Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I had the honor to be part of the Republican Congress that produced the first balanced budget in nearly 30 years. Part of that effort included providing the President line- item veto authority. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled the line- item veto unconstitutional. After the dot-com and 9/11 recessions, the deficit reemerged. Again, Republicans were making progress towards eliminating the annual budget deficit, reducing it down to $161 billion in 2007. But when the Democrats took over control of Congress, we now have a monthly deficit of over $90 billion. Since 2007, I've voted more than 700 times to cut over $2.6 trillion in spending, over 150 times in 2011 alone. This bill represents another effort to rein in spending and get our fiscal house in order. It will withstand constitutional scrutiny, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have something very interesting going on in this administration, and it's called ``Who's in Charge?'' At one time, we believed that the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency, NHTSA, as part of DOT was in charge of regulating the corporate average fuel economy standards. In fact, it's always been that way. Well, then, all of a sudden the EPA gets involved, gets its nose under the tent and decides that, well, because there are emissions that they're going to get involved in it. Then along comes the California Air Resources Board and says, No. If you live in California, these are the standards. So we have the automobile manufacturers taking a look at which agency is in control, if any, and what they have to follow, although they have been forced to follow the standard that's been set down by the EPA to have this amazing 54.5 miles per gallon fuel economy for model years beginning in 2017. In the district that I'm proud to represent, Chrysler has a plant in Belvedere that's going to house the body shop for the new Dodge Dart. I saw that automobile at the auto show here in Washington this past week, and it's a beauty. It's beautiful. It represents more than a $600 million investment in the community and workforce in northern Illinois, and Chrysler had more than 1,600 production workers at the same assembly plant started in July when they had the third shifts. This is another signal of the increase in automobile sales that we're seeing in this country from the zenith of 17 million that were sold years ago to where we are now. But this car starts at $16,000, and with the average price of a vehicle to increase by $3,200 and the source of that is the government itself, I just don't know what these people are thinking. In fact, if you take a look at the EPA rule, that says the estimate is that the mandate will cost $157 billion, which always means the number is vastly greater. That's a lot of money. That's a huge amount of money. I mean, this is classic Obama EPA. But you ask yourself, What is the $157 billion for? The great scientists, mathematicians, and bureaucrats over at EPA said, well, this is the cost that it's going to take in investing in new technology. I hear those words, ``investing in new technology,'' as if people that don't even know the sweet smell of machine oil who sit in offices in Washington, D.C., can sit there with their calculators and their green clerks hats and come to an estimate of what it's going to cost to increase the technology to come up to that 54.5-mile-per-gallon standard. We all know government figures are wrong. I mean, $157 billion, that's a huge amount of money. I think the total amount of the bailout, if anybody was interested in that, was around $15 billion. Now, this is 10 times the amount. You ask yourselves, where is this money coming from? Obviously, if manufacturers have to gear up for this major expense, they're not going to wait until 2017. They're going to start doing it now. And so the increase in prices of automobiles will be directly related to this new mandate from the EPA. So to the gentleman from Texas, I want to thank you for having the courage of speaking out here, and I thank you for the opportunity to help explain to the American people of the folly of this latest EPA action.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today we recognize the Roe v. Wade decision and its aftermath. In 1982, my wife and I had the opportunity to work to start what became the seventh crisis pregnancy center in the country. Now they are known as pregnancy care centers. The work that we did in Rockford, Illinois, spilled into Freeport, Illinois, and DeKalb, Illinois. We set up these centers so we could be there to minister to the women who had very difficult decisions to make. The pregnancy care centers throughout the country offer all kinds of service, from ultrasound to social services to working with the women and with the fathers involved in a very difficult situation. We commemorate that today we honor those who worked so hard for these crisis pregnancy centers. My wife and I are proud to have been two people who helped start the one in Rockford, Illinois.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, any vote to raise the debt ceiling should be tied to restraints on spending. This is the voting card, America's most expensive credit card. During my time in Congress, I voted nine times against raising the debt limit because it was not tied to spending controls. This is another time to say ``no.'' Last August we were hopeful that we could have gone beyond the $4 trillion mandate in the Budget Control Act, but it did not happen. Unfortunately, the supercommittee could not come to a consensus, and we've been drifting ever since. We are now projected to add $2.1 trillion to the national debt since August, with the President's most recent request. I've voted over 700 times against 2.6 trillion in spending over the past 5 years. That's a good place to start to find the savings that we need to get serious on debt reduction. We need to vote ``yes'' to disapprove raising the debt limit yet again so we can get to work to cut the spending.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I often hear complaints from farmers back home about the numerous regulatory burdens placed on them by the government. In fact, this whole past summer we worked with the farmers who have been in a real brouhaha with the EPA concerning the runoff from their stockyards, and even small ones at that. These are life-threatening types of regulations to continuing their farming. And now we come up with another one, this one on dust. EPA is in the process of reviewing its dust standards. In 2009, EPA said farm dust ``likely is not safe'' and could cut the allowable dust levels in half. Because of the furor this has created, the EPA said last October they would not regulate farm dust. First they said they would regulate it; now they said they won't regulate it. So to codify this understanding or these contradictory statements by the EPA, I'm sure that all of my colleagues will have no problem in voting for this bill. H.R. 1633 will prevent the EPA from imposing new Federal regulations on naturally-occurring dust in rural America. It will allow States and localities to regulate farm dust as they see fit based on sound science. Farmers in Illinois already struggle to comply with current standards. If Washington imposes another one-size-fits-all solution to farm dust, this could mean even more unemployment in rural areas throughout Illinois and the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1633.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the doctors that I talk to--the experts themselves, not the lobbyists in Washington--I talk to them on a continuous basis. They're very upset with more regulations. And NFIB is behind the bill.

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important bills that we will pass in Congress. I'm just amazed at what I hear from the other side--we're over here endangering safety; we're poisoning water; we're doing everything we can in the workplace. That's not what this is about. All this bill says is, when you put in a regulation, at least have some type of basis so the people impacted by it know where to go from there. Have some good, sound science. Let's have an economic impact study. Let me just give you five instances specifically. Talk to the doctors today about all of the regulations impacting them, and you'll hear complaints about spending more time on paperwork than with their patients. Talk to the banks. I was talking to a small banker, only 19 employees. Two little banks in my district, they have to hire a full- time compliance officer just because of Dodd-Frank, and that bank didn't do one thing wrong to bring about this economic collapse. And now the farmers. EPA is going to regulate cow manure under CERCLA, as opposed to the present rules. Several years ago, this House passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. One of those was something called the employee commute option that said that counties around Chicago had to have something called an employee commute option that was forced carpooling. Well, one of those counties was McHenry County, which is still a rural county. And I had to work with Henry Waxman for 2 to 2\1/2\ years to come up with a reasonable interpretation and corrective language in order to make sure that the people of that county were not strapped with that incredible mandate and at the same time we did not compromise the quality of the air. The Hope Scholarship reporting requirements that said that the 7,700 schools across the country had to report who it was that gave them the money--turned them into some kind of a supercomputer. And I worked with the 7,700 schools and with the commissioner of the IRS--this was a $100 million mandate upon all of these schools in the country because nobody took the time to say, what impact will this regulation have upon the schools of this country? This before me is one day of regulation, just one day in America. Just one day in Washington, just one more day when the small business people have to read through 500 pages of 9-point type dealing with air particulates. And then I hear today that oh, you don't need any relief, it's not necessary. Regulations are good. And then we take a look at the impact that this has, the financial impact that it has on the small businesses today. This is a great bill. It's long overdue. And as a former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I say it's about time, and our colleagues on the other side should all vote unanimously for this bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, there are over 10,000 Federal programs and counting. No one quite knows how many there are. I do most of my work in Congress on manufacturing; and for 12 years, I've been working on a chart to identify every agency, every bureau that is involved somehow in manufacturing. And it continues to grow and grow and grow. And my objective was to find a way with a common portal to be able to access via the Internet exactly what's going on, but it's impossible. And that's the problem with this government. People run to Congress and say, I have got a program for this and for that. Well, you know what, it's time to start eliminating programs around here. It's time to just keep those programs that are absolutely necessary, and the best way to do that is to have the fiscal restraint imposed by a balanced budget amendment. No longer is it a matter of going to the backroom and simply printing money to cover this program or that program. We need to come to the realization that Washington doesn't have the answer for everything. And the best way to cut back on these 10,000 programs is to have the discipline of a balanced budget amendment so that the Members of the House and Members of the Senate can realize you really can't spend more than what you take in.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 857. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall Nos. 854, 855, and 856. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' General Leave

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I hear complaints from our small business constituents back home about the difficulty in raising capital. Today we have an opportunity to fix one aspect of this problem so that our Nation's small businesses can obtain the funds that they need to hire workers. Current law bars companies from raising capital through unsolicited advertisements. Requiring potential investors to have an existing relationship with a particular company limits the pool of potential investors and hampers the efforts of small companies who have a great idea to raise much-needed capital to expand and hire workers. This bill would make an exemption in the advertising ban for accredited investors. H.R. 2940 will make it easier for companies to raise capital without putting less sophisticated investors at risk. As a former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2940. The bill will help small gazelle firms raise capital during these difficult economic times.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Instead of going after tax delinquents, the law punishes everyone for the failings of a few. When I chaired the Small Business Committee several years ago, I saw a lot of harm and injuries taking place to small business people. This is a tough one. H.R. 674 would repeal that. The 3 percent withholding rule disproportionately hurts small businesses. I met with several electrical contractors in my office recently, and the first thing on their minds and their hearts was the fact that this should be repealed because it simply does not make sense. The bill would repeal the onerous law to the benefit of farmers and others who sell goods and services to the government at all levels, but also it repeals an unfunded mandate imposed upon State and local governments that requires them to be the tax collectors for the IRS. This bill would free up precious financial resources so businesses have the flexibility to hire more workers to complete the task at hand. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of all three market- opening agreements. Over the past 3 years, the United States posted a surplus of over $70 billion in manufactured goods with our free trade agreement partners. These three free trade agreements that we're discussing have the potential to generate more exports to create or sustain 250,000 jobs. Last year, the Brookings Institute released a study that the Rockford, Illinois, metropolitan area, with a population of 350,000, exported a whopping $3.3 billion in 2008, making Rockford the most export-intensive city in all of Illinois. Over 16,000 jobs in the Rockford area are directly related to these exports. With the passage of these three free trade agreements, we can have even more exports coming from northern Illinois to the rest of the world.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to present to my colleagues a succinct academic analysis written by Dr. Michael Czinkota of the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, and his fellow professors, Gary Knight and Gabriele Suder, regarding their analysis of the impact of 9/11 on the international business climate and the trends in globalizations. In light of the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States, I commend to you their observations. Terrorism and International Business--Looking Back and Striving Forward (By Michael R. Czinkota, Gary Knight, and Gabriele Suder) The airplanes of 9/11 forced countless multinational corporations (MNCs) to update their strategic planning. Our work with executives at more than 150 MNCs shows that ten years later, companies are still grappling with how best to manage the terrorist threat. In the two decades before 2001, the rate at which firms launched international ventures was growing rapidly. After 9/ 11, foreign direct investment fell dramatically as firms withdrew to their home markets. The popularity of international-sounding company and brand names decreased appreciably as managers now emphasize domestic and local affiliations. The tendency to reverse course on globalization has been accompanied by declining international education in the United States, as revealed by falling enrollments in foreign language and international business courses. In the past decade, managers shifted much of their focus from proactive exploration of international opportunities to a defensive posture emphasizing threats and vulnerable foreign operations. In Europe, the radicalization of individuals and groups, motivated by ideology, religion or economic concerns, threatens local cooperation and social harmony. European business schools have benefited from tighter restrictions on international student enrollments in the U.S., but the focus of teaching has shifted from global to regional trade. Another outcome of the terrorism threat has been a rise of public-private partnerships, in which governments and firms collaborate to counter them. For example, global police agencies now partner regularly with private firms to combat cyber crime and attacks on critical computer infrastructure. Governments and activist groups now use social media to organize campaigns fighting against threats ranging from dictators to disease. But nations also have begun to curtail social media when they are contrary to government interests. The cost of protecting against terrorism is many billions, while terrorist spend millions or less on their actions. There are abundant opportunities for small groups to employ nonweapon technologies, such as aircraft, to cause massive harm. Though our capacity to protect key facilities has improved over time, the security focus on high-value assets encourages terrorists to redirect their violence at ``soft targets'' such as transportation systems and business facilities. Greater security at home means attacks will increasingly take aim on firms' foreign operations. Companies have placed more emphasis on terrorism risk considerations when choosing how to enter foreign markets. In the last century, foreign direct investment (FDI) was the preferred approach. But terrorism has shifted the balance. Now many more firms favor entry through exporting, which permits broad and rapid coverage of world markets, reduces dependence on highly visible physical facilities, and offers much flexibility for making rapid adjustments. In terms of economies of scale and transaction costs, FDI is generally superior, but the risks of exporting are judged to be lower. Markets tend to punish failure more harshly than they reward success, which makes risk-minimizing strategies more effective. Skillful management of global logistics and supply chains cuts the risk and cost of downtime. Firms seek closer relations with suppliers and clients in order to develop more trust and commitment. Some have increased ``on-shoring'' by bringing suppliers back into the country when their remoteness constitutes risk. Terrorism causes an organizational crisis whose ultimate effects may be unknown, and poses a significant threat to the performance of the firm. Corporate preparedness for the unexpected is a vital task. Innovative managers develop back- up resources, and plan for dislocations and sudden shocks with a flexible corporate response. Terrorism is a public threat, and some managers believe government should bear the cost of protecting against it. Others argue that a public-private partnership is the most effective approach, with firms taking the lead. There is also the issue whether corporate headquarters or the locally exposed subsidiary should fund prevention and preparation expenditures. Regardless of who pays, everyone can agree on the need to guard against terrorism. Every world region is vulnerable, and most attacks are directed at businesses and business-related infrastructure. Terrorism requires decision-making and behaviors that support vigilance and development of appropriate strategies. Managers who fail to prepare run the risk of weaker performance or even loss of the firm. While we can no longer choose the lowest cost option, ten years after 9/11 companies are more aware, less exposed, and less vulnerable to the risk of terrorism. But in the next ten years comes the really big task: What can and should we do collectively and individually to reduce the causes of terrorism.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Judge Carter, for the opportunity to be with you this evening. I spend, as you know, most of my time working on manufacturing issues. Our congressional district in the northern part of Illinois is home to over 2,000 factories, and McHenry County, in particular, is home to some of the most high-tech plastic companies in the world. The President, last week, spoke before Congress and talked about regulations, and he said that every rule should meet the so-called commonsense test. Regulations should protect people from environmental health hazards and unsafe workplace practices. There's no disagreement on that. We all agree on that. But overregulation has a tendency to destroy jobs. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the directive of the National Toxicology Program, has labeled, recently, styrene as a human carcinogen that causes cancer. Now, styrene is the basic ingredient that is used in plastic composites. About 90 percent of the composites contain that and about 50 percent of other plastic resins for other uses. And some of the uses for products with styrenes, they're used in packaging and disposables under polystyrene plastic resins, food trays, egg cartons, furniture, office fixtures, equipment covers, mail trays. In fact, the plastic that is oftentimes used on electronic equipment, refrigerator components, liners, air-conditioning parts in housing, toys, high-tech products, consumer electronics, major appliances, insulation, floor backing, pipe and siding, computer monitors, IV connectors, syringes, stereo covers. You can see that it's almost anything that is used in manufacturing. And the fiberglass tubs, showers.

Mr. MANZULLO. It could very well be.

Mr. MANZULLO. So that just demonstrates, Judge, the fact that styrene is so pervasive in all of our consumer products. Now, what has happened is the National Toxicology Program said that styrene is a carcinogen. They looked at a couple of studies, did a very, very poor job in looking at the history and the other studies available. In fact, the European Union and Canada came to the opposite conclusion and said that there's nothing wrong with styrenes, that it does not cause cancer. What we're trying to do is get the National Academy of Sciences, which is widely regarded as the final word in these scientific matters, to conduct an independent study on styrene. Now, if nothing happens and styrene remains on this list of something that's ``likely to cause cancer,'' it could end up destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in America. Let me give you an example. The company that makes all the plastic utensils for McDonald's, that company uses styrenes. And what we see developing here are insurance companies that are taking a look at the plastic companies that use styrene, and they're becoming very nervous over the fact that the government is taking a position that, without good case study, styrene is a carcinogen. So insurance companies are starting to balk at insuring the companies that use styrene. Lawyers have already met examining the best way that they could bring the class action lawsuits for all of these products that contain styrenes. And what could end up happening is, because of the regulations that will come down from the Federal Government, the government will say, well, in its finished product, there's nothing wrong with a product involving styrenes, but in the manufacturing of it, that's where the problem is. We could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our plastics industry could be destroyed. Now, these are the types of things that absolutely do not make sense, where, because of the jungle of rules that the Federal Government has that makes it very difficult to get in a counterargument, where people make decisions not based upon a cost analysis but based upon a couple of studies here and there as opposed to volumes of studies that have gone on examining whether or not styrenes are a carcinogen, we could lose the plastics industry in America. Those jobs could easily go overseas all because of poor science on the part of the regulators. Regulation in America is out of control. And I work not only with the styrene industry but the people that are involved in foundries, where regulations are underway that if they're not done correctly--you could take a look at the silicas and say even though silicas are a problem, we know that if the regulations are done improperly, we could lose the foundry industry in this country. America is great because of our manufacturing background. America will only recover from this economic crisis when the manufacturing jobs are secure and come back. That's why we've been pleading with HHS, saying, You don't understand, the Department of Health and Human Services, the impact of the poor decision that you have made with regard to these styrenes. We could go on to other products from other manufacturers, and it's a slew. You have, up there on the chart, the scissors cutting the red tape. The red tape is so thick it would take a blowtorch to go through it, or some kind of a chopper or buzz saw, besides the scissors on it. So I share with you the deep concern over the people who are losing jobs in America today because of overregulation by the Federal Government.

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. Look at the Keystone pipeline coming down from Canada to Texas, which branches, really, into central Illinois. It's been tied up by the EPA and other regulators for 3 years. We're looking at 20,000 new jobs. I think it's a $5 billion to $8 billion project. That doesn't count the people that make the pizzas, the people that make the shoes. I was talking to a shoe salesman, Red Wing shoes that are mostly made in America, and those are the industrial shoes. And I said, How's business? He said, Don, when manufacturing is down and construction is down, my sales of shoes are down. And so it continues. It's not just the actual cost of the impact to that particular entity, the particular construction site, the particular regulation, but all of the peripherals that come as a result of it. Those are the things that destroy our economy.

Mr. MANZULLO. And it's not just oil; it's natural gas.

Mr. MANZULLO. Plus we would end up losing the people that made the machine tools, the actual molds, the dyes for the injection systems and other types of systems and molding systems that are used in the manufacture of these plastics. I appreciate Congressman Carter's yielding to me to explain this styrene issue, and I look forward to the rest of his presentation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, with my good friend and Co-Chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, Tim Ryan of Ohio, the Mechanical Insulation Incentive Act of 2011, MIA 2011. Mechanical insulation is the insulation placed around mechanical equipment, such as large boilers, heating and air conditioning units, duct work, and hot and cold water piping, to prevent energy loss, control condensation, regulate temperature, help reduce pollutants, and protect employees from hot or cold surfaces. Commercial buildings and industrial facilities consume 2.5 times more energy than homes, according to the Energy Information Administration. Energy efficiency in mechanical insulation is critical in reducing energy cost and consumption, and it is an essential industry for job creation. MIA 2011 will help the commercial and industrial sectors invest in mechanical insulation and create much-needed jobs in one of the hardest-hit industries. The National Insulation Association, NIA, estimates that this bill alone could create or sustain more than 89,000 jobs annually. Specifically, this legislation would create up to a 30 percent tax deduction to encourage commercial and industrial entities, such as manufacturing facilities, office buildings, schools, hospitals, power plants, hotels, and universities, to go beyond minimum mechanical insulation requirements in new construction and retrofit projects and increase their maintenance activities. The NIA also estimates this bill could save up to $35 billion in energy costs and reduce as much as 170 million metric tons of carbon emissions over the next five years. Mechanical insulation systems are a vital component in creating and maintaining high-performance, energy-efficient buildings and increasing manufacturing efficiency. MIA 2011 cuts energy costs, reduces carbon emissions, and puts Americans back to work through a tax incentive encouraging the use of mechanical insulation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise on behalf of the following colleagues, Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Spencer Bachus, Kevin Brady, Dan Burton, John Carter, John Culberson, Elton Gallegly, Scott Garrett, Louie Gohmert, Jeb Hensarling, Ruben Hinojosa, Sam Johnson, Timothy Johnson, Jim Jordan, Steve King, Jack Kingston, Doug Lamborn, Daniel Lungren, Mike McIntyre, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Randy Neugebauer, Mike Pence, Joseph Pitts, Bill Posey, Peter Roskam, Adam Smith, Cliff Stearns, Glenn Thompson, Tim Walberg, Ed Whitfield, Joe Wilson, Frank Wolf, and Don Young, to pay tribute to the extraordinary life and service of Sam McCullough. Sam served this body faithfully for over three decades as a spiritual mentor and good friend to hundreds of Members, Congressional staff, Presidential appointees, and other government officials. Sam entered the presence of the Lord on July 2, 2011, after a brave, year-long battle with cancer. Sam began his earthly journey in New Jersey where his missionary parents were in ministry at the Hydewood Park Baptist Church. At the age of four Sam accepted Christ as his personal Lord and Savior at a Child Evangelism Good News Club led by his mother. From that point on Sam always had a keen interest in spiritual things. At the age of ten, Sam, his parents and his sister, Ann, returned to the mission field in Bolivia. His faith grew even more as a student at a small missionary children's boarding school. Sam returned to the States to join his sister at the Ben Lippen School boarding school in Asheville, NC. Under the influence of godly teachers, he rededicated his life to the Lord. Upon graduation he attended Columbia International University for two years of intensive Bible training. He then transferred to Houghton College in New York graduating with a degree in Business Administration and minors in Spanish and music. Campus Crusade for Christ staff visited the Houghton campus during Sam's senior year. Sam and his future wife Nan were impressed with the young people and their passion to share Christ. Upon graduation in 1967 Sam worked for Art DeMoss' National Liberty Insurance Company. He also attended the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia. Art DeMoss, a personal friend of Campus Crusade founder Dr. Bill Bright, challenged Sam to join Campus Crusade to ``help change the world'' by reaching the future leaders on university campuses. Sam and Nan were married after Nan's graduation from Houghton and joined the Campus Crusade ministry as staff. They had planned on a two year term to learn how to effectively share their faith, then to return to the business world. But as God used them in the lives of college students, they found themselves compelled to stay in full time ministry. The McCulloughs were assigned to ministry on the campuses of the University of Maryland, University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, and Rochester Institute of Technology, after which they moved to the University of Buffalo where they ministered for four years. Over 20 of their University of Buffalo students went into some form of Christian ministry. In 1973, Sam was appointed as Area Director for all of Pennsylvania and Delaware. He carried this responsibility for six years. He worked on all the campuses in those states where Campus Crusade had a presence. In 1979 Sam felt the Lord leading him to leave his work with future leaders and to start reaching out to the present leaders in Washington. Sam and Nan joined the Christian Embassy (CE), a Washington, DC ministry of Campus Crusade and have faithfully served national and international leaders in Washington for 31 years. In addition to numerous administrative responsibilities at the CE, Sam led Bible studies and other men's groups. He was responsible for planning many of the CE retreats and fund raising events. Towards the end of his ministry on this Earth, Sam defied the cancer to continue modeling the Christian life and teaching the Word of God to presidential appointees, Members of Congress and their Chiefs of Staff. Sam is survived by his precious wife, Nan, his three children and their spouses: Kristi & Darrin Kruft, Kevin & Sarah McCullough, Scotty & Kelly McCullough, and three grandchildren: Lily Kruft age 9, Jazlyn McCullough age 5, & Damien Atkins age 13. Sam had an amazing ministry of presence to us on Capitol Hill. Whether it was praying with Members or Ambassadors distraught over national tragedies, helping defeated Members transition out of public service, or following up on the health episodes of family members, Sam was always there. In a town known for asking, ``What have you done for me lately?'' Sam was one of the few who would stop by simply to say, ``Hi, do you have any needs?'' He spent his lifetime pouring himself into the lives of others, driven only by the call of following the will of the Lord. Sam was a truly special man who humbly touched the lives of all who encountered him. We will miss his presence with all our hearts and are so grateful that he chose to share the love of Christ with us. We also extend our appreciation to Nan and the children for sharing Sam with us. We have no doubt that when Sam entered the presence of the King, he was welcomed with ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant!''