Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation is supported on both sides of the aisle as an example of how Republicans and Democrats can work together in the interests of small businesses and the Nation as a whole. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) is the principal author of the legislation, and I commend him for his hard work in shepherding this bill. The bill is designed to help small businesses cope with the maze of Federal, State, and local regulations that have created such a heavy monetary and time-consuming burden for Main Street, America. Every day, we all receive complaints from our constituents about their inability to understand regulations that are written in legalese rather than plain English, and about arbitrary actions taken by some regulatory agencies. This bill establishes a pilot program to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. We will keep a watchful eye on whether the pilot program is accomplishing the objective of helping small businesses cope with regulations. The bill requires that the Congress receive a progress report annually on the pilot program's accomplishments. The General Accounting Office is also required to provide a program of evaluation to Congress no later than 3 years after the pilot program is established. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the author of this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of H.R. 1860 is to amend the Small Business Act to extend the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, more familiarly known as the STTR Program, through the end of September 2009. Under present law, the STTR program will terminate on September 30, 2001. The STTR program requires a cooperative venture between a for- profit small business and a researcher from a university, federal lab, or a nonprofit research institute for the purpose of meeting particular needs or developing commercially viable products from ideas spawned in a laboratory environment. This program builds on the well-established reputation that small businesses have for innovation and job creation to the benefit of the economy, generally, and specifically those who participate in the program. It also benefits the vast wealth of scientific knowledge that is available in this Nation's research institutions that employ approximately one-fourth of the scientists and engineers in the country. Together small business concerns and the research community have proved a successful vehicle for moving ideas from academic environments to the practical, useful commercial world to the benefit of U.S. economy and workers. For a Federal agency to participate in the program, it must have a contracted-out research and development budget that exceeds $1 billion in any fiscal year. Currently there are five Federal agencies that meet the funding requirement: the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. No new funding is required to reauthorize this program since the program is funded as a percentage of the contracted-out research and development funds annually appropriated by Congress to those federal agencies meeting the funding threshold. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the percentage of the R&D budget required to be spent for small high tech firms by agencies participating in the program increases from .15 percent to .3 percent. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the amount that a small business can receive for Phase II award is increased from 500,000 to 750,000 in line with Phase II awards made under the SBIR program. Participating agencies are directed in this bill to implement an outreach program to research institutions and small business concerns for the purpose of enhancing the STTR program in conjunction with any such outreach done for purposes of SBIR program. The bill is important to foster the development of small high technology firms. I commend my Committee on Science colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the primary sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1860) to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. We had a very interesting full committee hearing in New Mexico with regard to the Los Alamos lab in the district of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). It became quite apparent that there has to be something done to make at least that lab come to the table and to include more local businesses and people involved in technology as part of their program. If this program is reauthorized, which I hope it will be, we will stay on top of the progress at Los Alamos and the other labs in this country to make sure the taxpayers' dollars that they are being given are used wisely and that the portion that is set aside for small businesspeople is done exactly for that purpose. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I want to convey my thanks to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Armed Services Committee for including my amendment to the managers' amendment to HR 2586. My provision doubles the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) grant match to states which run state-wide Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) program so that they would be able to receive up to $600,000 in funding. Small business participation in government procurement is dropping, particularly for Defense Department contracts. For new contracts worth over $25,000, the number of small businesses winning these opportunities dropped from a high of 70,088 in 1995 to 41,075 in 1999. Even for sales opportunities to the federal government of $2,500 or less, which used to be reserved for small business, the number of small purchase actions from small businesses decreased from nearly 10 million in 1995 to 3.8 million in 2000. One solution to this problem is to enhance the role of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs). During the 1980's, Congress created local PTACs around the country to increase small business participation in defense procurement. Modeled after Small Business Development Centers (SDBCs) run by the Small Business Administration (SBA), these centers offer free advice and help to small businesses both in educating them about how to get involved in government procurement and also how to obtain contracts. Most of the PTACs are co-located in a local higher education institution. About half of the funding for most of the PTACs comes from Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The remainder comes from the state government and/or the local host such as the community college. States currently have a choice: they can either ask for up to $300,000 to run a state- wide program or regional centers can ask for up to $150,000 to run a program locally. Some states have decided to run a statewide program in order to have continuity of service throughout the state. However, some states have allowed regional or city PTACs to operate. Currently, 15 states have regional or city PTACs that receive an excess of $300,000. For example, Pennsylvania received nearly $1.2 million in DLA funding to run eight regional PTACs. Similarly, Michigan received just over $1 million to run eight regional PTACs. The current funding formula penalizes states like my home state of Illinois who have opted for a seamless delivery of procurement assistance services throughout the state but also serve a large population. My amendment, which was also introduced as a clean bill (H.R. 2689) supported by all the Illinois Members of the House Armed Services Committee, increases the DLA grant match to states that run a state- wide PTAC program so that they would be able to receive up to $600,000 in funding, double the current level of $300,000. This would potentially benefit 30 states and one territory that either have a statewide PTAC program or only one city participates in the PTAC program. These include, in alphabetical order: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. There are also the five states and four other territories that do not have any PTAC program which could potentially benefit from this amendment. These include, in alphabetical order: America Samoa, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the Virgin Islands. It is important to remember that each state with a state-wide run PTAC program would not automatically receive a $600,000 grant from the DLA because each proposal would have to stand on its own merits. Currently, 10 states and one territory do not even receive the full $300,000 in grant funds from the DLA authorized to run a statewide PTAC program. Thus, this proposal does not necessarily mean that the cost of the program would immediately balloon. Only those states that submit a sound proposal who serve a large population would qualify for the maximum of $600,000, as contained in my amendment. Finally, the Manzullo amendment does not mean that the 15 states with regional or city PTACs would receive less funding. This amendment is silent on the match received from DLA to regional or city PTACs. With the criticism of recent Pentagon procurements that disadvantage small businesses, my amendment is one positive way to remedy the problem. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support the managers' amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the attached comments of the National Alliance of Sales Representatives Associations on the impact of rising energy costs on small businesses. As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I will continue to review the issues raised in the attached letter. The National Alliance of Sales Representatives Associations, Atlanta, GA, August 2, 2001. Subject: Impact of Increasing and Volatile Energy Costs on Sales Representatives Chairman Donald Manzullo, House Small Business Committee, Washington, DC. Mr. Chairman: As Chairman of the Bureau of Wholesale Sales Representatives and President of the National Alliance of Sales Representatives Associations I have the opportunity to discuss the impact that increasing and volatile energy costs with many other sales representatives. What follows are a summary of my experiences but they are typical of what is happening to sales representatives across the country. The National Alliance of Sales Representatives Associations (NASRA) is based in Atlanta and represents more than 10,000 sales representatives who work in industries like apparel, shoe, gift, furniture, and other related sectors. The Impact of Rising Fuel Costs When energy costs wildly fluctuate as they have in the last four months, sales representatives who are independent business owners, find that they have to absorb the rising energy costs with no ability to pass any of the cost increases on to their customers. As a result a season that has already been hurt due to a slowing economy goes into the proverbial tank as we are all forced to absorb cost increases that cannot be reflected in our commissions. Here are some personal illustrations of how these costs increases have affected my business. My territory consists of Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and The District of Columbia. I travel in excess of 50,000 road miles per year and I make a minimum of five trips annually to key areas of my territory. In addition, I attend twenty to twenty five trade shows. My travel is done in a mini van racked for the purpose of housing my samples. Naturally the added weight decreases fuel efficiency but nevertheless the vehicle is critical to my business. Within 30 minutes of my home you can presently find gasoline prices ranging from $1.65 to $1.16 for regular unleaded and I am aware that prices across the country have been even higher. Some sales reps have chosen to purchase diesel fuel motor homes for the purpose of efficiency. During the past few months, diesel prices in my area have ranged from $1.70 to $1.31. At recent prices it makes the investment in travel a real issue. Most diesel vehicles are commercial, busses and trucks and the trucking industry has requested they be allowed to pass on these increased costs. Commissioned sales representatives who drive diesel or gasoline powered vehicles do not have the ability to pass on rising costs nor petition congress for such rebates. Rising Fuel Costs Affect in Other Areas If it were only the rising cost of fuel perhaps the impact would not be so great. These same rising costs effect every phase of my business and my life. 1. The hotels I use have added energy surcharges without notice. 2. Food and restaurant prices have gone up due to transportation costs. 3. Airlines, busses and trains have also added energy surcharges. 4. The convention centers and hotels that host our trade shows have new energy clauses in their leases. 5. Retail prices on my products have increased because of rising production and shipping charges. When retail prices rise retail slows which directly impacts my wholesale business. California Impacts Sales Representatives Nationally As a final insult many sales representatives including myself have been affected by the energy crisis in California. My business begins with samples. Recently, I have had delays in getting samples, especially from California. This is due largely to rolling black outs which has slowed production. If I do not have my samples shipped on time so that I can display them at the trade shows my time and money invested in trade shows is lost. At this time I cannot plan my business because the costs keep changing. They never go down and yet my income does not increase proportionately. A business that is run without the ability to plan is doomed to failure. All costs rise with rising energy prices. Where does it end? It seems to end with me. On a more personal note our family had to make a very difficult decision. After more than 30 years in a business he loved my husband has left the industry. There can be no doubt he was literally forced out by these rising costs. Unfortunately, more and more of my colleagues are making similar decisions. It is well known small business is the engine for our country. What will happen when we are unable to run the engine? Solutions Congress needs to look for long-term solutions to maintain some level of stability in energy costs. The quick fixes have been meaningless to me. We need a long view energy policy. We MUST put stability ahead of volatility so that small business owners can plan. Mr. Chairman I wish to thank you for looking into this issue and for your assistance to the National Alliance of Sales Representatives. Sincerely, Sandra Hanlon Bloom.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise to address my concerns with this bill, H.R. 1886, which would alter the current process for third parties in a patent reexamination request. As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have concerns that small inventors may be hurt under the proposed process allowed under this bill. I am grateful to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary and to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). The gentleman from Wisconsin met with me today, albeit at the 11th hour, to discuss my concerns. He very graciously agreed to hold a hearing this year on how the bill may affect the interests of the small inventor. The chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee are extremely fair people. They are very reasonable. They are the first ones that want to make sure that this bill would do no harm to the small inventor. I appreciate their concern on it. But I would like to put into the Record as I see it how the small inventor may be hurt. Patents are intellectual property rights. Patents allow inventors to keep others from using for monetary gain inventions they have created. The reexamination process brings a patent back through the process, essentially opening up the procedures that bring about a patent. Third-party reexamination allows any party, an individual, a company, or even a foreign Nation, the ability to officially request a reexam of a patent in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If a third party requester does not succeed in convincing the experts of the PTO, they do not have the right to go into the Court of Appeals. That is important for the small inventor. I am of the opinion that this bill may open a whole host of problems, particularly for the small inventor. Let me explain. Under current law, a patent can be challenged as to its validity in a Federal district court only upon a party being charged with infringement or being sued for infringement by a patent owner. In the first case, the alleged infringer may file a declaratory judgment action to settle a dispute, thereby allowing them to go to court. In the latter case, the sued party, the alleged infringer, can challenge patent validity in an affirmative defense claim before the Federal appeals court. H.R. 1886 would allow any third party to question the validity of a patent without first being charged for infringement. This is critical because a bad actor, again, anyone from an individual company, corporation, or foreign Nation, could essentially bottle up a truly valid patent with frivolous claims, hurting the true inventor's ability to develop his ideas. There are concerns that this bill could cause a domino effect in the marketplace for these small inventors seeking financing to get a finished product, idea, concept, to the market. A legitimate inventor of a significant concept would be dramatically hindered from seeking venture capital for something that is tied up in the courts by a third party reexamination, as is allowed and envisioned under H.R. 1886. It enables a third-party requester to challenge as many patents in the courts as it deems necessary at a much-reduced cost to them so as to gain or maintain a stronghold in any particular industry. Therefore, I am heartened that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary through his graciousness saw me today, expressed a willingness to work with the small inventor to make sure that the small inventor was protected and the fact that he is open to holding a hearing on this issue.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I receive thousands of letters from small employers, many from northern Illinois, who are struggling with surging health care costs for their employees. We call this ``Health Care Horror Stories from America's Small Employers.'' Today, we have an opportunity to protect patients' rights and improve the quality of health care. This amendment allows small employers the ability to bring down health insurance costs for themselves and their employees by joining association health plans, similar to the way that labor unions pool their members to lower premiums for their insurance. We cannot possibly believe we are protecting patients if more small entrepreneurs stop paying for coverage. Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this amendment. As Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am troubled by the fact that of the 43 million Americans with no health insurance, more than 60 percent are the families of small entrepreneurs and their employees. I have received thousands of letters from small employers--many from the northern Illinois district I represent--who are struggling with surging health care costs for their employees. Geoff Brook is one of my constituents who offers health care coverage to his employees at Energy Dynamics, Inc. in Machesney Park, Illinois. The last three years especially, premiums have skyrocketed and Geoff has reluctantly been forced to cancel coverage for the families of his employees and raise deductibles for his employees themselves. He recently received a notice from his insurance company that his employees' premiums were going to increase another 34 percent for the coming year. ``As the owner of a 20-year-old small business with 18 employees, I can tell you that employee health insurance is already at the point where any further rate increases will cause us to discontinue coverage for our employees,'' Geoff said. Mark O'Donnell is another of my constituents who employs 35 people at Kenwood Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rockford, Illinois. Mark writes, ``Our health insurance costs were raised 43 percent last year and 34 percent this year and there is nothing we can do about it. We have a real problem here.'' And Linda Taylor, who owns Taylor Auto Parts with her husband, Larry, in Woodstock, Illinois, writes, ``Health care costs and insurance are draining us. Last year, we had a 14 percent increase and had to change to $1,000 deductibles. Now, the costs are going up 21 percent again. I truthfully do not know how to handle this latest increase,'' said Linda, who provides health care coverage to four employees. This is not a unique problem in my district. Access to healthcare is a problem our small entrepreneurs face each year they have decide between paying escalating premiums and dropping coverage of their employees. Large health plans may spread the increased costs over their large applicant pools without much of a change in enrollment. A large business or union health plan enrollee might spend slightly more on healthcare, but it will probably not push them out of the health care system. The small entrepreneur and his or her employees, however, struggle with radical increases in health care premiums. Especially for a business with fewer than 50 employees, its health care premiums skyrocket when a member of the small enrollee pool becomes ill or injured. When the husband of a Chrysler employee goes to an emergency room, the Chrysler health insurance plan easily spreads out the cost, but for a small auto mechanic, the cost of his employee's trip to the emergency room forces a small group of workers to shoulder a significant burden. Fortunately, today, we have an opportunity to protect patients' rights and improve the quality of health care without causing more Americans to lose their health insurance. This imperative amendment will give small employers hope to bring down health insurance costs for themselves and their employees by joining Association Health Plans and through expanded use of Medical Savings Accounts. Association Health Plans (AHPs) will provide greater choice and access to affordable, high quality, private sector health insurance for millions of working families employed in small businesses. AHPs empower small business owners, who currently cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees, to access health insurance through trade and professional associations and Chambers of Commerce. In other words, AHPs allow national trade and professional associations, like the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to sponsor health care plans. The small business owners who are members of the associations can buy into these plans for themselves and their employees. These associations would cover very large groups, would enjoy large economies of scale to that of a large business or union, and could offer self-funded plans that would not have to provide any margin for insurance company profits. AHPs give small businesses and the self-employed the freedom to design more affordable benefit options and offer their workers access to health care coverage. These new coverage options promote greater competition, lower costs and new choices in health insurance markets. By allowing individuals and small employers to join together, AHPs promote the same economies of scale and purchasing clout that workers in large companies currently realize. Expansion of Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) will make insurance more affordable for businesses with qualifying high deductible plans. Expansion of MSAs will encourage more individuals to place tax- deductible funds into savings accounts for use in routine medical care while still allowing a wide choice among doctors. Initially created by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, MSAs have not been fully utilized by their target sector. However, enacting simple reforms and expansions will allow more small businesses to cut down on their healthcare costs. These provisions include repealing limits on the number of MSAs, making active accounts generally available to anyone with qualifying high deductible insurance, allowing contributions up to the amount of the insurance deductible, allowing contributions to be made both by employers and account owners, lowering minimum insurance deductibles for single and family coverage, allowing use under cafeteria plans, and allowing plans not to have a deductible for preventive care, even if this is not required by state law. AHP and MSA legislation will not directly offset the increased costs of healthcare when a Patients' Bill of Rights is enacted. However, small businesses are the sector most likely to cease offering insurance because of increase costs, and AHP and MSA legislation will allow these groups to access and afford quality healthcare. We cannot possibly believe we are protecting patients if more small entrepreneurs stop paying for coverage--which will happen with rising premiums. Association Health Plan and Medical Savings Account provisions are the only responsible way to protect patients.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, small business participation in government procurement is dropping. While the dollar value of procurement opportunities is relatively constant, the absolute number of small businesses winning government contracts has dramatically decreased over the past four years. One possible solution to this problem can be to enhance the role of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs). During the 1980's, Congress created local PTACs around the country to increase small business participation in defense procurement. Modeled after Small Business Development Centers (SDBCs) run by the Small Business Administration (SBA), these centers offer free advice and help to small businesses both in educating them about how to get involved in government procurement and also how to obtain contracts. Most of the PTACs are co-located in a local higher education institution or a Chamber of Commerce. About half of the funding for most of the PTACs comes from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The remainder comes from the state government and/or the local host (i.e., the community college). States currently have a choice: they can either ask for up to $300,000 to run a state-wide program or regional centers can ask for up to $150,000 to run a program locally. Some states have decided to run a state-wide program in order to have continuity of service throughout the state. However, some states do not care and have allowed regional or city PTACs to operate. Currently, 15 states have regional or city PTACs that receive an excess of $300,000. This penalizes states like my home state of Illinois who have opted for a ``good government'' solution--a seamless delivery of procurement assistance services throughout the state. I have introduced the Procurement Technical Assistance Improvement Act to increase the DLA grant match to states that run a state-wide PTAC program so that they would be able to receive up to $600,000 in funding, double the current level of $300,000. This would potentially benefit the 29 states and the one territory that have a state-wide PTAC program and the six states and the four other territories that do not have any PTAC program. It is important to remember that each state with a state-wide run PTAC program would not automatically receive a $600,000 grant from the DLA because each proposal would have to stand on its own merits. Currently, 10 states and one territory do not even receive the full $300,000 in grant funds from the DLA for a state-wide PTAC program. Thus, this proposal does not necessarily mean that the cost of the program would balloon. Only those states that submit a sound proposal who serve a large population would qualify for a maximum of $600,000. Finally, this proposal would not mean that states with regional centers would receive less funding. This proposal is silent on the match received from DLA to regional PTACs. With the criticism of recent Pentagon procurements that disadvantage small businesses, this is one way to remedy the problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago a patriot from Freeport, Illinois, named Dan Steele went off to war in Iraq to fight for the American people and protect the freedoms this country has known for more than 200 years. During the buildup in the Gulf, Dan's leg was fractured by an Iraqi soldier's apparent suicide attack. Over the next 8 years, Dan suffered from various conditions shared by many in the Gulf War. In May of 1999, Dan succumbed to his illnesses and passed away. The county coroner listed ``Gulf War Syndrome'' as a secondary cause on his death certificate. Shortly after Dan's funeral, I dispatched Al Pennimen, a retired judge on my staff, to contact his widow, Donna. She vowed to Dan to do whatever she could to help other Gulf War veterans suffering from mysterious ailments. Her story moved me to introduce legislation, H.R. 612, that now has the support of over 225 Members of Congress. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I am pleased to announce that significant portions of H.R. 612 are included in this benefits package today. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for strengthening the part of the bill that provides enhanced benefits for ailing Gulf War veterans. These provisions will allow more sick veterans to qualify for compensation by expanding the list of eligible illnesses, adding strong report language on multiple chemical sensitivity, codifying 13 possible symptoms, and extending by 2 years the time period during which these symptoms may arise. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2540. It goes a long way towards fulfilling the promises we have made to our veterans.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, with great reluctance, I will vote against the Community Solutions Act (H.R. 7), an otherwise outstanding piece of legislation. The bill allows additional not-for-profits the same ability to administer federal programs as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and Lutheran Social Services have demonstrated for years; it allows appreciated IRA's to be cashed in and donated to charities without having to declare a gain in income; and much more. There is one very troubling provision, however. In an effort to encourage businesses and individuals to make facilities available to not-for-profits, including churches, section 104 of the bill creates different legal standards of care owed by the landlord to the tenant. For example, if a shopping center made a community room available, for free or rental, and an attendee fell down the stairs, the charity could have greater liability for injuries than the landlord who has actual control of the stairs. If the church lacked the insurance or other resources, the attendee might be left without a complete remedy, or any remedy at all. Apart from the merits of these different liability standards for not- for-profits, that whole issue belongs in the state legislatures, not the United States Congress. Congress has no constitutional authority to determine landlord-tenant liability. This is how good intentions result in bad law, and how federal government power continues to grow. I raised these important concerns, but they were not heeded. While there is an exemption or ``opt-out'' for states in section 104(e) of the bill, it is wholly inadequate. It requires states to enact a law claiming exemption from the federal standards, but even then it provides no exemption for federal cases (such as those based on diversity of citizenship) and no exemption for state cases where diversity of citizenship exists. In other words, even if a state enacts a law opting out of the federal liability standards, those federal standards still apply in numerous cases, including (1) all cases brought in federal court and (2) all cases brought in state court where any plaintiff or any defendant is from a different state. Such a diluted exemption does very little to address the important policy and constitutional concerns noted above. The bill does not need section 104 to carry out the President's worthy goal of expanding charitable choice. I sincerely hope the bill can be changed to reflect these serious concerns, and will work toward that end.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, last night, while the House of Representatives was voting, I was unavoidably detained from participating due to adverse weather conditions that kept me from arriving at the Capitol on time. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following bills: H.R. 2137--Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2001; H.R. 1892--Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001; and, S. 468--James C. Corman Federal Building Designation Act.

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment, along with my colleague, the ranking minority member on the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and thank her for her help. This amendment is very simple. It increases the guaranteed commitment levels for the Small Business Administration's two Small Business Investment Company programs to reflect the levels established by Congress in the SBA Reauthorization Act. It does not call for any increased spending. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is going to accept the amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. The gentleman is correct in his assumption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, last night I should have voted ``yes'' as opposed to ``no'' on the final passage of the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, last night I should have voted ``yes'' as opposed to ``no'' on final passage of the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today about a distinguished member of my district who is being honored by an organization, which has had an immeasurable impact on America. Jerry Rice, a retired engineer for Broaster Corporation, is Junior Achievement's National High School Volunteer of the Year. In his ten years as a volunteer for Junior Achievement, Mr. Rice has taught approximately 90 classes. Throughout those ten years, Mr. Rice has served as a classroom volunteer for several of Junior Achievement's programs. Mr. Rice's continually goes above and beyond the call of the average volunteer. He also serves as a confidant to many students and has helped them to increase their understanding of economics, which in turn increases their desire to learn. His dedication to the young people of his community stands as an inspiration to us all. The history of Junior Achievement is a true testament to the indelible human spirit and American ingenuity. Junior Achievement was founded in 1919 by Horace Moses, Theodore Vail, and Senator Murray Crane of Massachusetts, as a collection of small, after-school business clubs for students in Springfield, Massachusetts. As the rural-to-city exodus of the populace accelerated in the early 1900s, so too did the demand for workforce preparation and entrepreneurship. Junior Achievement students were taught how to think and plan for a business, acquire supplies and talent, build their own products, advertise, and sell. With the financial support of companies and individuals, Junior Achievement recruited numerous sponsoring agencies such as the New England Rotarians, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys & Girls Clubs, the YMCA, local churches, playground associations and schools to provide meeting places for its growing ranks of interested students. In a few short years JA students were competing in regional expositions and trade fairs and rubbing elbows with top business leaders. In 1925, President Calvin Coolidge hosted a reception on the White House lawn to kick off a national fundraising drive for Junior Achievement's expansion. By the late 1920s, there were nearly 800 JA Clubs with some 9,000 Achievers in 13 cities in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. During World War II, enterprising students in JA business clubs used their ingenuity to find new and different products for the war effort. In Chicago, JA students won a contract to manufacture 10,000 pants hangers for the U.S. Army. In Pittsburgh, JA students developed and made a specially lined box to carry off incendiary devices, which was approved by the Civil Defense and sold locally. Elsewhere, JA students made baby incubators and used acetylene torches in abandoned locomotive yards to obtain badly needed scrap iron. In the 1940s, leading executives of the day such as S. Bayard Colgate, James Cash Penney, Joseph Sprang of Gillette and others helped the organization grow rapidly. Stories of Junior Achievement's accomplishments and of its students soon appeared in national magazines of the day such as TIME, Young America, Colliers, LIFE, the Ladies Home Journal and Liberty. In the 1950s, Junior Achievement began working more closely with schools and saw its growth increase five-fold. In 1955, President Eisenhower declared the week of January 30 to February 5 as ``National Junior Achievement Week.'' At this point, Junior Achievement was operating in 139 cities and in most of the 50 states. During its first 45 years of existence, Junior Achievement enjoyed an average annual growth rate of 45 percent. To further connect students to influential figures in business, economics, and history, Junior Achievement started the Junior Achievement National Business Hall of Fame in 1975 to recognize outstanding leaders. Each year, a number of business leaders are recognized for their contribution to the business industry and for their dedication to the Junior Achievement experience. Today, there are 200 laureates from a variety of businesses and industries that grace the Hall of Fame. By 1982, Junior Achievement's formal curricula offering had expanded to Applied Economics (now called JA Economics), Project Business, and Business Basics. In 1988, more than one million students per year were estimated to take part in Junior Achievement programs. In the early 1990s, a sequential curriculum for grades K-6 was launched, catapulting the organization into the classrooms of another one million elementary school students. Today, through the efforts of more than 100,000 volunteers in the classrooms of America, Junior Achievement reaches more than four million students in grades K-12 per year. JA International takes the free enterprise message of hope and opportunity even further . . . to more than 1.5 million students in 111 countries. Junior Achievement has been an influential part of many of today's successful entrepreneurs and business leaders. Junior Achievement's success is truly the story of America--the fact that one idea can influence and benefit many lives. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Jerry Rice of Rockford for his outstanding service to Junior Achievement and the students of Illinois. I am proud to have him as a member of my district and proud of his accomplishment.