Pete Hoekstra

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. 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. 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. HOEKSTRA. Otherwise it would be discrimination.

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. 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. 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. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have just a couple of points in closing. We might have had a slightly different debate today if we had had the opportunity to take this bill through the committee process so we could have discussed it either at the subcommittee or at the full committee level. This bill has not gone through that process. The second thing that I would just like to say, in listening to the debate I have heard the comment, It is only $3 million; $3 million is a lot of money. We also have to take a look, and I think rethink some of the myths here in Washington. Is the granting of money, is the spending of more money, is spending money and creating another program, and spending money that we do not have, is that the highest tribute and the only tribute that we can pay to Members or people who have given in government service? That is the myth in Washington. Any time we see a problem or we see the need to recognize somebody, it is time to spend more money. I think there are other ways to do that. I think Texas A&M is setting a great example by how they have moved forward with this program without any help from Washington. I do not think at this point in time they need that additional help. The greatest tribute perhaps to George Bush at this time is to demonstrate that the school can start in a different way and that his fellowships would be provided and funded through the private sector and not here from Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I will be the only speaker.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I have talked with my colleagues who are sponsors of this bill, they have laid out a record of significant achievement by Texas A&M on this project. Texas A&M has already raised significant dollars, either at the State level or through private contributions, for the work that will go on at this school. They have demonstrated that they can move forward without our help. Mr. Speaker, I think, as we move forward, the tribute here is not about the work that George Bush has done, or did, as President or did as a congressman in service to his country. It is about, at this point in time, whether we go forward and appropriate another $3 million for an institution that will celebrate the conservative principles and the balanced budget for which he fought so hard. The important thing is that we show fiscal restraint, that we do not continue doing business as we have done business in the past. I have taken a look at the letter that George Bush wrote to Mr. Herman, who is the director of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service. The former President talked strongly in favor of the fellowship program. In his letter, he does not talk or address the issue about whether it should be federally funded. I think that the best tribute to this program is to continue going along in the direction that Texas A&M has done so admirably, which is pushing for private funding and private donations to make sure that this program gets off on the right foot. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting idea, but I do not think I will take the gentleman up on that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and I ask if the gentleman from Texas is in true opposition?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, do I have the right to close?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time and compliment him on the fantastic work he has done to bring this bill to the floor. As a Member of Congress and someone who got out and spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 1 or 20 to 1 in my first election in a primary, I come to this debate with a different background than many of my colleagues. Also serving in my second term, I think it is important for us to take a look at the way things used to be in the House of Representatives. Let us talk about that, It took the new majority to apply all laws that apply to the private sector and make them apply to Congress. It was the new majority that took the bold step that banned gifts. It was the new majority that conducted the first-ever audit of House finances. It was the new majority that passed comprehensive lobby reform. It was the new majority that held the first ever vote on term limits for Members of Congress. It was the new majority that passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We set term limits for the Speaker. We set term limits for committee chairs. So for the record, as we go through this debate today, we do not need lectures from the other side of the aisle on reform. We have spent the last 18 months cleaning up after them. As for some of the other participants that have been critical of this effort at reform, Common Cause, it is interesting. They created the current campaign finance system. Now they want to experiment with public funding, more big government, more big bureaucracy, moving decision-making away from the people and moving it to Washington. Their proposal is based on the myth of the magical Washington bureaucracy. We do not need lectures on how to reform a broken campaign finance system from the same group that gave us this system in the first place. This is a solid campaign finance bill. It has been a frustrating process. It has been a tough process. As we have watched through the debate, it is much easier to demagog this process than it is to get something done, but we have gotten things done. We have moved decisionmaking back to the people in the district. We have reduced the influence of political action committees. We have put in measures to help those challengers who are running against well-entrenched incumbents. We have put in measures to address those candidates who are running millionaire campaign financed issues. This is real progress. This is change from the way that Washington has been doing business. Republicans are bringing this forward. Republicans are bringing forward this change. We are continuing the process that we have been working on for 18 months. This is really one step in a long process that we are going to continue.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell my colleague from Texas that we, as Members, do have a choice. It is within our power to say how we are going to raise funds for our campaigns. We do have a choice about whether we are going to take political action committee money. We do have a choice about who and what individuals we are going to accept and how much money we are going to spend in campaigns. Nobody tells us to go out and raise a million dollars. Nobody tells us to go out and raise a quarter of a million dollars from political action committees. We do have that choice. There are many Members here who are taking perhaps what may be seen as a risk, but the American people are rewarding them because they are not swayed by that.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. As it concerns the wealthy individuals, the Republican bill and the Democratic bill are almost identical. The Republicans limit individual contributions to $1,000. On PAC's, we say that wealthy individuals or any individual can only give $2,500 to a PAC. The Democratic side says we will be cheaper than that. We will only give $5,000. I think it is kind of like the Democratic math again. They let wealthy candidates give more money to PAC's than Republicans do. On the aggregate amount, Republican and Democratic bills have the same amount. So I think the previous speaker misrepresented what is in the Republican bill. But let us take a look at what this bill does. It is genuine movement forward: Fifty percent in-district; provisions for wealthy candidates; provisions for carryover funds; reduced PAC funding; bans leadership PAC's; and goes after compulsory dues. The bottom line: This is genuine reform in the Republican bill. It is progress. It is not perfect but it is a significant step forward. I urge support of the Thomas bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and for working so hard at making this amendment possible. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify again what we are doing here. We are talking about limiting Federal Prison Industries [FPI], and going after new products in new markets. This does not affect the markets or products they are currently producing. This amendment is very limited in its scope, and based on the performance of FPI it should be much broader. It is only a small step at reining in FPI's aggressive and arrogant zeal for new products and new business in new markets to employ increased levels of Federal inmates, and every time they do this they are doing it at the expense of small businesses and medium-size businesses and American workers around this country. They have abused their privileges. They have abused their position in this marketplace where they have super preference. What super preference means is that the Federal Government can only buy from FPI. FPI has to provide a waiver to the Federal Government before they buy from the private sector or before the Federal Government decides to buy from a blind or handicapped rehabilitative agency. They have abused this privilege. This is a shot across their bow that says no more, no more in new products. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] goes through the process of having the extensive hearings, then we can go back and take a look at the abuses they put in place over the last number of years. Specifically, in my district, they have decided that a reasonable number is that they should grow office furniture sales by $60 million. That shows that they will unemploy about 350 workers, potentially, in my district. Mr. Chairman, it is time to rein them in. This is a reasonable amendment until we can have more and complete hearings.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that 1 short week after cost of government day that says that all the income that American families and individuals make up until July 3 of any given year goes to support various aspects and various taxes, but basically it goes to fund the cost of government. The Republican vision for education is to return decisionmaking back to the local level. When we are already collecting taxes for more than half the year, perhaps we ought to reassess how those tax dollars are being spent, and more importantly, perhaps what kind of impact are they having. When we take a look at putting more money back into the educational system in Washington, perhaps it is important to take a look at how Washington defines education. So often we say education in Washington is the Education Department, right? It is this agency, this Department that funnels education dollars back to States and local school districts. They are the ones that drive for excellence in education at the local level. They maybe have a few programs that do this targeting at different kinds of needs and specific requirements at the local level. It is a little bit more complex than that. It is really a myth here in Washington, because in education, we really have embraced the myth that Washington can solve every problem in education at the local level. What has this myth evolved to? The result of us in this Chamber believing that we can solve every problem means that we have developed 760 different education programs in this town; 760 different programs that people at the local level have to filter through. It is a good thing that these all go through the Department of Education, so at least the people at the local level can go to one agency and one bureaucracy in Washington and say: These are my requirements. How can you help me and where should I go to look for assistance? Wrong. If you are at the local level and you have a problem and you think that maybe the Federal Government can help you, and you say which one of these 760 programs is targeted to help my specific requirements, I think I will go to the Department of Education and get a catalog of these. No, sorry, go to the Department of Education and then go to the 38 other agencies in Washington that have responsibility for education. I am at the local level. I can go to 39 agencies and say, can you please help me find out which of these 760 programs can help me to solve my problem, 760 programs, 39 agencies. But they spend a lot of money. Yes, they spend about $120 billion per year. It is time to take a look at the agencies, not the money.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is about Washington bureaucrats, it is about a faceless Washington bureaucrat making decisions for the relationships between parents and kids. Washington bureaucrats in their infinite wisdom have decided that school officials cannot give their child as aspirin, but can provide condoms without parental consent. It assumes that a Washington bureaucrat is better able to teach your child sex education than the child's parents. The myth is that Washington cares more about the well-being of a child than his or his parents. President Clinton actually said it best: Governments do not raise children, but parents do. Let us remove this faceless bureaucrat from being involved in these types of decisions, let us not encourage bureaucrats to counsel children to have a dialog with your parents, let us get the bureaucrat out and recognize we need to be working on establishing relationships between parents and children and it is best done there without a Washington bureaucrat in the middle.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not cut AmeriCorps. My amendment moves spending from training 300 people at a cost of $1.1 million at the Presidio or going through expensive training programs by different agencies, my amendment actually moves that into block grants or moves it into the grant dollars, meaning that we will have 1,500 more young people earning dollars for college and higher education. That is where we are moving the dollars. We are moving it to the communities. We are moving it to the young kids. We are taking it away from the bureaucrats. And to think that AmeriCorps is the place for innovation. Eighty-nine million Americans today volunteer on a regular basis. To believe that AmeriCorps, remember, this is the organization that does not even keep auditable books. This is the place that the rest of the charitable world is going to look to in terms of innovation and how to run quality programs. Give me a break. AmeriCorps should be looking to places like Habitat for Humanity, looking at places like the Salvation Army and saying, how do you get 89 million Americans to volunteer in your organizations? Come on, we have been having charitable organizations in America long before AmeriCorps existed. AmeriCorps was intended to be a catalyst to facilitate these organizations, not to tell them how to do it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], my colleague, that I see wanted to speak.