Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American Ambassador, Pamela C. Harriman. Sadly, Ambassador Harriman passed away earlier this month in Paris. Throughout her life she worked tirelessly in service to her adopted country, the United States. Most recently she served as U.S. Ambassador to France, from 1993 to early 1997, where she helped strengthen Franco-American ties while expertly handling such difficult and complex issues as NATO expansion, the Middle East peace process, the role of the U.N. and multilateral trade. How appropriate for Ambassador Harriman's career to take her to Paris, for as a young woman she endeavored to strengthen ties between Great Britain, the United States and France in the Allies fight against Nazi aggression. Before assuming her diplomatic duties in Paris, Pamela Harriman sought to enrich the lives of all Americans through her many efforts in the fields of politics and arts. She was also the wife and friend of Governor Averell Harriman, one of our country's great statesmen. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join with me in supporting House Resolution 49 to express our heartfelt thanks for the life and service of Pamela Harriman and to convey our condolences and deepest sympathies to the Harriman family.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this week the Clinton administration released its annual National Export Strategy, as required by the 1992 Export Enhancement Act. The report contains many accolades for various initiatives within the administration to boost exports. Many of these initiatives are good. But what I found missing was the Clinton administration's record on the single largest export opportunity--its policy on killing sales of United States equipment and services to the Three Gorges Dam [TGD] project in the People's Republic of China. Last summer, America was confronted by a new reality on the international scene. For the first time in history, the Census Bureau revealed that China has eclipsed Japan as the nation with which the United States has the largest trade deficit at $3.33 billion for the month of June. In fact, our trade deficit with China expanded even further to $3.8 billion in July. The United States could have a trade gap with China of over $40 billion for 1996 if this trend continues. Many pundits have decried this growing trade deficit. Some argue that the United States should erect more trade barriers to keep out imports from China. Yet, there is a consensus among free traders and protectionists that the United States should use every opportunity to sell products to China. In this case, there are willing customers in China who wish to buy over $1 billion in United States products for the TGD, but the Clinton administration has thus far effectively prevented these exports in order to please certain constituencies in the Democrat Party. American exporters need the help of the Export-Import Bank of the United States [Ex-Im] in order to win the fierce competition for huge contracts associated with the TGD. Ex-Im can provide loans with lower interest rates--generally 3 to 6 percent less--so that our exporters will not be shut out of the bidding when our European and Japanese competitors secure similar loans from their home government export finance agencies. Already, Canada's export finance agency has provided some help to its exporters willing to sell to the TGD project. Two years ago, Ex-Im asked the National Security Council [NSC] for advice on the TGD project. Because of its immense size, Ex-Im determined that they did not have sufficient expertise to deal with all the complex issues associated with this dam project. The NSC convened several meetings of 11 different agencies to come up with a series of recommendations for the project. In May 1995, all the agencies involved, including the usually pro-trade Department of Commerce and Ex-Im, recommended that the White House oppose the dam project at this point in time because of environmental issues and human rights concerns over the resettlement of 1.2 million Chinese. Many of the strongest voices against the TGD in this NSC interagency working group came from individuals who had previously worked for environmental lobbying groups prior to their service in the Clinton administration. Since then, the Yangtze River has flooded twice. More than 3,200 people died in the flooding that occurred during the summers of 1995 and 1996. In fact, during the most recent flooding in July, more than 3 million were left stranded and 810,000 homes ere completely destroyed. Some cities were under 20 feet of water and 2.5 million acres of cropland were completely wiped out, costing China $11.3 billion in economic losses. And, southern China has been hit with five more typhoons, further compounding the flooding damage closer to the coastal areas. Thus, the flooding along the Yangtze in this year alone has done more environmental damage and relocated more Chinese than ever contemplated by the TGD project. China has debated over the past 70 years a possible solution to this annual flooding problem along the Yangtze River. They fear a repeat of a massive 50 year flood, which last occurred in 1954 that killed 30,000 people and displaced 19 million others. China's leadership concluded that building a dam across the Yangtze at the Three Gorges area would be the best solution in terms of cost, engineering design, and least damage to the environment. While 80 percent of the project is expected to be designed, built, and funded by China itself, it has identified several high-quality foreign products China wishes to use in the dam construction such as hydroelectric power generators, earth moving and concrete placing equipment. The United States is in a unique position to sell these products but the Clinton administration has placed several hurdles in the way. The most troubling aspect is that the supposedly independent Ex-Im agreed with the Clinton White House recommendation. A number of Members of Congress are very concerned about the independence and the future mission of Ex-Im in light of the May 30, 1996 board decision to indefinitely postpone further consideration of a letter of interest for American companies who want a level playing field against foreign firms competing to win contracts associated with the TGD. The way this decision was made was a diversion from Ex-Im's charter and Ex-Im's own internal environmental regulations. Ex-Im has gone well beyond its statutory mandate contained in the charter and lost sight of its primary mission to ``arrange competitive and innovative financing for the foreign sales of United States exporters.'' According to Ex-Im's charter, environmental policy and procedures apply to any transaction involving the following three criteria: First, the project requires more than $10 million of long-term support; Second, Ex-Im's participation in the project would be ``critical to its implementation''; and Third, the project ``may have significant environmental effects upon the global commons or any country not participating in the project, or may produce an emission, an effluent, or a principal product that is prohibited or strictly regulation pursuant to Federal environmental law.'' While the financing request for U.S. exporters to sell American goods and services to the TGD certainly fits the first criteria, it does not meet the other two tests. All foreign financing will form approximately 20 percent of the total cost of the final project. Thus, Ex-Im's participation in the project is not critical to the TGD implementation. The dam will be built with or without U.S. participation. The way events are unfolding, it appears that the real life consequence of the Clinton administration policy is to have the dam built, but only with foreign-made equipment. Regarding the third environmental criteria mentioned in the charter, the TGD project is located in the heart of central China. The dam will only impact the internal environment of China. It will not affect China's neighbors in Russia, India, or Southeast Asia. As a ``clean'' hydropower project, the TGD will not produce an emission or a noxious effluent. Thus, Ex-Im was not forced by Congress in its charter to turn down these letters of interest. In fact, Ex-Im has gone even beyond its own internal environmental procedures and violated its own guidelines, which clearly state that ``no environmental review will be conducted by Ex-Im Bank prior to issuance of a Letter of Interest.'' The guidelines also explain that ``no LI's will be issued * * * for projects that * * * involve potentially unacceptable environmental risks. As a result, such transactions must seek preliminary commitments or final commitments * * *.'' Yet American companies were repeatedly told to apply for a letter of interest from Ex-Im for the Three Gorges project even though the proper step should have been quick advancement to the preliminary commitment stage where environmental considerations would be taken into account. Ex-Im's response was that they were simply seeking a way to help the applicants avoid the substantial charge for processing a preliminary commitment application. So, American workers were denied a $1 billion export opportunity to willing buyers in China to save a few hundred bucks on an application fee. If millions of exports and thousands of jobs weren't at stake, this might be an interesting academic exercise. But unfortunately, it isn't. One has to wonder if Ex-Im had already made up its mind months before their May decision, as evidenced by their concurrence with the NSC memorandum. This was the first major test case of Ex-Im's implementation of its new environmental guidelines since they were finalized last April. If this is any indication of future action, the United States will certainly surrender many export opportunities to our foreign competitors who have no similar prohibitions. What adds insult to injury is that now the Clinton administration has begun to provide humanitarian aid to the Chinese suffering from this flood while, at the same time, refuses to revisit its failed policy on the TGD to provide a permanent solution to this annual tragedy. A wise man once said, ``Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach him to fish, he will be fed for a lifetime.'' Ex-Im still has one last opportunity to rescue themselves from this dilemma. China is working very hard to get substantive answers to the remaining questions asked by Ex-Im at their May 30 press conference dealing with water pollution, endangered species, relocation, and salvaging archeological treasures. If China fulfills their end of the bargain, I urge Ex-Im to use that opportunity to reissue letters of interest to United States exporters to keep them in the game. Our exporters lost out on $4 billion in export opportunities last April because Ex-Im kept delaying their decision. Let's not repeat that mistake because there are more contracts worth billions more up for bid later this fall. Let's use America's ingenuity and expertise to ``teach'' China to build the best, safest, and most environmentally benign dam to prevent the annual tragedy that occurs on the Yangtze and lower the trade deficit with China by supporting Ex-Im involvement with the Three Gorges Dam.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record this teaming with wildlife product list which shows the proposed tax on the products.

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. MANZULLO. We thank the gentleman for staying. Does the gentleman from Michigan have anything else to add?

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 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.

Mr. MANZULLO. Starting lower.

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. MANZULLO. It is a tax on fat.

Mr. MANZULLO. Well if you have skis, you have to have rollerblades as a matter of equity----

Mr. MANZULLO. Floatation vests?

Mr. MANZULLO. And what about talking about----

Mr. MANZULLO. Screwdrivers and things like that.

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. MANZULLO. Is for school.

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. MANZULLO. You know, what is interesting is what is going to be taxed. I mean film.

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. MANZULLO. Things that you use on vacation.

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, Secretary Babbitt has found a way to tax the accoutrements of vacation.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, what happens during the month of July and August is that the average American decides to go on vacation.

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, 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 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 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. Lastly this evening I am going to be joined by my colleague, Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. MANZULLO. At 5 percent.