Rom 
     guides to wildlife and its enjoyment.
       Binoc, Monoc and Spot Scopes (5%): Binoculars, Hand lenses, 
     Monoculars, Spotting scopes, Tripods, Window mounts.
       Photographic Equipment and Supplies (2-3%): Cameras, Film, 
     Lenses, Lens filters, Photo disc, Range finders (including 
     those designed for use with photographic cameras and parts 
     thereof).
       Recreational Vehicles (RV's (\1/4\%-\1/2\%, no more than 
     $100): Campers/motor homes/travel trailers.
       Sport Utility Vehicles (\1/4\% no more than $100):

                          ____________________