Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, our relationship with China will always be extremely difficult and complex. We must continue the hard engagement process with China. But we do not need to sacrifice national security for trade. This has been and always will be a false choice. The Cox report was a good sturdy point for us to more realistically evaluate our relationship with China. We have already begun to implement many of the Cox committee recommendations, such as requiring Defense Department monitors at satellite launch sites. Let us also be vigilant by enforcing existing laws. If further reforms are needed to enhance national security, then Congress should not shy away from changing the law. But as we go through this process, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that more restrictions on our exports to China will protect us. When we think about trade sanctions and export controls, we should not go down this road alone. We only put our heads in the sand if we think we can enhance our national security by ignoring our foreign competitors. The world has changed and the U.S. is no longer the only manufacturer of high-technology products. Congress overreacted 2 years ago in placing unrealistic limits on computer sales abroad. Now China has a home-grown computer industry. Soon one penny and a chip the size of your fingernail will exceed the supercomputer definition. And European machine tool manufacturers have almost totally captured the high-end market in China because of our Government's export control policy. This at the same time domestic consumption of U.S. machine tools has dropped 45 percent. Europe sells the same machines to China that we could that do the same things, but we are barred by selling them because of our export policy. We only hurt ourselves. We are now learning the same lesson on commercial satellite exports. Last week, a major satellite manufacturer reported a loss of nearly $100 million because of delays in development and delivery of new satellites. This is an industry that has made a dramatic shift away from relying on Government procurement to commercial sales. They also compete against German, French, and Japanese satellite manufacturers of similar equipment. These foreign firms would eagerly seize export opportunities from U.S. satellite makers if they are denied permission to launch by our Government. We can protect our national security and our national economic interests while engaging China at the same time. But we should not put up walls that will block our high-technology industry and hurt our overall national interests. Let us solve the specific problems highlighted in the Cox report but keep our export options open in China.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, these past 2 days have been perhaps the most challenging in my life as a United States Congressman. I, first of all, want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) for his patience, his understanding, his wisdom, and his knowledge of this subject. I come to this gentleman's defense not only because of the scholarship and the reputation he has for honesty in this country, but also for the fact that many people have attacked the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) personally because of this bill. I believe that if there is any attack, it should be to the legislative language, and not to an individual's integrity. These have been challenging days. In addition to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. We have labored endlessly in these past 2 days to come up with a bill that protects the integrity of the patent system of this country, while giving fair and open access to it by large corporations and by individual inventors. The bill is not a compromise in that parties give up or gain any rights. Rather, it is a coming together of all interests in forging a bill that represents openly and fairly the interests of everybody, especially and including the American people. I worked in two areas of the bill, first with regard to title II of the first inventor defense. Before the State Street Bank and Trust case as to which in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals for the Federal court, it was universally thought that methods of doing or conducting business were not patentable items. Before that case, everybody would keep that secret and never tried to patent it. In recognition of this pioneer clarification in the law by that case, we felt that those who kept their business practices secret had an equitable cause not to be stopped by someone who subsequently reinvented the method of doing or conducting the business or obtaining a patent. We, therefore, limited the first inventor defense solely to that class of rights dealing with methods of doing or conducting business. It is succinctly to be understood that we do not intend to create by legislative fiat the first inventor defense or any prior user rights for any other process, method, or product or other statutorily recognized class of patentable rights. Second, with regard to title V, Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure, what we did in that was, in addition to keeping the present law of ex parte reexamination procedure, which gave certain rights to the inventor and to the challenger, we came up with an additional section, the inter partes reexamination which, if selected by the third party requester, would entitle that person to participate further by filing written documents within the Patent Office. In exchange for that, there would be a complete estoppel or prohibition to contest the decision. The purposes of our making those changes was to stop any additional litigation that may come as a result of this law. This means fairness for everybody. For the inventor who has a request for reexamination filed against him, in the present ex parte reexamination process, he still has the same rights he does under the present law; that is, the third party has to rely on his initial written documents. The third party has no right to appeal in the event that he loses a challenge. If the inventor loses, he still may obtain his right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. To the third party, he may proceed under the present law or the option to file the inter partes reexamination. So it is a matter of fairness to everybody in maintaining the integrity of the Patent Office. Sure, we have had a lot of people help us on this in addition to the Members and Bob Rines who founded the Franklin Pierce Law Center at MIT, founder of the Academy of Applied Science, an inductee of the Investors' Hall of Fame, an inductee of the Army Signal Corps Wall of Fame, a Lecturer at the MIT since 1933, a former lecturer of patent law at Harvard, the inventor of the sonogram, a person who has practiced patent law for 55 years and has no interest other than to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the patent system. He came and helped everybody out. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill because it protects everybody. But most of all, it protects the integrity of the patent system. I would ask that when the Senate takes it up that the bill would be unchanged in its present form. Mr. Speaker, these past two days have been two of the most challenging I have had as a Member of Congress. I have had the opportunity to work with my good friends and colleagues, Congressmen Henry Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Howard Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Dana Rohrabacher. We have labored endlessly these past 2 days to come up with a bill that protects the integrity of the patent system in the country, while giving fair and open access to it by large corporations and individual inventors. The bill is not a compromise in that parties ``give up'' or ``gain'' any rights; rather, it is a coming together of all interests in forging a bill that represents openly and fairly the interests of everybody--including and especially the American people. I have had a hand in working in the following areas of the bills. First, with regard to title II--First Inventor Defense: Before the State Street Bank and Trust case, as to which in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari and thereby upheld the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it was universally thought that methods of doing or conducting business were not among the statutory items that could be patented. Before that case, everybody would keep their methods of doing or conducting business as secret as they could and never tried to patent them. In recognition of this pioneer clarification in the law, we felt that those who kept their business practices secret had an equitable cause not to be stopped by someone who subsequently reinvented the method of doing or conducting business and obtained a patent. We, therefore, limited the first inventor defense solely to that class of rights dealing with ``methods of doing or conducting business.'' It is distinctly to be understood that we do not intend to create first inventor defense or prior user rights for any other process, method, or product, or other statutorily recognized class of patentable rights, which in fact had been included in the original draft of this legislation, but which was stricken upon agreement of all the parties on this legislation. Second, with regard to title V--Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure: We clearly retain the present existing ex parte reexamination rules without change, Chapter 30 of title 35, United States Code. In addition we added an optional inter partes reexamination procedure, which, if selected by a third party requestor, would entitle that requestor to participate by filing written documents within the Patent Office only, and would bar the requestor from appealing to the Federal Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit if the Patent Office decided the patent reexamination in favor of the inventor. In selecting this optional inter partes procedure, however, the requestor would be bound by the decision of the Patent Office and estopped (or prohibited) to contest the decision in any other civil action outside the Patent Office. This means fairness for everybody. For the inventor who has a request for reexamination filed against him in the present ex parte reexamination process, he still has the same rights as he does under the present law: (a) the third party has to rely on his initial written documents and cannot participate in the discussion between the inventor and the patent office; (b) the third party has no right to appeal in the event he loses his challenge; and (c) if the inventor loses, he still maintains his right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. For the third party, he may either proceed under the present law, as outlined above, or have the option to filed under the inter partes reexamination procedure, and file further documents (as opposed to just the initial document) and thus participate in the proceedings in the patent office, but with no right to a court appeal if the Patent Office decides against him, and with an estoppel (prohibition) against his challenging the Patent Office decision in any forum. With regard to title VI--Patent and Trademark Office, we are proud to say that the sole mission of the Patent Office is to protect intellectual property of the inventor and to that end, the title lets the Patent Office retain and use for its purposes all the revenues and receipts. This means the Patent Office will have additional funds to retain professional staff, provide increase training and facilities, and make the patent system as affordable as possible to the inventors.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a small business exporter of wireless telecommunications equipment from Torrance, California, had never sold to Vietnam. Telemobile's Japanese, French, and Canadian competitors all had the support of their home government's export credit agencies. Telemobile had no hope of selling to Vietnam until the President and Congress approved the Jackson-Vanik waiver last year allowing the Export-Import Bank and other Federal export promotion programs to operate in Vietnam. Then Telemobile won a $6 million contract with Vietnam to sell their product backed with the letter of interest from the Export-Import Bank. The purpose of the vote today is to allow those types of partnerships so American companies can utilize our export credit agencies in order to have American jobs. With the already large U.S. trade deficit, we should not impose yet another sanction on our exports. We should vote against this resolution of disapproval. Open letter to Congress from Telemobile is as follows: Telemobile, Inc, Torrance, CA, July 27, 1999. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives. Open letter to Congress: I am President of a small electronics manufacturing company, employing about 100 people in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I am writing to express my opposition to the resolution of disapproval regarding Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik's waiver (H.J. Res. 58) because it will have a serious impact on our business and our employees who live and work here. Telemobile, Inc. is a manufacturer of wireless rural telecommunications equipment. We compete against Canadian, French, and Japanese manufacturers of similar equipment. They all have the support of their home governments in the area of trade promotion, including their government-supported export credit agencies. We had no hope of winning any business in Vietnam until the President and Congress supported a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment last year. Since then, we received a Letter of Interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) for a project we plan to do in Vietnam worth about $6 million. We would have never won this contract if we did not have the backing of the Ex-Im Bank. Even still, all of our foreign competitors tell our Vietnamese customers to abandon their project with us because their governments do not go through this annual Jackson-Vanik waiver process. Fortunately, the Vietnamese want to buy American products. But if Ex-Im is forced to leave Vietnam because of the passage of H.J. Res. 58, then our Vietnamese customers will have no choice but to go with one of our foreign competitors. Thus, if this bill passes, the real-life practical effect upon Telemobile is that the work on this $6 million contract will be transferred from the 100 employees here in Torrance, California to Canada, Japan or France. While a $6 million sale may be insignificant in the eyes of Washington, it is significant to our small business, which is 95 percent export-oriented. I firmly believe that renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a necessary step in the process of normalizing our relations with Vietnam and would be good for the American people, as well as the business activities of American workers engaged in exports. Please oppose H.J. Res. 58. Very truly, W.I. Thomas, President.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Based upon the gentleman's assertions that he is willing to continue discussing this figure of $750,000 increased to $1 million, I would still be opposed to the bill, I will vote ``no'' on an oral vote but not call for a recorded vote.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the amount of time that I have remaining?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to concur with the statements of the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, who has done a tremendous effort in turning the Committee on Small Business into a committee that has been very responsive, listening to the needs and the desires of the people across this Nation. I chair the Subcommittee on Small Business, Tax, and Trade. I have seen the chairman conduct other hearings, and I know that he has the small business person at heart. In fact, when he practiced law before he came to this body, it was as a person involved in small business and he knows the needs of the small business community intimately well. I would only suggest to the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) this fact: With the increase of the loan amounts from $750,000 to $1 million, financially there is less money in the overall pot. Because there has been no increase in the authorization. As the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) says, there is little opportunity, little likelihood that there would be an increase in the authorization. Simply based upon the fact that there is less money in the pot, who is going to be the recipient of not getting the money? Is it going to be the little guy, or the people who have the attorneys and the CPAs and the bankers that can increase their amounts from $750,000 to $1 million? That begs the basic question as to what the purpose of the Small Business Administration is. I am trying the best I can to preserve some type of mission that the SBA has. We have absolutely no empirical data, nothing to refute the original data that the SBA gave me, nothing in writing, no words from the SBA, nothing from either of the speakers here to refute the fact that the memo they gave me stated unequivocally and in concurrence with Mr. Hocker who testified at the Small Business hearing that unless the authorization were increased, the fact that we are increasing the amount that could be borrowed from $750,000 to $1 million means that in excess of 6,000 small businesspeople who otherwise would qualify for an SBA loan will be excluded from the process. To aggravate that, in the past 3 years, as the amount of SBA loans go up, the number of small business recipients goes down and the number of small businesspeople receiving the loan has now dropped to about 53 percent of the total, meaning that the larger applicants are getting the lion's share of the money and that is the dangerous trend. I am trying to stop that. Is it worth objecting to an entire bill because you are opposed to one-seventh of the bill? The answer is yes. The name of the bill is small business. Does anybody think that borrowing $1 million today is small business? It could be, but if it is of that magnitude, then the bank should be willing to kick in the extra amount and to guarantee the extra amount, not put it upon the shoulders of the taxpayers to say we want you to guarantee up to $1 million. If you are solvent enough to borrow $750,000 with an SBA guarantee, then the banks themselves should be willing to loan the rest of the amount of money based upon their own private arrangement with the borrower. It is just that simple.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the ranking member, and I agree with six-sevenths of the bill. So that is pretty good. My colleagues may say, well, if the gentleman agrees with six-sevenths of the bill, should that not be enough? Normally, under most circumstances, I would say yes, but in its current form, I rise in opposition to the bill and, therefore, will vote against it. We should not rush to pass this bill under suspension of the rules until we actually have more information from the SBA. I realize most of my colleagues are not versed on the different programs run by the SBA. The SBA has two main loan programs, the 7(a) program and the 504 program. 7(a) mainly provides start-up capital for new entrepreneurs, while the 504 program is designed to meet the capital needs of growing small businesses for expansion or purchases of additional equipment. We just passed, with my concurrence, H.R. 2614, which increased the maximum loan guarantee amount in the 504 loan program from $750,000 to $1 million. I agree with that because growing small businesses already in existence have greater capital needs. In addition, the 504 loan program operates at no cost to the taxpayer because the fees it charges offset its costs. However, H.R. 2615 plans to do the same thing for the 7(a) loan program and I disagree with this policy change. No one should start up a small business with a $1 million loan backed by the SBA. If a bank needs a 75 percent government-backed guarantee to feel comfortable with a $1 million loan, then we should think twice before passing the bill. If someone requires a $1 million loan for start-up, they are probably buying a lot of new equipment and large amounts of real estate. They should rethink their business plan because this is a recipe for failure and the taxpayers will be left paying off the default. If a loan is for an already existing small business, then the bank should make these loans on a sound commercial basis without having to rely upon the crutch of the taxpayer. These companies already have a financial track record. It should be on the merits, not an SBA guarantee, that the bank should make the loans. If a borrower still needs government backing for an expansion project, then they should turn to the 504 loan program. The 504 program should serve capital expansion needs, not the 7(a) loan program. The question essentially is this: At what point should companies be weaned off government guaranteed loans; 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? If the purpose of the Small Business Administration is to give a jump-start to companies that otherwise would not be able to start up a business, then why are we increasing the amount of start-up capital available to them from $750,000 to $1 million? We should be keeping it the same and encouraging companies to get off the government help. It stands to reason that if the SBA has an overall fixed amount of total loans it can support, then throughout the year, as small business owners are able to borrower larger amounts, then the overall loan volume will decrease, to the detriment of the number of small borrowers. This is what is really confusing. The SBA maintained, for the longest period of time, and sent a memo to my office which they have never corrected in writing, that if the authorization level were kept the same, which it is, but the level of 7(a) loans went from $750,000 to $1 million, then in excess of 6,000 entrepreneurs, who otherwise would be applying for and qualifying for small business loans, would be left out because the bigger borrowers would be in there taking up all the money. That was SBA's position for the longest period of time until they mysteriously, and without any empirical evidence, suddenly changed their mind and said that the small business incentives in the small business bill means there would be a net loss of people receiving loans. We have to think about that. This bill has a small business incentive in the Small Business Administration loan program. So now we are in the process of defining a small business within a small business to give incentives to small businesses within the small business loan program. It makes us wonder why we even have the program in the first place. But it is here. And if it is here, then it should not be abused. And if it is here and the money is available, it should be available for the small entrepreneurs, not the people who can borrow up to $1 million. The cost implications in the bill are still not clear. H.R. 2615 contains much-needed incentives to encourage the banks to make the smaller loans. And there we are. Now, we have got a system not of set-asides but a system somehow built into language that says the Small Business Administration should prefer small businesses. I want the Members of Congress and the Speaker to think about that statement. If we are encouraging small business loans within the Small Business Administration, then I think that we have an agency now that has lost its mission when it starts dividing up what exactly is a small business. When H.R. 2615 was marked up in committee, the sponsors of the bill readily admitted that any additional revenue that may be raised with the fees charged to higher dollar loan borrowers will be used to pay for the small loan incentive contained in the bill. Thus, the impact on most expensive items in the SBA budget supposedly would be a wash at best. But we have no empirical data, nothing, that has been furnished to this Member of Congress, who requested the SBA first of all to come to an analysis as to the loss of businesses that would be deprived of start-up capital; and they, on their own, advised this Member of Congress that it would be in excess of 6,000. Later on they changed their mind, but they told the press still that the information given to this Member of Congress was correct. Therefore, I can come to one conclusion, and that is that the Small Business Administration itself does not understand the mechanics of this bill. And if they do not understand the mechanics of this bill and they do not understand the wording of it and they do not understand the impact of it, then this bill should not pass, it should come up under regular order and be subject to an amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill now and send it back to committee. Once we have a more clear understanding of how this bill will impact the budget and small loan borrowers, then we can always act on this provision. We do not have the information yet. There is plenty of time to work on this legislation. An additional hike in the maximum guarantee amount of the 7(a) loan program can be included in the regular SBA authorization bill. It would be easy to bring it up at a later time. We can mark up a separate bill later this fall. But I do not see the reason for rushing to action on this now when we have incomplete information. Thus, I respectfully disagree with my chairman and ranking minority member and ask that H.R. 2615 be defeated in its current form. This is the only alternative left to me because I cannot amend the bill under suspension of the rules. The rest of the bill is fine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, we have OPIC because there is no private sector that can fill that gap. Lloyds of London, nobody could come in and fill that gap. In fact, OPIC has been partnering with Lloyds of London on being able to come up to a relationship whereby part of this type of insurance can be privatized. The reason we need OPIC is so that we can be on an even keel with our exporting partners around the world.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, 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 because of the economic crisis affecting Asia, Russia, and Brazil, 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 more than doubled, going from $2.9 million in 1995 to $6.2 million in 1997. Some of these exports came from companies like Etnyree 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 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 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson amendment propounded by my good friend from Illinois. The problem with the Jackson amendment is that it does not understand or address the true nature of what OPIC is. OPIC is not foreign aid. It is not government money. It is American money as to which there is a guarantee, and insurance premiums are paid for that guarantee. That is the very nature of it. Mr. Chairman, because it is private money, if we have all the strings that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wants to attach to it, we will not have any investors, and therefore the very countries in Africa that Mr. Jackson is trying to help, he will end up hindering. Now what does it do on small businesses? In Illinois, for example, in the district I represent there is Ed Myers, there is Wall Clipper Sterling, there is Taylor of Rockton, Rita Chemicals of McHenry. These are all small to medium sized companies in Illinois that are being directly impacted by OPIC guarantees to Africa, and I would encourage the Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Jackson amendment. While well-intended, it imposes a quota system on OPIC projects in Africa. Seventy percent of the investments made by OPIC's Africa fund must go to small, women- and minority-owned businesses. In addition, 60 percent of such investments must go to businesses owned by Africans. Finally, all such businesses must not have assets greater than $1 million. In the opinion of OPIC, it is impossible to dictate ownership requirements on a privately managed fund. It would also be impossible to raise $500 million in capital for a fund that makes investments in companies with no more than $1 million in assets. If the Jackson quota amendment is adopted, there will be no private sector interest in OPIC's Africa fund. Without private sector partnership, this amendment simply means: no new U.S. jobs, no new U.S. exports to Africa, no new African jobs and expose OPIC and the taxpayer to potential lawsuits. Support the underlying bill that encourages the existing OPIC Africa development fund that will: create 1,000 U.S. jobs, increase U.S. exports to Africa by $500 million over five years, create 9,700 Africa jobs; and operate at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Defeat the Jackson amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this bill drafted by my good friend and colleague and classmate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). The first amendment is quite clear. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And yet, if we look at the words of the statute, it says, a government may substantially burden a person's religious exercise if the government demonstrates that application of the burden of the person is in furtherance of a compelling interest or is the least restrictive means of doing so. So, the first thing we have here is Congress making a statement that is in direct contradiction to the firm mandatory words of the United States Constitution. That bothers me for several reasons. One of those is that the attempt to protect religious liberties under the Religious Liberty Protection Act hinges on the spending clause of the Constitution and also upon the commerce clause of the Constitution, and we thus ask ourselves this question: If a religious liberty case comes up that is not hinged to the commerce clause or the spending clause, what protection do the people have? Is it pregnant with omissions, that the courts may end up saying the liberties set forth in the statutes simply do not supply to the people? The third problem I have with it is the fact that Justice Thomas back in 1994 after the Smith decision wrote a dissent in a case coming out of Alaska where the Supreme Court denied certiorari, and he said this. He said: What bothers me about the Alaska case or the Alaskan statute, which is the equivalent of the statute we are trying to pass today, is that the asserted government interests, the asserted government compelling interests, are effusive. In other words, the decision of the Alaskan Supreme Court drains the word ``compelling'' of any meaning and seriously undermines the protection of the exercise of religion that Congress so emphatically mandated in RIFRA. In other words, the very liberties we are trying to ensure we can end up taking away.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take this opportunity to officially recognize two outstanding gentlemen from the 16th District of Illinois for their important contributions to advancing educational excellence in Illinois. Mr. Chris Chiaverina lives in Crystal Lake and is a physics teacher at New Trier High School in Winnetka, IL. He exemplifies the innovativeness and creativity that teachers can bring to education. Through his collaborations with fellow educators in math and science, Mr. Chiaverina has helped to develop the Connections Project, which has recently won a grant from the GTE GIFT (Growth Initiative For Teachers) program. GTE offers 60 grants to groups integrating math and science with technology in innovative ways. I would like to include a summary of this inspiring project that won this national award. I also would like to praise the dedicated work of Mr. Richard Bernotos, Superintendent of School District 47 in Crystal Lake, IL, who was recently chosen as the Parade Grand Marshal for the Crystal Lake Fourth of July celebration. The Crystal Lake Gala Committee picked the Grand Marshal of the parade based on nominations from the community including that of Franklin McAnally, a sixth grade student from Lundahl Middle School. Franklin's letter is included as a testimony to Mr. Bernotos' legacy. The Connections Project What is the Connections Project? The New Trier Connections Project is an ongoing endeavor which was initiated several years ago as a result of collaboration among art, mathematics and science teachers. The specific goals of the Connections Project include: (1) the production of interactive, interdisciplinary exhibits; (2) the creation of hands-on curricular resources that permit the integration of the exhibits into existing art, mathematics and science courses; (3) the promotion of sender school/high school articulation; (4) the fostering of intra- and inter-departmental collaboration; (5) the implementation of in-service opportunities to acquaint faculty at New Trier and its sender schools with interactive, interdisciplinary resources; and (6) the operation of a web-site to provide on- line access to information about our project. The teachers and students involved in this initiative have created more than 80 hands-on, museum-type exhibits that demonstrate interrelationships between art, mathematics, science and human perception. The multi-disciplinary exhibits are grouped in thematic clusters that currently include ``bubbles'', ``curves'', ``illusion and perception'', ``iteration and fractals'', ``light, color and optics'', ``symmetry and reflection'', ``tessellation''. These exhibits are used to create motivating experiences for students and to enhance and expand the curriculum. The displays are being used in a variety of venues. In addition to being presented in exhibitions in the Brierly Gallery, the exhibits have been used in a wide range of classes at New Trier, in local and Chicago elementary schools, at professional meetings, and in university classes. How does the Connections Project Benefit New Trier Students? New Trier's motto, ``to commit minds to inquiry'', is at the heart of the Connections Project philosophy. Our exhibits are designed to encourage students to actively explore the world around them while discovering elements common to the arts, mathematics and science. Connections exhibits complement student course work in art, math, science, and other subjects by giving students a common set of experiences through which they may understand basic ideas, make connections between related concepts, and integrate newly acquired understanding with prior knowledge. By presenting seemingly disparate disciplines in a real-world context, the artificial boundaries between subjects become less pronounced. While fun is not the main goal of education, the Connections Project exhibits permit students to experience interdisciplinary relationships in a less structured, more play-like atmosphere. Furthermore, interactive exhibits address the need to expose students to concrete examples of phenomena prior to the development of abstract concepts. A student's interaction with an exhibit is often the first step in the understanding of a more abstract idea. April 9, 1999. Crystal Lake Gala Committee, Crystal Lake, IL. Dear Committee: My family and I would like to nominate Mr. Richard Bernotos, District 47 School Superintendent, for Parade Grand Marshall. I feel Mr. Bernotos deserves this honor because of his dedication to the children of District 47. His outstanding services as a teacher, administrator, and now as Superintendent has shown commitment and the extra effort that has made Crystal Lake ``A better place to live.'' The children of this district are always his number one priority as he makes sure that our schools are safe and that we get the best education possible. His commitment to children and his efforts on our behalf have made District 47 an outstanding place to live and learn. I don't think you can do more for a community than to help the children of that community. Even when Mr. Bernotos was in the hospital and undergoing treatment for an illness, he thought about the children of District 47. He returned to work earlier than he probably should have to be sure that our schools ran smoothly and safely. For these reasons, I hope that you will honor Mr. Bernotos by naming him Grand Marshall of the Crystal Lake Gala's Parade. He has helped every single person in this community by working for the children of the community. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Franklin McAnally, Lundahl Middle School.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. No, of course not.

Mr. MANZULLO. Everything goes up.

Mr. MANZULLO. Nothing.

Mr. MANZULLO. And it is the price that his buyer is forced to charge. Henry's son, Hank, now is in the business with them; and they are working on the farm. And I talked to him again a couple nights ago because I needed some help with a power impact wrench to change some blades on a Woodson mower. And we talked again; and he said, ``Don, I don't know how long this can go on. I just don't know how long we can go on.'' Because I think the price of milk is, what, $10.50 to $12, I am not quite sure what it is, but it is substantially lower than the $17 mark that it hit several months ago. And I said, ``Henry, the only thing I can tell you is this. You are one of only 34 or 35 dairy farmers left in Ogle County. In neighboring Stevenson County we have about 250 dairy farmers. That is the number one dairy producing county in the State of Illinois. In the entire 16th Congressional District, which I represent, which goes from the Mississippi River all the way over to McHenry County, which has Harvard Milk Days and the same type of festival that the gentleman from Wisconsin has, there are 730 Henry Ebert families similarly situated, similarly with the first generation trying to hand their farm over to the second generation. And some night we will talk about estate taxes that makes that almost impossible to do without a huge bill to pay taxes on the farm that they own. And Henry sells to Dean Foods, and I had a conversation today with Gary Corbett, who is VP of industrial relations, and he sent me this letter and attached a key to it, and I want to read part of it for the record. It said, ``Dear Congressman Manzullo: I am writing on behalf of Dean Foods Company, which operates five plants,'' and has a technical research center in the district that I represent. He said, ``Please, enough is enough already. Is the House ever going to tire of introducing dairy legislation and allow us to run our own business? First, we had the 1996 Fair Act, which mandated Federal Order Reform, provided for the discontinuance of the Price Support Program, and promised more reliance on the market, to let the market itself determine the price of milk. ``That process has resulted in USDA releasing its final rule on Federal order reform which is to take effect on October 1, 1999.'' That is the 1-B, the one that goes a long way, it is not perfect, but it is a good compromise of moving in the right direction and hats off to Secretary Glickman for really spearheading the gigantic effort on that. He said, ``No sooner was the final rule released than more legislation has been proposed in the House. One, to mandate Class 1 differentials, one which would extend the dairy price support program, another one which provides for creation of dairy compacts.'' He says, ``Does the House have nothing else to do but micromanage the dairy industry from Washington?'' That is the other thing. The pricing is in Eau Claire but the managing comes from Washington. ``There is no industry in which Congress interjects itself daily except the dairy industry.'' Corbett says, ``Reject dairy compacts; they represent socialism at its finest. We cannot live with a system that picks a price out of the air with no basis in supply and demand fundamentals. The Soviet Union tried it for four decades. It was a miserable failure and it will fail in the U.S. ``While we view compacts as the total antithesis of the American system of free enterprise, we are just as concerned that Congress feels the need to continue promulgating dairy legislation without waiting to observe the impact of legislation previously passed. ``We are totally exasperated at the House's continual effort to micromanage our industry from Washington.'' I remind you, this is Dean Foods Company which is the processor that buys the milk from Henry Ebert who lives on Conger Road in Egan, Illinois, and is my next-door neighbor. ``Below is a key to our offices.'' He taped a key. In fact here is a photocopy. It is amazing that the key that he taped was a key from an old Cadillac car. I said, ``That is as close as I will ever get to a Cadillac.'' He said, ``We grabbed any key that we could around here that was excess, we just taped it to these letters that we sent out.'' Of course it is symbolic. He said, ``Below is a key to our offices. You might as well come run our business directly rather than try from D.C. Then maybe you can feel the same frustration we experience in having our business turned upside down regularly through congressional intervention. Let the 1996 Fair Act have a chance to work.'' That is the law that the gentleman from Wisconsin described that mandated the Department of Agriculture come up with a workable solution moving toward a free enterprise system. He says, ``Stand by the promise of the 1996 farm bill to deliver a dairy policy that is more market oriented and consumer friendly. We do not need this narrow economic self-interest piece of legislation burdening our industry.'' So here is Dean Food, which has I think operations in 37 States saying, ``Look it. We are standing alongside the farmers, the dairy farmers in your district. Let us be able to move forward, to be able to allow the market to operate on a free enterprise basis.'' We also had the original J.L. Kraft cheese factory in our district over in Jo Daviess County which buys a tremendous amount of milk. But I would ask the gentleman from Minnesota, the base price for Grade A milk is fixed by the sale of Grade B milk for cheese purposes in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Tell me how that makes sense, especially since only 5 percent of the milk produced nationwide is Grade B.

Mr. MANZULLO. I appreciate the comment from the gentleman from Wisconsin. That precisely is the reason why we had the Constitutional Convention, because the States used to have tariffs among each other. They used to have their own money, their own coinage. They would treat people who lived in one State differently than people who lived in another State. Finally the Constitutional Convention got together and said, ``Wait a second. We're Americans. You can't have tariff barriers among each other.'' What amazes me about this entire milk marketing, there are now 34 or 35 marketing orders nationwide.

Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct. I think the proposal was to put it at about 11, that would be out there. I cannot think of any other foodstuff or manufactured item or service, price of service, that is mandated by congressional act and turned over to a bureaucracy to come up with 31 different price orders based upon the sale of 5 percent of the Nation's milk in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on anything that similar. There is nothing anywhere. We are not talking about loans. We are not talking about deficiency payments. We are not talking about emergency bailouts because of floods. Those things come and go but a residential area can get hit just as well as an agricultural area. I do not know of any legal price fixing that exists like this. In fact, the antitrust laws that are set up in this country will attach severe penalties to executives of corporations who even whisper of getting together and having prices that are similar to each other.

Mr. MANZULLO. I would ask for leave to attach this letter from Dean Food Company and be part of the Record: Dean Foods Company, Franklin Park, IL, May 19, 1999. Hon. Don Manzullo, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Manzullo: I am writing on behalf of Dean Foods Company with whom, we hope, you are quite familiar. Dean operates five plants and our technical research center, all in your district. Please, enough is enough already! Is the House ever going to tire of introducing dairy legislation and allow us to run our business? First, we had the 1996 Fair Act, which mandated Federal Order Reform, provided for the discontinuance of the Price Support Program, and promised more reliance on the market. That process has resulted in USDA releasing its Final Rule on Federal Order Reform which is to take effect on October 1, 1999 and required two years of industry work to complete. No sooner was the Final Rule released than more legislation has been proposed in the House; HR 1402 to mandate Class I Differentials, HR 1535 which would extend the Dairy Price Support Program and now the most onerous of all HR 1604 which provides for the creation of dairy compacts. Does the House have nothing else to do but micro-manage the dairy industry from Washington? There is no industry in which Congress interjects itself daily except the dairy industry. Reject dairy compacts; they represent socialism at its finest. We cannot live with a system that picks a price ``out of the air'' with no basis in supply/demand fundamentals. The Soviet Union tried it for four decades; it was a miserable failure, and it will fail in the U.S. While we view compacts as the total antithesis of the American system of free enterprise, we are just as concerned that Congress feels the need to continue promulgating dairy legislation without waiting to observe the impact of legislation previously passed. We cannot make sound business decisions if you continually change the rules. We are totally exasperated at the House's continual effort to micro-manage our industry from Washington. Below is a key to our offices; you might as well come run our business directly rather than try from D.C. Then maybe you can feel the same frustration we experience in having our business turned upside down regularly through congressional intervention. Let the 1996 Fair Act have a chance to work. Stand by the promise of the 1996 Farm Bill to deliver a dairy policy that is more market oriented and consumer friendly. Please vote ``NO'' on HR 1604; we do not need this narrow economic self- interest piece of legislation burdening our industry. Sincerely, Gary Corbett, Vice President, Governmental and Dairy Industry Relations.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, as my colleagues know, there is another class, and these are the consumers who pay more for the cost of dairy products as a result of this incredible system of pricing. I mean you have a price system that does not make sense. As my colleagues know, who is going to pay more on this thing? The consumer ends up paying more. But what we are saying this evening is to let the free market float, let the dairy farmers have the opportunity to be part of the dairy system because at least in the area of the country that we come from, as my colleagues know, we are talking about the survival of dairy families. This is critical. I was at an ag breakfast in Stephenson County in Freeport which is, as I said before, is the largest dairy production county in the State of Illinois, and a lot of farmers were coming through. I was there quite early and to the later morning, and there was this sense of, and I know farmers have been depressed in the past because of what has happened in the cycles and everything, but I have never seen such a sense of, and I cannot even find the word, the adjective, is the look on the faces of the dairy families because they know that the only chance they really had to have a piece of the free market system was in the reforms that the U.S. Department of Agriculture came up with under 1 B and now that could be strangled because people want to keep the present pricing and our good colleague from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), love him dearly, he is a great Member of Congress, I am very close to him, but we think he is incorrect on that particular issue. And so I just wanted to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for taking the tremendous leadership and explaining this very difficult concept to other Members and the American people.

Mr. MANZULLO. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think a more distinctive example would be if there were Chevy Tahoe plants in every State, manufacturing took place in every State, but the price of that Chevy Tahoe depended upon how far one lived from Detroit, Michigan, for example. And the farther an individual got away from Detroit, Michigan, the more expensive it would be to buy that particular Chevy Tahoe. And to complicate it, would be that it would be sort of impractical to go 500 or a 1,000 miles away to buy the very vehicle that a person could get in that particular area. And that is what it is with these milk orders. And, by the way, there is a Chrysler Neon plant in the district I represent. I wanted to make sure we get that on for the Record. Now, let's say the government regulated the sale of pineapples. Probably a pretty poor example, because Hawaii is the only State in the Union where pineapples are grown, but let's say pineapples were grown in California and Florida, but the price of pineapples depended upon the center being Honolulu, where the price that the producer would receive from the processor of pineapples would be lower the closer it is to Honolulu; and, obviously, the grower in Florida would get a much better price out of it.

Mr. MANZULLO. Oh yes, it is. I have a letter here I wanted to read from a processor, but had the gentleman finished his statement?

Mr. MANZULLO. We really have to put a face to what we are doing. We are not talking about milk as a sterile commodity that is produced by cows with no personalities. We are talking about people. And I want to talk about my neighbor, Henry Ebert. He lives on Conga Road, right across the street. In fact, our pastures come together underneath the little bridge that separates Conga from our pastures; and we share the creek there. I have beef cattle, usually sell them in the fall; and, of course, dairy cattle have to be kept year-round. Now, I remember one night I got a call from Henry. It was after I had sold my cattle for the year. And he said, ``Don, my electric fencer broke. Could I borrow yours?'' I said, sure. So I disconnected mine and took it over to the Ebert farm. It was about 8 o'clock in the evening. This man had been up, I think, since 4, 4:30, 5 o'clock and he was standing on his feet and attempting to hook up, or beginning to hook up the wires that went into the electric fencer. I just looked at him and it just amazed me that this man had been on his feet 18, 20 hours a day, and he and Elaine get away maybe 1 week out of the year, and the only reason they can do that is that their son is farming with them. And here he is, so tired he is swaying on his feet. So I said, ``Henry, let me hook up that fencer for you.'' I was really afraid he was going to touch some wires and hurt himself. In fact, I do not know if I hooked it up or just suggested to him he wait until when his son came in, it has been so many years ago. But I was really concerned because he was so tired on his feet, and that is when accidents happen on the farms. And it really brings into focus the fact that we are dealing with some real people here. We are dealing with people that are being severely impacted. The Eberts' real estate taxes go up every year.