Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I met Bill and Mary Cross and Richard and Judy Beuth in Northern Illinois. They are the 2 percent. They get up early, they work all day, just to put food on the table of Americans. They are only 2 percent; and, therefore, if we follow the minority, they are insignificant and they do not count. But they are America's farmers. When Richard Beuth's mom died in 1995, and then dad died in 1998, for the privilege of being able to farm this Centennial Farm, which has been in the family for over 100 years, he had to mortgage the farm for $185,000. They are not rich. These are American farmers, and I represented many of them as an attorney, and I was at the auction sale when the gavel fell that cut a family farm in half just to pay the death taxes. They are not rich. They put the food on the table of America. Mr. President, look at them in the eyes, the ones who get up real early and work 20 hours a day, crying out for help. America's farmers are being called ``rich'' and ``insignificant.'' This is the bill to help them out, Mr. President; and you vetoed it, and you looked at them right in the eye and you said ``you don't count.'' Well, they do count. The Crosses, the Beuths, the Wilmarths, the Eberts, the Kappenmans, the little people across the world that put the food on the table. They are America's farmers. It is because of them and for them that we should override this veto.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a Sense of the Congress Resolution that would urge financial institutions to promote environmentally responsible dry and wet cleaning processes and to work with business enterprises to provide streams of capital to protect the environment. I am offering this important resolution to help bring to light the situation that our nation's small dry and wet cleaning businesses face with regard to the cleaning process that most of the small cleaning establishments utilize--namely, percholoroethelyne (perc) and petroleum based solvents. Perc and petroleum based solvents are known pollutants; they contaminate the air, land and groundwater. However, there are other options available to small dry and wet cleaning businesses. On Thursday, July 20, 2000, the Small Business Subcommittee on Tax, Finance and Exports, which I chair, held an extraordinarily important hearing on H.R. 1303, the Environmental Dry Cleaning Tax Credit Act. This bipartisan bill, introduced jointly by Representatives Dave Camp and David Price, is an incentive-based approach to resolving the complex environmental problems the dry cleaning industry faces as a result of its use of perc, a hazardous waste when it is emitted into the air and groundwater. There are nearly 35,000 dry cleaners across the country. Most employ only a handful of workers. They are truly small businesses. H.R. 1303 provides a 20 percent tax credit toward the purchase of new equipment that uses non-hazardous waste producing wet and dry cleaning technology. Recent technological developments utilize carbon dioxide-- the same chemical compound found in sodas (or pop, depending on what part of the nation you represent). Carbon dioxide is obviously not harmful to the environment, since we consume it and our vegetation thrives on it. Like all new ideas on the market, this technology is expensive. That is exactly why the tax credit is necessary. While there are costs associated with H.R. 1303, they are far outweighed, in our view, by the expenses associated with cleaning up the dry cleaning solvents that have been used for decades. For example, in North Carolina, it is estimated that once the assessment and remediation for sites contaminated from the use of perc, costs using the state's own ``cost- per-site'' estimates could approach $72 million to $90 million annually. The State of Florida has estimated that it has 2,700 contaminated dry cleaning sites that are requiring almost $1.5 billion needed for clean-up. The numbers are staggering for nationwide clean up costs, which could approach nearly $20 billion--far outweighing the costs estimated for H.R. 1303. After we heard testimony from the witnesses at our hearing, I was approached by a gentleman from the Bank of America, who shared with me the situation facing the dry and wet cleaning industry from the perspective of banks. He stated that the ``severe and costly nature of environmental issues has virtually eliminated dry cleaners' access to conventional bank capital over the past seven to eight years.'' He pointed to one overwhelming reason: fear over liability as a result of contamination from perc and petroleum solvents. I submit his letter for printing in the Record. However, I want to share with you the assessment by the Bank of America that financial institutions face because of these environmental risks. These include: (1) direct legal liability; (2) complete asset value loss; (3) partial asset value loss; and (4) indirect operation risk. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the concerns of our nation's financial industry are serious enough to shy away from lending to a specific industry. But what is striking is the extent upon which the Bank of America is willing to share with Congress about why they will not lend to dry cleaners that use perc or petroleum based solvents. What is encouraging is that the Bank of America, along with other lending institutions, such as the Central Carolina Bank, have determined that dry and wet cleaning processes that utilize carbon dioxide technology and other non-hazardous waste causing substances deserve financial backing. I am sure that other banks across the country have similar lending policies. Although I do not know specifically which one, I invite those banks to contact and confirm this with me. I, in turn, will share this information with my colleagues. I want to reiterate the important of this resolution. There is a need that must be met. We have an enormous number of dry and wet cleaning businesses in the United States that find it difficult to obtain financial backing from lending institutions because of environmental concerns. The reason I am offering this resolution, along with my colleagues, is that I believe the American public needs to be aware of this safer, environmentally sound dry and wet cleaning technology. There are options out there, and I encourage our financial institutions to work with our dry and wet cleaners to expand this new environmentally safe technology. Bank of America, Small Business Risk Management, Raleigh, NC, July 25, 2000. Re H.R. 1303, the Environmental Dry Cleaning Tax Credit Act. Hon. Donald A. Manzullo, Member of Congress, Chairman, House Small Business Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports, Washington,

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I was visited recently by Amanda Pearson of Rockford, Illinois. Amanda is in high school. When I discovered that her essay on Sam Adams had been placed in God's World News, I requested that she send me a copy. The article is so timely that I believe more Americans need to know this story. I commend this article to my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution (By Amanda Pearson) ``We must do something. The present situation cannot remain untouched.'' The middle-aged man of about 48 mulled these thoughts over as he paced steadily toward the Boston building that sheltered the town meetings. Samuel Adams shuddered, pulled his jacket closer around him and continued his musing. ``The day before yesterday, March 5, several colonists were killed right here in Boston, when those oppressive British regulars opened fire.'' ``We are being ruled by a pure tyrant,'' he muttered under his breath. ``How long must we suffer under a power that violates the laws of nature and of nature's God?'' He turned a corner and walked along the street toward the building at the end. His thoughts turned back to the massacre. ``Yes,'' Mr. Adams thought. ``We must fight to remove the British from Boston before more difficulties arise!'' With that, he marched up the steps and into the building. Yes, Samuel Adams did succeed in getting those British troops removed from Boston. In fact, he became known as the ``Father of the American Revolution.'' Young Sam Samuel Adams was an older cousin of John Adams, who eventually became president of the United States. Samuel was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on Sept. 22, 1722. His father was well-to-do and provided his son with a good education. And Samuel proved to be studious. At 18, he graduated from Harvard, a college with strong Christian roots. Once he was done with his schooling, he was apprenticed to a well-established merchant in Boston. Eventually, Samuel set up his own business. But he did not care for that profession. He was more interested in politics and the current situation of the colonies. sam's young family Samuel married Elizabeth Checkley in October of 1749. Only two of the couple's five children--Samuel Adams Jr. and Hannah--reached adulthood. And his wife, Elizabeth died on July 25, 1757. Seven years later, Sam married Elizabeth Wells, an industrious woman who helped her step-children and husband to live comfortably in spite of Samuel's small income. Samuel reared his family on Christian principles. The Bible was read every night in the Adams household. Toward Revolution Samuel Adams knew that the British and King George III of England were treating the colonists unfairly. The people tried to settle their problems with the government peacefully. But the British wouldn't listen, and things continued to simmer towards a boil. In 1763, Samuel was one of the first to propose that the American colonies become united to fight against England. Seven years later, he was serving as spokesman for Boston after the Boston Massacre occurred. In 1772, he launched the Committees of Correspondence with the help of Richard Henry Lee. The Committees provided the colonists with the latest current events and kept them up-to- date on British activities. The Committees The Committees had three goals: 1. to delineate the rights the Colonists had as men, as Christians, and as subjects of the crown; 2. to detail how these rights had been violated; and 3. to publicize throughout the Colonies the first two items. One of the documents that the Committees of Correspondent distributed in late 1772 was the ``Rights of The Colonists'' that Sam Adams had written. His Christian character and knowledge of Scripture were apparent as he wrote: ``The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.'' For God and Country In 1774, the British governor of Massachusetts attempted to quiet Sam Adams. He offered him a high rank in the colonial government. However, Sam refused to be silenced. ``I trust I have long since made my peace with the King of kings. No personal consideration shall induce me to abandon the righteous cause of my country,'' he said. ``Tell Governor Gage, it is the advice of Samuel Adams to him, no longer to insult the feelings of an exasperated people.'' Honor In 1774, Samuel Adams was elected as a delegate of Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. There in 1776 he eagerly signed the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies free from England. In 1778, after the Revolution, Mr. Adams eventually supported Massachusetts' ratification of the U.S. Constitution, although at first he refused to do so. He served as governor of Massachusetts from 1793 to 1797 then retired from public service altogether. Glory At the end of his life on earth, Samuel Adams made a final statement of his beliefs in his will: ``Principally and first of all, I reccommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.'' He died in 1803 at the age of 82, a Founding Father, ``Firebrand of the Revolution,'' and most important, a Christian man.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, last March, I introduced a miscellaneous tariff correction bill (H.R. 3715) to help keep the remaining cathode ray tube and computer display screen manufacturers in the United States. After careful review by the Administration and the Ways and Means Committee, this bill was changed to provide a 3-year duty suspension on monochrome glass envelopes. Also, my office has been given assurances that the permanent removal of the tariff on monochrome glass envelopes will be an item of discussion during the next round of global trade talks. Monochrome glass envelopes are used to make cathode ray tubes that provide the ``light'' behind the computer monitor. When the tariff on monochrome glass envelopes was first proposed, there were American manufacturers of this product. But over the last few years, the final American manufacturer of monochrome glass envelopes decided to get out of the business. Thus, the tariff duty designed to provide a modest level of protection for U.S. makers of monochrome glass envelopes no longer serves its purpose. In fact, the import duty is now hurting the international competitiveness of U.S. cathode ray tube and computer display screen manufacturers. Other foreign competitors are able to purchase monochrome glass envelopes without this tariff. Thus, they are able to price their computer monitors in the U.S. more competitively than U.S. manufacturers of equivalent product. Mr. Speaker, there should not be a U.S.-government imposed incentive for Americans to buy foreign computer display screens! That's why I ask my colleagues to support the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000 because section 1247 of this legislation waives the import tariff on monochrome glass envelopes for three years. We need to remove the import tariff on monochrome glass envelopes so that American manufacturers of cathode ray tubes and computer monitors can compete on a more equal footing with their foreign counterparts. Finally, I want to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Crane, the ranking minority member, Mr. Levin, and the staff of the subcommittee for all the hard work that went into including the 3-year duty suspension of monochrome glass envelopes in H.R. 4868.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take this opportunity to officially recognize an outstanding educator from the 16th district of Illinois for her important contributions to advancing educational excellence in Illinois. Ms. Debbie Rummel lives in Spring Grove and is a physical education teacher at Antioch Community High School in Antioch, IL. She exemplifies the innovation and encouragement that teachers can bring to education. Ms. Rummel has recently been recognized by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) for her outstanding teaching skills and her ability to influence students to continue to engage in physical activities throughout life. Beyond receiving NASPE's Midwest District High School Physical Educator of the Year Award, Ms. Rummel has also been inducted into the University of Wisconsin-Platteville's Athletic Hall of Fame, granted a Nutrition Education Teaching Award from Illinois NET, and received a Governor's Award of Excellence in Physical Education and Fitness. I am honored and pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication that characterizes Ms. Rummel's gift of teaching.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day 2000, a constituent and Korean war veteran, Mr. Mike Carone, gave the following speech during ceremonies in McHenry, Illinois: On June 25 of this year, it will be 50 years since Truman's police action--the Korean War--began. It lasted three years, until July 27, 1953, when an armistice was affected by President Eisenhower. It was a United Nations action that included 20 countries. We were a major participant with seven Army divisions, four Army regiments and one Marine division on the ground with participation from both Navy and Air Force. One-and-a-half million Americans served in Korea during the three years of the war, and 200,000 of them engaged in combat during that period. It signaled the beginning of the end of communist expansion in Asia and the end of the Cold War because we actively resisted and stood our ground. The United Nations, including the South Korean Army, lost one-quarter million lives. Thirty-six thousand American lives were lost in combat, of which over 4,000 were Marines. Total United Nations wounded totaled over one million. Over 100,000 Americans were wounded in action, of which 24,000 were Marines. Today, there are still 8,100 Americans missing in action. Hardly a police action. I dare say there is hardly a page or even a paragraph written about the Korean War in the history books our children read. I was getting out of Marine boot camp at Parris Island when it started and remember the drill instructors trying to find out where Korea was at. Korea was called the ``Forgotten War'' because it started five years after the Second World War and our country was in a peacetime mode. World War 11 vets came home, got a job, got married, bought a house and car and had babies. But the Russian and Korean communists, with approval of the Chinese communists, were not in a peacetime but an aggressive expansionist mode and invaded South Korea. Our country at that time was war-weary and, after the Korean War started, wanted it to end quickly so they (we) could forget it. That wasn't the communist plan, and the Chinese entered the war with infinite human resources. Over 1,000,000 communist forces lost their lives, and they failed to expand communism in Asia. I was a machine gunner in ACO 1st Battalion 5th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division from January 1951 to January 1952 and earned four Battle Stars. Many Marines were killed and wounded during that year. It was and is Marine Corps tradition that our dead and wounded are never left behind-- sometimes at the cost of the living. I remember when our battalion would be relieved for a few days rest, sometimes every one-and-a-half to three months. We would assemble in formation, and the names of those killed- in-action during the previous engagement would be read. Sometimes it took 10 minutes, and other times it would take 45 minutes to read the list. Then the bugler would sound taps to honor the dead as we will do later today. I, like many Korean War veterans, eventually returned to civilian life, got a job, got married, went to college, bought a house, had kids and tried to put the war experiences behind us but could never forget our buddies who were killed or later died of their wounds. Thirty years after the Korean War, I could no longer suppress those memories and became active in veteran organizations and attempted to find those Marines that I served with in the Korean War. I have found some of them, we talked about those war experiences we shared and tried to put to rest those memories. Today, 49 years after the Korean War, those war experiences have dimmed, but I shall never forget those I knew who gave their lives in many of the battles in that faraway land so long ago. In conclusion, let us never forget those who gave their lives in that forgotten war who were never forgotten by their families and buddies, and that they be remembered by us along with all the American veterans who gave their lives in all the wars our country fought in defense of our freedom.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day 2000, a constituent and Korean war veteran, Mr. Mike Carone, gave the following speech during ceremonies in McHenry, IL: ``On June 25 of this year, it will be 50 years since Truman's police action--the Korean War--began. It lasted three years, until July 27, 1953, when an armistice was affected by President Eisenhower. It was a United Nations action that included 20 countries. We were a major participant with seven Army divisions, four Army regiments and one Marine division on the ground with participation from both Navy and Air Force. One-and-a-half million Americans served in Korea during the three years of the war, and 200,000 of them engaged in combat during that period. It signaled the beginning of the end of communist expansion in Asia and the end of the Cold War because we actively resisted and stood our ground. The United Nations, including the South Korean Army, lost one-quarter million lives. Thirty-six thousand American lives were lost in combat, of which over 4,000 were Marines. Total United Nations wounded totaled over one million. Over 100,000 Americans were wounded in action, of which 24,000 were Marines. Today, there are still 8,100 Americans missing in action. Hardly a police action. I dare say there is hardly a page or even a paragraph written about the Korean War in the history books our children read. I was getting out of Marine boot camp at Parris Island when it started and remember the drill instructors trying to find out where Korea was at. Korea was called the ``Forgotten War'' because it started five years after the Second World War and our country was in a peacetime mode. World War II vets came home, got a job, got married, bought a house and car and had babies. But the Russian and Korean communists, with approval of the Chinese communists, were not in Our country at that time was war-weary and, after the Korean War started, wanted it to end quickly so they (we) could forget it. That wasn't the communist plan, and the Chinese entered the war with infinite human resources. Over 1,000,000 communist forces lost their lives, and they failed to expand communism in Asia. I was a machine gunner in ACO 1st Battalion 5th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division from January 1951 to January 1952 and earned four Battle Stars. Many Marines were killed and wounded during that year. It was and is Marine Corps tradition that our dead and wounded are never left behind-- sometimes at the cost of the living. I remember when our battalion would be relieved for a few days rest, sometime every one-and-a half to three months. We would assemble in formation, and the names of those killed- in-action during the previous engagement would be read. Sometimes it took 10 minutes, and other times it would take 45 minutes to read the list. Then the bugler would sound taps to honor the dead as we will do late today. I, like many Korean War veterans, eventually returned to civilian life, got a job, got married, went to college, bought a house, had kids and tried to put the war experiences behind us but could never forget our buddies who were killed or later died of their wounds. Thirty years after the Korean War, I could not longer suppress those memories and became active in veteran organizations and attempted to find those Marines that I served with in the Korean War. I have found some of them, we talked about those war experiences we shared and tried to put to rest those memories. Today, 49 years after the Korean War, those war experiences have dimmed, but I shall never forget those I knew who gave their lives in many of the battles in that faraway land so long ago. In conclusion, let us never forget those who gave their lives in that forgotten war who were never forgotten by their families and buddies, and that they be remembered by us along with all the American veterans who gave their lives in all the wars our country fought in defense of our freedom.''

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening, June 26, 2000, there was a series of votes called for the bill providing appropriations for the departments of Commerce, Justice and State, and the Judiciary--H.R. 4690. I was unavoidably delayed due to mechanical problems and personnel issues with not one, but two different, airlines. Consequently, I was delayed to the point of missing several votes. Had I been present for roll call vote 322, the Sanford Amendment numbered 33 printed in the Congressional Record to strike the $8.2 million appropriation for the Asia Foundation in the Department of State, I would have voted Aye. Had I been present for roll call vote 323, the Olver Amendment numbered 72 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new proviso into the bill (relating to the Kyoto Protocols) which clarifies that the limitations on funds shall not apply to activities which are otherwise authorized by law, I would have voted Nay. Had I been present for roll call vote 324, the Hostettler Amendment numbered 23 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section which provides that no funds in the bill may be used to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith and Wesson and the Department of the Treasury, I would have voted Aye. Had I been present for roll call vote 325, the Vitte amendment numbered 77 printed in the Congressional Record to add language to the bill prohibiting the use of funds by the State Department to approve the purchase of property in Arlington, Virginia by the Xinhua News Agency, I would have voted Aye. Finally, had I been present for roll call 326, final passage for the bill, H.R. 4690, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 361, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure that the House has had its invocation given by the Reverend Mark Teslik of Rockford, Illinois. He is here with his wife, Annette, and son Tom, who are in the gallery just in front of me. Mark was an Eagle Scout. He was an outstanding ROTC Cadet in Jefferson High School in Rockford, Illinois. He is a Ripon College 1976 graduate, with additional studies at Northern Illinois University in Dekalb. Mark served with the Third Armor in Germany and was a Second Lieutenant in the Signal Corps. He is a graduate of the Airborne School in Fort Benning, Georgia. He is a graduate of Lutheran Northwestern Theological Seminary in St. Paul. Mark underwent clinical pastoral training with residency at Alexian Brothers Medical Center in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, and was ordained in 1984. Mr. Speaker, he is the pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church in East Moline, Illinois, and chairman of the World Hunger Appeal Committee of the Northern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Mr. Speaker, we are honored today to have in our presence the Reverend Mark Teslik and we have been honored with his prayer for our country.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the issue here has to be addressed in terms of priorities. The operation of the Patent Office is one of the few constitutional functions to which this body addresses itself. It is nice to have these cultural exchanges. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, we took a look at those several years ago and tried to pare down some money, saved a little money. But we really have to weigh whether or not we are going to have a lot of money spent on the cultural exchanges, or whether or not we are going to undergo a constitutional function, and that is to run the Patent Office. But somewhere in between, the person who gets lost is the small inventor. Patent fees have gone up over the course of the last several years. In discussing this with patent attorneys, I have discovered that many people who would wish to prosecute a patent application have been stymied because of the tremendous cost used in filing for that application. Yet, the application fees have been based upon essentially what it costs to run the Patent Office. So I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), where she said that the patent organizations, some of them, agreed to raise their own fees in order to keep operations going smoothly at the Patent Office. I would suggest this. I wish it were within my power so that all the money that was generated by the fees of the Patent Office stayed at the Patent Office and could be used for the prosecution of patents, to make it done ever more quickly. We are trying to shift some funds, here. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and tremendous respect for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). But the gentleman from North Carolina is right in this sense, that in the patent bill that went through Congress this past year, and I had no small part in rewriting some of the provisions in it, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and, of course, with the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), it became obvious that the purpose of the fees was to support the Patent Office. In fact, there is a provision in that last patent bill that we passed that talked about reasonableness of fees. It is a statement by Congress that fees are to be reasonable in order to encourage entrepreneurship in this country. Now we find out that the raising of the fees was used, and money is being paid by the inventors, to go into the general revenue and to run other programs. That is wrong. So I would suggest this. I would suggest that we vote in favor of the Coble amendment. It is extremely important that the Patent Office be able to run. If there is a problem with the Patent Office moving to the new headquarters, as has been suggested on the floor, I would further suggest that perhaps language be thrown into the conference report that prohibits the Patent Office from doing that if, in the wisdom of this body, it is determined that spending that money is not necessary. I would therefore encourage this body to vote in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want the record to reflect that had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4079, requiring an Audit for the Department of Education, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I was there when the auctioneer's gavel fell and sold half of the family farm of a couple that I represented in Ogle County, Illinois, as their kids sat there and went. Let us not talk about the Bill Gates and the Steve Forbes, let us talk about those people, farm people losing their farms because government wants more money to spend on more programs. It is not Steve Forbes. Let us talk about the Cross family, dealing with the death of the grandmother and then the death of their mother, trying to desperately hang onto the family farm. These are not rich people. They are a small percentage of people, but they are real people with real names and real auction sales that deprive their children of the ability to carry on the family farm. Those are the names.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how the people on the other side of the aisle can continue to come forth with such statements that Republicans are cruel to children. Most of these education programs are actually being increased in spending, so I do not understand where the rhetoric is coming from. The reason I am here today is to advise that last April I invited the OSHA administrator to visit Zenith Cutter in my district. Zenith Cutter is a small manufacturer of industrial knives and has about 175 employees. Mr. Jeffress saw firsthand, with Cedric Blazer, the owners, what industry is already doing in the area of ergonomics without any government mandates. It makes no sense to finalize the ergonomics rule by the end of this year, because nobody at OSHA understands the rule. In fact, we held a hearing in our congressional district the day after a blizzard. Over 100 people showed up from small to large industries. The OSHA people came in from Chicago, and as well- intentioned and as kind as they were, they could not adequately describe exactly what these ergonomic rules are or the standards that would be promulgated with the resulting rules. So I therefore support the decision of the Committee on Appropriations to hold off any action on the proposed ergonomic rule.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, its high time that Congress takes a serious look at the federalization of crimes in the United States. The State and Federal Courts together comprise an intertwined system for the administration of justice in the United States. The two courts systems have played different but equally significant roles in the Federal system. However, the State courts have served as the primary tribunals for trials of criminal law cases. The Federal Courts have a more limited jurisdiction than the State Courts with respect to criminal matters because of the fundamental constitutional principle that the Federal government is a government of delegated power in which the residual power remains with the States. In criminal matters, the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts should compliment, not supplant, that of the State Courts. The 1999 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary shows how its caselaod has grown: One hundred years ago, there were 108 authorized federal judgeships in the federal judiciary, consisting of 71 district judgeships, 28 appellate judgeships, and 9 Supreme Court Justices. Today, there are 852--including 655 district judgeships, 179 appellate judgeships and 9 Supreme Court Justices. In 1900, 13,605 cases were filed in federal district courts, and 1,093 in courts of appeals. This past year, over 320,194 cases were filed in federal district courts, over 546,000 in courts of appeals, and over 1,300,000 filings were made in bankruptcy courts alone. It is apparent that some growth of the federal court system should occur over time due to increases in population. But what also has grown substantially is the scope of federal jurisdiction. Federalization of the states' criminal codes is something that politicians, especially here at the federal level, cannot seem to help but engage in from time to time. It has been over time, in response to criminal concerns nationwide, that Congress has again and again federalized crimes in the name of fighting crime and protecting the nation's populace. But, is the federalization of crime really an antidote for our nation's crime problems? Is it really proper to federalize crime so politicians can ``prove'' their effectiveness? These are important questions that must be asked. We all must look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether there is a sound justification for having two parallel justice systems. Americans should not be subject to different, competing law enforcement systems, different Mr. Speaker, much of what I just stated is contained in the findings of the bill I introduced today--the Federalization of Crimes Uniform Standards (FOCUS) Act of 2000. The bill is simple. It lays out what the appropriate Federal activity--response--is an offense against the Federal Government. Under the bill, section 6, an offense, or federal crime, is an activity with respect to which a clear need for uniform Federal law enforcement exists. This includes an activity that involves conduct of an interstate or international nature, or of such magnitude or complexity that a State acting alone cannot carry out effective law enforcement with respect to that conduct; or that involves conduct of overriding national interest, such as interference with the exercise of constitutional rights. The criminal conduct must be an offense directly against the Federal Government, including an offense directly against an officer, employee, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government. Seems pretty basic. The idea behind this section is to set a standard definition to what constitutes a federal crime. The current method seems to be that a federal crime is whatever Congress deems it to be, without any true consideration of the constitutional issues involved. Therefore, under the current methods, political will is the only thing that keeps us from federalizing crime. Political weakness in the face of media sound bite criticisms force Congress to act again and again to federalize crime--even when there is nothing but rhetoric to suggest that ``something must be done!'' to fight crime. Sometimes less is better. In 1999, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the issue of ``controlling the federalization of crimes that are better left to state laws and courts to handle.'' The hearings were held in part as a response to questions raised by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist regarding the federalization of criminal law. The hearings also focused on the American Bar Association's Task Force on the same issue. The Task Force, which was chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, concluded that in order to maintain balance in our Constitutional system of justice, there must be a ``principled recognition by Congress for the long-range damage to real crime control and to the nation's structure caused by inappropriate federalization.'' Inappropriate federalization. Now, some will say that this is a Republican's attempt to weaken the laws of the land. My reply is simply that federalization of crime does not make anyone safer. Simply adding more laws to the federal code will not necessarily help the citizenry. On the contrary, it could end up hurting those we want to help. Consider that increased federalization has caused a significant case backlog in our federal courts. Those people with cases pending in the federal system for things other than criminal purposes are impacted. Their rights to due process for fair hearings on their issues are delayed. The rights of those who are criminal victims are often delayed, too, due to the length of time it takes at the Some say, let's add more money so we can get these cases to trial. Again, my response to that is, why should we have two entirely parallels systems of justice in our country? Money is not the answer. Better utilization of our constitutional system of federalism and separation of powers is a good place to begin. Let the states work their will. The Federal Government doesn't always have the best answers. We effectively have 50 different constitutional republics that can and do serve as policy laboratories. The electorate in these states are the very same people that elect us all to Congress. They can take control of what is happening in their states and compare outcomes with 49 other state jurisdictions (not to mention the District of Columbia and the territories). With a federal system, will we ultimately move to a single federal criminal code? It would appear that way. It may not happen this year, this decade or even this century. However, over the course of time, the trend indeed is moving that way. This bill is a common sense approach to checking the Congress' penchant for federalizing crimes. It sets guidelines for Congress, which will certainly debate crime again in the legislative branch. The standards state that no federal criminal legislation shall be enacted unless and until certain criteria are met: the legislation must center on the core functions discussed earlier; the States must be inadequately addressing the perceived need; the Federal Judiciary is able to meet the needs without restructuring and without affecting efficiency; and, the bill includes a federal law enforcement impact statement. We pass bills all the time to address certain needs. Let's put the rhetoric to a test. Finally, the bill sets up a Commission to Review the Federal Criminal Code. This commission will review, ascertain, report, and recommend action to the Congress on the following matters: the Federal criminal code (Title 18) and any other federal crimes as to compliance with the standards in this Act; recommend changes, either through amendment or repeal, to the President and Congress where appropriate to the offenses set forth in said criminal code (Title 18) or otherwise; and such other related matters as the Commission deems appropriate. Finally, for each piece of legislation passed out of congressional committees of jurisdiction that modify or add to federal criminal code, the commission must submit a report to Congress. This report will be called a Federal Crimes Impact Statement that shall be included in the reports filed prior to consideration by the House and Senate. The membership of the commission is important to consider. The bill calls for 5 appointed members--1 each from both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate, and one appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, who shall chair the Commission. This will being a new, and much needed, dimension to the debate. Under the bill, the commission would be charged with obtaining official data directly from any department or agency of the United States necessary for Finally, the bill would subject certain legislation to a point of order--if it has not met the conditions set out in the legislation. This would provide additional time for Congress to debate the merits of legislation being considered. In effect, this bill is about considered and appropriate debate for federalizing crime. It will help educate Congress to make more informed decisions that impact the daily lives of all of our constituents. It will help take some of the politics out of the important issues that we face with regard to protecting people from crime. Mr. Speaker, we need to act. The Judiciary has made subtle and not so subtle pleas for Congress to refrain from and restrain its penchant to federalize the criminal code. Most recently, in a decision concerning the Violence Against Women Act, the Chief Justice writes, [t]he Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conducts' aggregate effect on interstate commerce. [U.S. v. Morrison et al. decided May 15, 2000 (Syllabus)] Clearly, there is a message in those words about the federalization of crime. It is time that Congress heeds it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I do not represent companies. I do not represent unions. I represent people. As with any legislation, I ask what does this vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China mean to the people I represent back home? Workers and farmers throughout northern Illinois stand to benefit from the United States-China World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession Agreement because they will be making more product that eventually is exported to China, either directly or indirectly as suppliers. If you work for Daimler Chrysler in Belvidere, this vote simply means the opportunity to build and sell more Neons and auto parts to China. As recently as 1995, Chrysler exported 600 Neons and purchased parts from six different suppliers in northern Illinois for their Jeep Cherokee plant in Beijing, China. The amount of Chrysler-related exports to China totaled $7.8 million. However, in 1999, no Neons and only $30,000 in auto parts from two northern Illinois suppliers were sold to China. Why? China's protectionist auto policy now makes it virtually impossible to sell American cars and auto parts in China. This agreement forces China to cut tariffs by 75 percent on American cars and drop local content requirements on American-made auto parts. This will allow more Neons and American auto parts made by companies like Modine Manufacturing of McHenry and Camcar of Rockford to be exported to China. The workers at Honeywell's Microswitch plant in Freeport will benefit from PNTR for China because the company expects its exports to China to double by 2002. There are $15,000 worth of Microswitch parts on each Boeing aircraft. China has plans to buy 1,600 new aircraft over the next 20 years. The workers at Hamilton-Sundstrand in Rockford will benefit from this agreement because $400,000 worth of parts are made in Rockford for each Boeing aircraft. This translates into hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work for the employees at Hamilton-Sundstrand. The workers at Motorola in Harvard and Rockford will benefit because the agreement eliminates all tariffs on cell phones and pagers. Also, for the first time, Motorola will be permitted to sell its full range of products directly to the Chinese people. The workers at Goodyear's Kely Springfield Tire plant in Freeport; the workers at Cherry Valley Tool & Machine of Belvidere; the workers at Kysor/Westram Corporation of Byron; and the workers at the Rockford Spring Company will all benefit from PNTR for China as suppliers to the agricultural equipment manufacturer, Case. As Case is able to sell more combine and tractors to China because the agreement lowers numerous tariff and non-tariff barriers to American agriculture equipment, the workers in their supplier chain will benefit, too. Over half of Caterpillar's 1999 U.S. production was exported. These exports supported about 32,000 U.S. supplier jobs at small and medium- sized enterprises like the 400 employees at Bergstrom Manufacturing of Rockford, which makes the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning units. The tariff cuts on construction equipment and the distribution rights in the agreement will help Caterpillar and thus Bergstrom Manufacturing become more competitive in China. The workers at Seward Screw Products of Seward make 80 different parts for Harley-Davidson's large motorcycle factory in Milwaukee, WI. Today, Harley is prevented from selling any motorcycles in China because of import license restrictions, import quotas, excessive tariffs, and other significant trade barriers. This agreement substantially eliminates or reduces these trade barriers. In addition, granting PNTR to China will help Taiwan enter the WTO. The U.S.-Taiwan WTO Accession Agreement eliminates Taiwan's import ban on large motorcycle engines. Because both China and Taiwan represents the greatest long range market potential for motorcycles, the workers at Seward Screw Products will benefit by making more products for Harley. But this agreement is not just for large companies. Few people know that 82 percent of all direct United States exporters to China are small-and medium-sized companies. These exporters generated 35 percent of the dollar volume of all United States exports to China in 1997. This figure is higher than the small business exporter dollar volume share of overall U.S. exports, which was 30.6 percent. China is the third largest growth market for small business exporters. In fact, the number of small businesses exporting to China grew by a remarkable 141 percent between 1992 and 1997. Plus, the value of small business exports to China more than doubled between 1992 and 1997. Who are these exporters? I held a hearing on this topic last week before my Small Business Exports Subcommittee to find out. They are 135 employees who work for Aqua-Aerobic Systems in Rockford, IL. The agreement removes a variety of trade barriers against equipment used in sewage treatment plants because China needs the equipment to modernize its infrastructure. Small companies like the 75 employee Coffee Masters of Spring Grove will benefit from this trade agreement. They have tried for years to break into the China market but with no success. They believe this agreement will knock down the numerous trade barriers to their specialized roasted coffee product. E.D. Entyre of Oregon just announced earlier this month that they received a $53,000 order for road construction equipment for a highway project in Hubei province in China. They believe the agreement will help their 350 employees deal directly with customers in China rather than going through various ``middlemen.'' Clinton Electronics of Loves Park exports high resolution display monitors for medical applications. The cuts in tariffs by over 50 percent on medical equipment, along with the elimination of quotas, will help further boost their 250 employee firm's exports to China. And, we cannot forget the farmer. Illinois soybean, grain, and corn farmers like Bob Phelps of Rockton want to look to export markets like China--not the U.S. government--for their income security. Overall, American farmers will be able to sell about $2 billion more of their products to China each year because the agreement will cut Chinese tariffs in half for farm products. Soybean growers will see about a 20 percent increase in exports to China, according to the National Oilseed Processors Association. Hog farmers will receive about $5 more per head, an Iowa State University study projects. That will mean an extra $2.5 million for hog farmers in northern Illinois. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is totally one-sided in favor of the people I represent who make products that are either directly or indirectly exported to China. We do not change any of our trade laws to make it easier for the Chinese to export to us. It is China that has granted concession after concession to the benefit of our workers and farmers! I urge my colleagues to support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to speak on it for just a couple of minutes. We have all had casework matter that hits a dead-end, and most of the time we can help our constituents. However, there are times when you know something is wrong with the system and you have to take the extraordinary step to get some action. Today I am offering an amendment that I intend to withdraw for procedural purposes, for the purpose of giving support to those air traffic controllers across the country who have been hurt financially by the resulting agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. In accordance with two laws passed in the 104th Congress, the FAA was directed to consult with a bargaining unit, in this case, the NATCA, to develop a pay plan to set compensation for air traffic controllers. The resulting agreement was a Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to Reclassification and Association Payrolls Between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA dated 8 January 1998, and has since been amended with subsequent Memorandums of Understanding. The resulting agreement and subsequent MOUs provided certain dates whereby pay reclassification was set depending on where an individual was based one day, October 1 of 1998. The Manzullo amendment seeks to correct this pay discrepancy for those air traffic controllers who did not receive commensurate pay increases upon their reentrance to one of the Interim Incentive Pay facilities, that is the high volume control facilities, such as Chicago. The FAA, by its own admission, urged employees to take certain career moves in order to advance an individual through the supervisory ranks. In a particular case with my constituents, Carlos Contreras, the FAA claims he was promoted. Because of the timing of the so-called promotion in relation to the agreement between the FAA and the NATCA, this air traffic controller realized he would lose quite a bit of money per year. Upon his realization, he requested to go back to the Interim Incentive Pay facility where he had been for 15 years. Again, because of timing and bureaucratic delays, he could not make the change soon enough. He apparently is not alone. I have attempted to get a meeting with Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, and though I have not been denied an opportunity to meet with her, there have been enough delays to make me want to proceed today. My office has been in touch with the FAA several times about the matter. We know that there are about 12 individuals nationwide impacted by this agreement. The FAA says that it does not have the authority to be fair to Mr. Contreras and to the 11 or so others so situated. My amendment simply seeks to provide the FAA with that authority. It prohibits the FAA from spending any money until such time as they have treated these air traffic controllers who are responsible for safety in the sky with justification and judicial reasoning. The resulting move to Mr. Contreras hurt him financially. He was requested by his boss to go to another area. He was promoted but he got caught in a web that resulted in a substantial decrease in his pay. We have reason to believe there are only a dozen or so individuals. This amendment is for justice for these hard-working air traffic controllers. My understanding is that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is willing to work with me in setting a quick meeting with Ms. Garvey to see if there is a way that we can compensate these air traffic controllers.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to CARA. Its goals are worthy, conservation, farmland protection, the recovery and preservation of endangered species, et cetera, but I simply ask my colleagues to consider this question: At what cost are we willing to achieve the goals of this legislation? This measure makes CARA spending mandatory on budget, which means it is the first money spent and competes and has preference over veterans benefits, education, defense, and medical research at NIH, including research for cancer and other illnesses. When we increase government holdings of land, it comes at the dual expense of private property owners. For the owner of the land taken, there is the ugly condemnation issue. And for all other landowners, they will pay higher taxes on their lands to compensate for lands taken off their tax rolls. The Federal Government already owns one-third of all the land in the U.S. When the government controls the land, government makes the decision for the use or nonuse of that land. CARA expands the power of the Federal Government to acquire even more land. This bill increases Federal control. I hope that all of the localities and States that have interest in this big pot of money that CARA promises will take time to consider the ramifications of this bill. The same goes for anyone who believes that zoning and planning matters should be strictly a local concern. CARA leaves important decisions about land use to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Under present law, if Federal money is used to purchase or improve lands under LWCF or UPARR, the Secretary of Interior has great authority to approve or disapprove of any proposed modified or alternative use of the property. However, under CARA, the State and local governments cede even more power to the Federal Government, because CARA increases the role of the Secretary in this decision and raises even higher the standard to change any use required by the State or local government to demonstrate that no ``prudent or feasible alternative'' to the proposed use change exists. This enhanced power under CARA, coupled with the powerful club of over $1 billion per year, will lead to the centralization of State and local planning and zoning decisions in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior, who will be a de facto national planning and zoning czar to the deprivation of State and local governmental units. To my colleagues who are concerned about such things as abuse, fraud, favoritism, and campaign finance reform, they should be very concerned about putting that much power into the office of the executive branch. Once power is given away, it is very hard to get back. That applies to all government institutions at every level, Congress, States and local governments. To my Republican colleagues who ran for Congress with a value to rein in the power of the Federal Government, who vowed to return decision- making to the local governments, who say they want less bureaucracy, then they should vote against CARA. It brings increased government power at the Federal level because it increases the power of Federal holdings. Mr. Chairman, almost six years ago, ``the Era of Big Government'' ended--or so it was claimed. With the Republican landslide elections in 1994, we came into the Nation's Capital with the desire to limit government spending wherever possible and to scale back the intrusiveness of the federal bureaucracy. These are laudable goals. These are honorable goals, These are worthy goals. They were worthy then, and they are still worthy today. These are the reasons, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I must rise in opposition to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act--H.R. 701. The goals of this Act are worthy--conservation, farmland protection, the recovery and preservation of endangered species, and maintenance, among other things. I do not question that the authors of this measure have noble intentions to protect our environment. But, I simply ask my colleagues to consider the question, ``At what cost are we willing to achieve the goals of this measure?'' the expense of cara This measure makes CARA spending ``mandatory'' on budget, which means it is the ``first money'' spent and completes and has preference over veterans benefits, education, defense and medical research at NIH, including research for cancer and other illnesses. congress gives more power to bureaucrats under CARA To those concerned about increasing the size of the government, this bill increases the size and power of all governments--federal, state and local. This bill without a doubt provide the tools to increase land holdings at every level of government. When we increase government holdings of land, it comes at the dual expense of private property owners: for the owner of the land taken, there is the ugly condemnation issue, and for all other landowners, they will pay higher taxes on their lands to compensate for lands taken off the tax rolls. Intrusive government is a big concern, especially absent a mechanism to check its action. Sure, we in Congress can hold oversight hearings. But why under this bill do we provide for state and local government to lose control over their planning and zoning? The federal government already owns one-third of all the land in the United States, the equivalent of all U.S. land east of the Mississippi River. In Congress, we are constantly battling those interests who do not want mining or logging of public lands, motorized recreation in national parks or even hunting or fishing on public lands. These are all taxpayers who want access to our public lands. These are the elderly who cannot get around as they once could, but who still want to enjoy the outdoors. The point here is that when government controls the land, government makes the decisions for the use--or non-use--of that land, CARA expands the power of the federal government to acquire even more land. cara usurps state and local control over zoning This bill increases federal control--plain and simple. I hope that all of the localities and states that have interests in this big pot of money that CARA promises take time to consider the ramifications of this bill. The same goes for anyone who believes that zoning matters should be strictly a local concern. CARA leaves important decisions about land use to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Under present law, if federal money is used to purchase or improve land under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF (Title II of CARA) or the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act (Title IV of CARA), the Secretary of Interior has great authority to approve or disapprove of any proposed modified or alternative use of the property. However, under CARA, the state and local governments cede even more power to the federal government because CARA increases the role of the Secretary of the Interior in this decision and raises even higher the standard to change use by requiring the state or local government to demonstrate that no ``prudent or feasible alternative'' to the proposed use change exists. Thus, this enhanced power (or even the existing power of the Secretary of Interior) under CARA, coupled with the dolling out of over one billion dollars per year under LCWF or UPRRA, will lead to the centralization of state and local planning and zoning decisions in the hands of the Secretary of Interior, who will be the Land and Zoning Czar, to the deprivation of state and local zoning and planning boards. To my colleagues who are concerned about such things as abuse, fraud, favoritism, and Campaign Finance Reform--you should be very concerned about putting that much power into one office in the executive branch. I am not suggesting that all Interior secretaries will take such control and abuse it. What I am saying is that we should be very cautious about putting into one office this kind of unchecked power. Once it is given away, it is very hard to get back. That applies to all government institutions at every level--the Congress, the state governors, the local mayors and town managers--anyone who could be affected by lands bought with any portion of the state LWCF and UPARR. We should all be concerned. To my Republican colleagues who ran for Congress with a vow to rein- in the federal government, who vowed to return decision-making to the states and localities, who say they want less bureaucracy, consider what CARA brings. It brings increased government power at the federal level, it will increase the size of government land holdings and it will centralize decision making power with the federal government. To those interesting in curbing the powers of the federal government, to those who want to prioritize spending choices and be fiscally responsible, I implore you: vote against CARA.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have been there either in person or witnessed it on television, people silently and slowly walking by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in contemplation of the sacrifices made for this Nation, some tracing on paper names embedded in stone, some leaving flowers or little gifts at the foot of that Wall. But there is something missing, men and women whose deaths are related to the war and caused by the war who died after that conflict and whose names are not otherwise eligible to be inscribed on the wall. Today we fill in that which is missing. Today, by passing H.R. 3293, as to which I am a cosponsor, we authorize a plaque, demonstrating the love of this Nation for the men and women who gave the supreme sacrifice and whose names are not on the Wall.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will for the first time focus the attention of the U.S. government on a comprehensive trade strategy towards Africa. We have neglected this continent too long only to the benefit of their former European colonial powers. With the anemic growth in our exports, the U.S. needs to look at every possible market opportunity to improve trade relations. Many may be surprised to learn that U.S. exports to Africa have been growing at a steady rate. Exports from Illinois to South Africa grew from $269 million in 1995 to $413 million in 1998--a 54 percent increase! Illinois exports more to South Africa than it does to Spain or India. The specific African trade picture for Rockford is even better. Exports from Rockford to all of Africa almost doubled, going from $2.9 million in 1995 to $5.1 million in 1998. Some of these exports came from companies like Etnyre of Oregon, which sold asphalt making equipment to the Ivory Coast and Kenya; Newell's International Division in Rockford, which sold office and home products to Zimbabwe and South Africa; Wahl Clipper of Sterling, which sold barbershop hair clippers to South Africa and Nigeria; and Taylor of Rockton, which sold soft serve ice cream machines to South Africa and Nigeria. African trade also extends to McHenry County--RITA Chemical of Woodstock sold industrial inorganic chemicals for the cosmetic industry in South Africa and Motorola of Harvard, a manufacturer of cellular phones that are used even in the remotest parts of Africa. This legislation will further increase export opportunities from companies like these all across America by re-orienting the trade programs and policies of the U.S. government towards Africa. Jane Dauffenbach, President of Aquarius Systems, located in North Prairie, Wisconsin, testified before my Small Business Exports Subcommittee last year about the cut-throat behavior of other foreign governments in trying to win export opportunities in Africa for their local companies. Aquarius Systems manufacturers aquatic weed harvesters. Ms. Dauffenbach testified how the Japanese and the Israeli governments almost snatched a huge export sale to Kenya from her company. It was only because she had a World Bank contract, backed by political risk insurance purchased from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), that she was able to win and complete the sale. She said, ``(s)imply put, Aquarius systems is not competing with foreign companies. We are competing with foreign governments * * * It is imperative that the financing and insurance programs from OPIC exist so that we have the necessary tools available to accomplish our goals.'' H.R. 434 formalizes an investment fund for Africa within OPIC to further enhance export opportunities for companies all across America like Aquarius Systems. This bill represents the tip of the iceberg of what can happen if we build better trade relationships with the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. All these companies agree that if there is a more active effort on the part of the U.S. government to help develop and open the markets in Africa, they would benefit through increased sales. While this bill is not a cure-all for our trade deficit or for solving all of Africa's problems, it represents one beginning step in the right direction. It has the support of our exporting community. It has the support of all--I repeat--all of the sub-Saharan African countries. It's a win-win for all sides. I urge you to join them in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, Rockford, Illinois, lost a giant in industry this past week with the death of Edson Ingersoll Gaylord, leaving his wife, Jane, and children, Charles, Will, Susan, Mary, and John. Edson Gaylord, one of the last of the manufacturing giants; one of the great minds of this century; one of the people who took the innate ability to see things in his spirit, to be able to construct them in his mind and with his hands and the people who surrounded him, was able to manufacture some of the largest machines, actually, in history. Rockford, Illinois, is at a tremendous loss over the death of this man who took a company in 1947 from 400 people to over 4,000. Edson Gaylord, the free trader; a person whom I met a few years ago when I first ran for Congress. I sat in front of him and looked at him with those very piercing eyes of his and that squared jaw as he examined me on a number of issues, and whenever I agreed with him there was this slight nod, a little bit of a smile, and he said you know, Don, if you would only change your mind or modify your position on a particular point of view that I had with which he disagreed, he said, things would go better for you. I said Edson, I said, that is like me asking you to change your mind on free trade. He looked at me totally without expression, sat back in his chair, the corners of his mouth went up slightly and he said, you have my support to be our next Congressman. At that point I thought that he was almost as steeled as the steel with which he worked at Ingersoll Mill and Machine. I would learn over a period of time of these last several years what a very kind and gentle industry giant this man was. Let me give my colleagues some of the patents that he and his company innovated: the I-line transfer machines, the Masterhead machining systems, the Mastercenter machining systems, the Nutating spindle units, the natural path tapelaying systems. These are very complicated terms. What they do, Mr. Speaker, is they make technology in this country. We hear today about the technology revolution and what is going on in high tech, but high tech was nothing to Edson Ingersoll Gaylord, because he, in fact, probably is the inventor of those words, ``high tech.'' Let us take something and let us make it better. What did his friends say about him? Well, one person who started as a new employee at the company was really impressed when Edson Gaylord took 2 hours, walked him around the entire shop, showed him where the company had been and his vision of the future, because that is what he liked, being on the floor of the shop. His good friend, John Doar, an attorney out of Chicago, said this of Edson Gaylord. He said, ``Edson Gaylord's mind has thrived on machine tool manufacturing technology. For as long as I have known him, this curiosity has energized him. This, plus the years of hard work, makes Edson as informed and as knowledgeable as anyone in the world about the opportunities for further developments in the machine tool industry.'' Fortune Magazine said of Edson Gaylord, ``He is the master builder of mammoth tools. He is the bellwether of the machine tool industry. Quite a man, making machines that are used on airplane lines and automobile lines.'' His good friend, Dan LeBlond from the Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences said of Edson, ``An unrivaled inspirer and shepherder of people to accomplish pioneering and singularly successful innovation of advanced manufacturing and machine tool technology. ``A perceptive and innovative industrialist.'' He was a man that America will miss, a man with numerous awards for technology. We know him as Edson Ingersoll Gaylord. America knows him as the friend of innovation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today to commend the extraordinary work of Frank Giarrizzo in his efforts to alleviate hunger in Africa. Ten years ago, Frank served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Malawi. Frank witnessed firsthand the despair brought on by the ``hungry season.'' This is the time when the people run out of the food they have grown, and do not have the money to buy anything until their next crop is ready. Rather than succumb to the hopelessness of the situation, Frank used it as motivation to solve the problem. He established a program in Malawi known as VEZA, or Village Enterprise Zone Associations. This nongovernment organization works in conjunction with local member associations to help farmers increase production. He helps erect silos in which locally grown grain will be stored until there is a food shortage, such as in the hungry season. The money received for the grain will help to refill the silos after the next harvest. These and other initiatives are all a part of VEZA's aim to alleviate hunger. It is important to understand that thousands of people in Malawi are alive today thanks to Frank's determination. It is a living example of how one person can truly make a difference. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I want to thank Frank Giarrizzo for his selfless efforts to improve the lives of others.