Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

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

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I first of all I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his rigorous and correct defense of an underfunded defense bill. What bothers me more than anything is the manner in which this occurred. The Committee on International Relations, every year since I have been here, which has been going on 6 years, will be presented with a petition from the Department of the Navy in the form of a bill for the sale or exchange or gift of ships. And about four years ago there was a hearing going on and somebody came from the Department of the Navy with a list of 10 ships that they were going to give away. And I asked the Navy, I said, have you ever thought about selling or leasing these ships? And they said, well, you know, that is a pretty good idea. So the Navy pulled the bill. A couple months later, they were back before the Committee on International Relations, this time with a bill that would sell or lease 10 ships with a net to the American people of $485 million. That provision that occurred every year, I believe, in either the State Department authorization or the foreign ops bill became known as the Manzullo amendment. The committee members would get together. They would take a look at these excess ships. Affix a value to them and show that as an accounting function in State Department authorization. Though it is laudable that money be used to enhance our military, what bothers me is our committee was not allowed to have two hearings. The first hearing was on the advisability and the actual accounting methods and appraisal methods of the ships. The second hearing was on the advisability of the countries to whom they were sold under the present circumstances. The government is selling 48 ships at an average price of $13 million. That seems to be an awful, terrible bargain. I do not know what procedure can be done at this point, but if the Navy is listening, I am going to be demanding in some way or the other tomorrow a full and complete accounting and an appraisal as to each and every ship so we can demonstrate to the American people whether or not these ships are being appraised.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent the fastener capital of the United States, Rockford, Illinois. There are more fastener manufacturers per capita in Rockford than any other city in the Nation. The implementation of the Fastener Quality Act is of key importance to the livelihood of northern Illinois, but its impact reaches far beyond our congressional district. In fact, a disruption in the supply of fasteners to our industry would be the equivalent of a nationwide trucking or rail strike. With the release of the latest set of regulations by the National Institute of Standards and Technology last April, I surveyed the fastener manufacturers in northern Illinois for their input, listening to people such as the Pearson family who have been manufacturing fasteners for years and have been wrestling with the Fastener Quality Act. Mr. Speaker, let me review for the benefit of my colleagues the results this survey: 54 percent of the fastener manufacturers still do not know which fasteners are covered by the Fastener Quality Act; 46 percent of the fastener manufacturers are so small they cannot afford to adopt the expensive quality assurance system, even though they have their own system of testing and ensuring quality. Thus, the April regulations permitting larger companies which use QAS to become Fastener Quality Act certified means nothing to these small fastener manufacturing firms; 92 percent, almost every one of the fastener manufacturers in Illinois, still do not know what they have to do to fully comply with the Fastener Quality Act regulations. Finally, every fastener manufacturer in the Sixteenth Congressional District agreed there will not be enough labs up and running on July 26 to certify products coming off the assembly line as Fastener Quality Act approved. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology, in cosponsoring and strongly supporting H.R. 3824. I recommend and strongly urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, what is right with America? So often we heard about what is wrong with American families. Let me tell you what is right about one family in particular. Dan and Julie Danielowski. Dan and Julie have a total of five children, and that's a house full. But this loving couple, who live in Byron, Illinois, decided that there are some really needy kids in America. That's why Dan and Julie became foster parents to Jasmine and Jaminique, seven years and 18 months ago respectively. When Dan and Julie discovered these two girls had three siblings in another foster home, Dan and Julie worked on keeping the family together through regular visits. The generous hearts of Dan and Julie became even more evident when they agreed to adopt all five of these children. That's a total of ten children. And they raise these kids on Dan's salary as a public school principal. Their story is told in the April 23, 1998 edition of the Oregon (IL) Republican Reporter, which is attached. Who says people in American don't care anymore? Just ask Dan and Julie Danielowski. They'll tell you what America is really about. [From the Oregon (IL) Republican Reporter] Couple Dotes on Family of 10 (By Vinde Wells) Julie Danielowski was miraculously still smiling as she loaded three baskets full of wet laundry into her van on a rainy afternoon in preparation for a trip to the laundromat. ``This isn't exactly how I'd planned the evening,'' she said with a grimace, ``but the dryer is on the blink, and they say it will take two days to get the part we need.'' The dryer is just one component crucial to the smooth operation of Danielowski's household--she and her husband Dan are the parents of 10 children ranging in age from four to 18. Added to that are three dogs and an undetermined number of cats. ``We just had two new litters so we aren't exactly sure,'' Dan said. The Danielowskis live near Byron. The house they built themselves is situated on a large, wooded lot with plenty of elbow room. The couple's family officially doubled March 5 when the adoption of their youngest five children became final. Every aspect of Dan and Julie's lives attests to the fact that they like children. Dan is the principal of Roosevelt Community Education Center, Rockford, which includes the Rockford School District's alternative high school and adult education center. Julie is a secretary at Mary Morgan Elementary School, Byron. When they married eight and a half years ago they blended their children from both their previous marriages. Dan had two and Julie had three, one of whom was adopted. Dan said he really likes having kids around--lots of kids. ``When it was just the two kids and I for a year or so, I really liked it when they had friends over.'' Julie had previously been a foster parent, and Dan realized the need for foster care while he was an assistant high school principal. He said he waited for several hours on one occasion with a student and a Department of Children and Family Services worker while the case worker searched for a place for the student to spend the night. Dan said the case worker called numerous foster parents only to be repeatedly turned down. He said they were interested in providing temporary foster care--a place for children to stay overnight or for a few days until more permanent arrangements can be made. ``We had foster care in mind when we built the house,'' Dan said. He said the house is designed in a modular fashion which allows for easy conversion of space from one use to another and for easy expansion. The home has three bathrooms, six bedrooms and two family rooms. Dan is in the process of adding a deck on the back. Adoption wasn't really part of the plan. ``With five kids I figured our lives would be crazy enough,'' Dan said with a laugh. All that changed in August of 1995 when Julie got a call from Lutheran Social Services Inc. (LSSI) asking if they could take two girls for the night. ``We had a foster care license to do short term care,'' Julie said. ``We thought it would be two days or couple of weeks.'' The oldest and the youngest girls--Jasmine and Jaminique-- arrived. They were seven years and 18 months respectively. Dan and Julie soon learned that their two little girls came from a family of five. The other three children had been placed in another foster home. Julie said that after six months they started providing weekend visits at their home for the other three children so all five children could be together. Dan said that sometime within that time it became apparent that the youngsters could not return to their mother's care. The situation was complicated because three agencies were involved. The Danielowskis were licensed through LSSI, and were working with both LSSI and DCFS for Jasmine and Jaminique. The other three siblings--Jarmanda, Joe and Jovana--were under the supervision of the Children's Home and Aid Society. Julie said adopting the children gradually became the obvious solution as the agencies involved searched for a permanent foster home. Julie said Jasmine and Jaminique had been in five homes in the previous six months. She said she believed another move would be too much for Jasmine, who had taken on the role of mother to her sisters and brother. Dan said that when they learned that all five children might be moved to yet another foster home they decided to act. ``LSSI offered to go to bat for us if we were interested in taking all five,'' he said. Jamanda, Joe and Jovana came to live with the growing Danielowski family in August of 1996. ``It's something I don't think we could have done without the help of our older kids,'' Julie said. Julie's day begins a little before 6 a.m. when she gets up. She makes sure everyone else is up by 6:30. ``You have to be organized, of course,'' she said, ``but it's just what we do.'' The family frequently sits down together for meals, she said. That alone is no small feat considering work, school and activities schedules. All the children are involved in sports, and other school activities. Dan and Julie are on the board of the Byron Civic Theatre, and Dan is currently directing the spring production of ``Little Shop of Horrors''. Melissa, Jasmine, Jarmanda, Joe, Jovana and Jaminique swim with the Tiger Sharks. Megan has a part-time job at a nearby veterinary clinic. She and Kate will both graduate from Byron High School this spring and are headed for college in the fall. The two fifteen-year-olds, Ben and Riley, will start driving in the fall. Before all that, however, is a matter of greater urgency-- getting five ready for the prom. The four high school age children are attending the event and Jovana, who is a first grader, will be the prom princess. ``Dan asked what this is going to cost us, and I said don't even go there,'' Julie said.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 102, a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel. I want to thank Mr. Lantos for introducing such a timely and appropriate resolution and giving me the opportunity to be an original cosponsor. I am proud to support this excellent bill. House Joint Resolution 102 recognizes the historic significance of this special anniversary, applauds the Israeli people for building a vibrant, modern democracy in the face of physical, economic, and political hostility, reaffirms the deep friendship between our two countries, and warmly congratulates the Israeli people and extends to them all the best for a prosperous, safe and successful future. Mr. Speaker, the United States and Israel share a special relationship. As our only true democratic friend in the region, Israel deserves America's strong and unyielding support. I applaud the unanimous passage of this resolution today and extend to the people of Israel my very best wishes.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. What is the question again?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be directed to strike section 5 of the bill.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what the House is doing today, the House of Representatives, the People's House, is so unique in history, and it is truly remarkable, because what we are doing today is we are showing that when the Constitution was drafted in 1787, that the men who met in Philadelphia in that year envisioned a system of the separation of powers, and they built into the Constitution a mechanism whereby one branch of government could reclaim the authority that had been usurped by another branch of government, and that is the genius of the Constitution. We can go back to the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson was asked by Benjamin Franklin, also in Philadelphia, to draft that document and to set forth the reasons for the establishment of this republic. One of the reasons that Jefferson put in the Declaration of Independence is that King George III had obstructed the administration of justice by refusing assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. In other words, it would be up to the individual colonies, and thus a central government in a new country, to establish and define exactly what those judicial powers are. So in the Constitution, under Article III, Section 1, Congress was given the express power to ordain and establish inferior Federal courts, which includes the power of vesting them with jurisdiction, either limited, concurrent, or exclusive. In fact, in a 1943 case, it has been, perhaps, we do not know how many decades, we have arguments here where Congress is trying to get back from judiciary powers that judiciary has taken, and in the case of Lockerty versus Phillips, the court said that Congress has the power to withhold jurisdiction from courts in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good. That is what is exciting about the legislation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). It takes a look at Congress, the elected branch, the representative branch of government, and says we are overseeing the court system to bring about a change when something has happened in the court system that violates the public good. The public good to which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) addresses himself is the fact that courts have overstepped their boundaries by releasing dangerous felons, who go out to kill, and to maim, and to peddle drugs to our little children, who ingest these drugs, and the little innocent ones, my children and children of all Americans, thus become susceptible to more people who the law enforcement people have in good faith put away, but which a Federal judge says they should be out. So we are here today because the Constitution compels us to do so. It would do no good for me to reiterate the various travesties that have taken place in America because of what the Federal courts have done. But let us look upon this day in this Congress as being a responsible Congress and telling the American people that the courts have gone too far, and that Congress is exercising the jurisdiction and the authority envisioned by the founders of this republic in saying we are going to correct what is wrong with the court system.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike section 5 of the pending bill.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment are trying to draw a fine line between a direct tax and an indirect tax. The effect is the same. The elected representatives still have to raise taxes and is it not interesting, they say, well, this will protect, this will stop courts from raising taxes. In Rockford, Illinois, the judge, the unelected magistrate has ordered the school board to either raise taxes or go to jail. There is no difference between that and the judge saying, ``I am going to order raising of taxes on my own.'' The original language of section 5 allows both scenarios. However, the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment removes the second scenario and not only says that the judge cannot directly raise taxes but it still allows the judge to indirectly raise taxes. And as to all the environmental issues and everything else, what our bill says simply is this, to live within our means, to allow remedial plans to come about. Maryland already has a State law with regard to cleaning up the environment, to cleaning up the waters. All these scare tactics that this will gut environmental laws, this will gut ADA laws, that is not the case. We are simply saying that local communities and elected representatives should not be ordered to go to jail unless they raise taxes. Because the only constitutional function for the Federal raising of tax is the United States Congress and not the Federal judiciary. And that is why it is absolutely important, it is compelling that to make this law have any teeth, we must defeat Delahunt-Boehlert.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the Missouri versus Jenkins case is very simple. Five justices against four justices ruled that a court can indirectly raise taxes by applying this legal fiction. The difference is between the judge saying from the bench, I raise your taxes, and the judge saying, I order you to raise your taxes. The Delahunt-Boehlert amendment would still allow a judge to say, I order you to raise your taxes. In fact, the majority decision was so feeble that four justices in the minority said that the majority opinion ``is an expansion of power in the Federal judiciary beyond all precedent,'' and Delahunt-Boehlert, therefore, if they are saying it would codify Missouri versus Jenkins, would therefore be, quote, ``an expansion of power in the Federal judiciary beyond all precedent.'' It is just that simple. A vote on that amendment would gut section 5. It would still allow judicial taxation to take place. And for my friend from Massachusetts, I would say, if he would make reference to the Declaration of Independence, that is where Mr. Jefferson says and accuses King George III of taxing the people without representation. I like to quote from Jefferson. He is the most credible.

Mr. MANZULLO. No, I do not want to forget it. I want to make this clear.

Mr. MANZULLO. If I am given the opportunity to respond----

Mr. MANZULLO. It is very simple----

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes, I quoted from that.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment would gut section 5. There is a legal fiction as to whether or not a court can order the increase of tax or a court can order a municipality to increase tax. Our bill provides in both situations a court will be prevented from directly or indirectly raising taxes. What the amendment does, it prevents a court from directly raising taxes, but all the courts have to do is to read Missouri versus Jenkins and instead of the court directly raising the tax, it says ``I am ordering you to raise the tax.'' The Delahunt-Boehlert amendment would allow a Federal judge, as the judge in Rockford, Illinois, has done, to point to a duly elected school board and say, ``Either you raise taxes or you are going to jail.'' That is the purpose of section 5. If the amendment is adopted, the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment, it will not affect the situation. The judge can still do the same thing. And it is legal fiction which they are presenting before this body today to allow them to have all of the congressional mandates come before the Federal courts and for the Federal courts to say, local municipalities to comply, either raise taxes or go to jail. That is what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, I have letters here from people in Rockford, Illinois. Mr. Delahunt said he knew of no area in the country that is affected similarly to Kansas City, Missouri. Well, the same master in Kansas City, Missouri is now the master in Rockford, Illinois. Listen to this letter from Adam Lamarre: Dear Representative Manzullo, Thank you for the support you gave limiting the powers of judges to impose taxes. My family is considering moving out of Rockford because we can no longer afford to pay high taxes. This is from Earl and Ann Young in Rockford: Dear Mr. Manzullo, we are very affected by Magistrate Mahoney's rulings. We are senior citizen property owners in Rockford School District 205, living on a fixed income, who are being taxed out of our home! To add insult to injury, we did not live in Rockford when the alleged discrimination took place, have never had children in the Illinois school system, but we are judged guilty because our House is in district 205. We would like you to tell us how can this one man,'' the unelected magistrate responsible to no one, ``assume to have all this power, and what action you are pursuing in Washington. And a letter from Carol Angelico: I'm writing to you because of my saddened frustration that no one can `fairly' resolve the unnecessary and overburdening taxation problem in our City of Rockford. Oh, yes, the City of Rockford, with over 2,200 homes for sale in a city of less than 150,000 people. The City of Rockford, where the property values keep going down. The City of Rockford, where people are being taxed unmercifully and senior citizens come to my office with tears in their eyes and say, ``Congressman, we cannot afford to pay our taxes because the Federal magistrate raised our taxes. You represent us. You should be the one responsible, because if you raise taxes, I will remove you from office.'' What we are doing today is historic, perhaps the first time in the history of this Republic in which Congress is trying to reclaim the ground where only we have the power in Federal situations to raise taxes, and to take it back from the courts and say that they do not have the power to raise taxes. That was not given to them. Hamilton expressly said, ``You shall not have it.'' Madison said, ``You shall not have it.'' And Jefferson said, when writing about King George III, said, ``He has taxed us without representation.'' This is what this Republic is about. Who is in control of raising taxes in this Republic? Is it the unelected judges appointed for life, or is it Members of the United States Congress who have to stand for reelection every 2 years? Delahunt-Boehlert guts section 5. It makes it meaningless, and I would urge my colleagues, especially those who voted yesterday that said this body can only raise taxes by having two-thirds of the vote, to say only this body can raise taxes and not the judiciary, and to vote against Delahunt-Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: April 12, 1997. Congressman Don Manzullo, Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Congressman Manzullo: I'm writing to you because of my saddened frustration that no one can ``Fairly'' resolve the unnecessary and over-burdening taxation problem in our city of Rockford. I'll clarify my above statement by getting to the point as briefly as I can. A federal judge ``Mahoney'' ordered real estate tax increases to pay for three (3) new schools (we have closed schools in some areas and have been busing our school children), this ruling was the result of a lawsuit because a small group of people didn't like their school being closed and it accelerated into a state of ``ridiculous'' with an end result of lawyers fees, court fees, and consultant fees already costing $100 million dollars taken from a Tort Fund which was the money to be used for the schools. This is not right! 1st--A judge taxes us without any representation (our forefathers started this country because of that reason). 2nd--$100 million dollars spent not for our school children, or schools but for lawyers, and consultants. That money would have been better spent improving the education of our children. My husband and I have filed a joint tax protest with other people in town to no avail, and have spoken to our State Rep's before only to hear a lot of rhetoric but no action to back them up and change the laws regarding federal judges rulings with no regard to the negative effect financially on the community, nor allowing the majority of the people to have their voice heard and vote on instead of just giving the minority a voice. I thought this country was a democracy in which the majority vote was the law/rule, at least that's what I was taught in history classes in school. Have our governing bodies forgotten that! A federal judge wielding such a ruling not only here but anywhere in the U.S. is wrong!!! We are paying so much in taxes already, not only Real Estate but other areas of our now structured government. So I'm asking you Congressman, to continue to take the initiative and act on the behalf of the hard working people who pay all these taxes by doing without and tightening the belt, but the belt is becoming so tight we are all strangling. We want our schools to produce educated people but that's not what our money is being used for. It has not gone to the schools or for our children's education. New schools do not educate; teachers, books, computers, etc. do!! Changes need to be made regarding this matter. Two incomes are already necessary today so we can give our families the necessities of life because the taxation has gotten out of hand, literally, from our hands to government hands. Then we have the additional burden of our school districts court order. People can't keep their homes for their children who would be going to our school, not to mention our elderly homeowners. My husband and I are paying monthly real estate payments almost equal to our mortgage payment, this is really getting scary because we were reassessed on our property again last year and our tax bill will be higher again for 1996. Please express to your fellow congressmen and congresswomen that it's their responsibility, which was given to them by us the the voter, that they are in the political office they now hold, to work for and with the majority of us not against us. That's how they won their office, by the majority not the minority. I hear to many people say why write to express your dissatisfaction, nothing gets done about, only the minority get catered to and politicians are only self-interested in matter to better themselves and not the general public--PROVE

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if there is any phrase that sums up the reason for the existence of this Republic, that phrase is ``no taxation without representation.'' That is not the phrase of Don Manzullo. It is the phrase of Thomas Jefferson, who, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, cited King George for three things: that King George, III, refused to pass laws that would allow people the right to be represented in their own legislatures; that he called together legislative bodies at unusual times so nothing could be done; that he imposed taxes on us without our consent. Taxation without consent gave rise to the Boston Tea Party, and it gave rise to the Constitution that was written in 1787, a document so magnificent that author Flexner has said, never before in history had people gathered together to write a document by which people can govern themselves. Two of the people who had a tremendous impact on that Constitution were Hamilton and Madison. Hamilton said, in Federalist Paper 78, ``The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society.'' And Madison said in Federalist Paper 33, ``What is a power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes but a legislative power?'' And so powerful were those words, Mr. Chairman, that they were written into article 1, section 7, that said, ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' It is very clear, any Federal attempt to raise taxes must come in the people's House, and it must come by people who have to stand for reelection every 2 years. But history has not proved that out, because it is not only in Kansas City, Missouri, where the judge has raised $2 billion worth of taxes, but it is in Rockford, Illinois, where an unelected magistrate ordered the members of the school board to either raise taxes or go to jail for the purpose of implementing a desegregation plan. That is taxation without representation, and that is why we are here today, because Madison compelled it whenever one branch of government would become predominant over the other. In fact, in number 47 he said, ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' We are here, perhaps for the first time since the Constitution was adopted, perhaps for the first time that the House of Representatives has been here in existence, for the first time in history, to argue Congress should take back from the judges the power to tax.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to commend the efforts of the families, students, parents, and teachers of the communities of Byron, Mt. Morris, Oregon, and Stillman Valley, Illinois, as they launch this year's celebration of Red Ribbon Week, from March 30 to April 3. I extend a special thanks to Randy Vavra, his co-workers, and the many others involved in planning drug awareness activities for assisting in the coordination of this week. The significance of Red Ribbon Week and its impact on the young people in our communities is crucial to getting out the message that drug use destroys lives. The Red Ribbon Campaign is a national effort organized to commemorate federal agent Enrique Camarena, who was tortured and murdered by drug traffickers in February 1985. In his memory, the Red Ribbon has become a symbol recognizing volunteers and professionals working in the field of drug and violence prevention, drug demand reduction, law enforcement, and treatment. These efforts are supported by schools, churches, media, law enforcement agencies, business, and government. Although Red Ribbon Week is normally recognized in October, this year Byron and nearby communities have moved the celebration to the spring in order to bring in internationally renowned drug prevention speaker Milton Creagh. Mr. Creagh sports an impressive resume of professional and community activities for which he has received many honors and awards. In addition to Mr. Creagh's appearance, the district is planning a variety of student activities, as well as a drug and alcohol awareness inservice for all district staff. I fully support the Red Ribbon Campaign and the work of everyone involved. Drug awareness and prevention begin with families and communities, so I congratulate the people of Byron, Mt. Morris, Oregon, and Stillman Valley as they put together Red Ribbon Week. Your work will further the goal of eradicating the scourge of drugs that threatens our children and will direct them along a path to a brighter future.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives just passed under suspension of the rules HR 2294, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1998. I was unavoidably detained from floor proceedings. However, had I been present I would have requested a recorded vote and voted against the bill. I strongly opposed the measure based upon one section of the bill: Section 202. This section would grant magistrate judges contempt authority. I am adamantly opposed to granting such power to these judges on constitutional grounds. I am not alone in this. In fact, the Justice Department in its comments printed in the committee report argues that giving such power to non Article III judges raises constitutional concerns. Magistrates do not go through the normal nomination process. As the Supreme Court stated in a recent opinion, the power to hold persons in criminal contempt is not only awesome, but is also an inherent power of Article III judges. Magistrate judges are not Article III judges. The Legislative Branch has much to lose if it continues to grant increased powers to those who are unelected. In my congressional district, a Federal magistrate has taken control of a local school district. To put it simply, he single handedly ordered the school board to raise taxes. Out of fear of contempt orders from the magistrate, school board members who were opposed to the tax increase switched their votes to support the tax increase. From the very fact that HR 2294 attempts to grant this power, it is clear that Federal magistrates do not currently have that power. However, it is also clear that there were no attempts made by the court to clear up the misunderstanding about that power and in fact promoted the false concept. Imagine what type of abuse of power we would see IF we actually grant such authority. I am sure that there are other commendable provisions in HR 2294. However, it is my sincere hope that Section 202 as passed by voice vote today in the House of Representatives is stripped out of the final version of this legislation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, Africa is a continent on the move and it is time we recognized that fact. We have neglected the people of Africa and ceded many export opportunities to their former European colonial powers. This legislation will for the first time focus the attention of the U.S. Government on a comprehensive trade strategy towards Africa. This legislation reinforces the positive developments taking place in that continent. Since 1990, more than 25 African countries have held democratic elections and more than 30 countries have embarked on free- market economic reforms. Let me give my colleagues a taste of what can happen. Last year I held a hearing before the Subcommittee on Small Business Exports, which I chair, on the subject of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC. A wonderful lady born in Africa and now residing in Massachusetts, Monique Maddy, testified how her small telecommunications firm was able to contribute both to economic development in Africa and increased U.S. exports to Africa. She won a deal, thanks to a political risk insurance package from OPIC, to build wireless public telephones which operate on debit cards instead of coins for Tanzania. This contract resulted in the export of $4.5 million worth of goods and services from 8 supplier companies in 7 States: Texas, New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina. In addition, 60 jobs were created in Tanzania. Because the Africa Communications Group did so well with the Tanzania sale, Ms. Maddy subsequently won a larger sale to Ghana with OPIC's help. This will result in the export of approximately $65 million worth of goods and services from the United States and create 500 jobs in Ghana. Without OPIC, most likely these deals would have gone to our European competitors. My home State of Illinois is another example of the phenomenal growth of exports to Africa. South Africa alone is Illinois's 20th largest export destination, totaling $389 million for 1996. The leading exports to South Africa are industries where Illinois excells: chemical, earth- moving equipment, agricultural machinery, and aviation parts. From the Chicago-land area, exports to South Africa grew 148 percent between 1993 and 1996, starting at $74 million and increasing to $184 million. In Rockford, Illinois, exports to South Africa grew 29 percent, jumping from $2 million in 1994 to $2.6 million in 1995, the latest date for which we have export statistics. South Africa is the locomotive that drives much of Sub-Saharan Africa, and it is critically important we help this big emerging market on the path of democratic and free-market reform.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, Good morning. I stand before you today to plead the case of a young girl and her parents from Crystal Lake, Illinois, whose lives were changed forever by an intrusive, overbearing federal government. She was 13 years old when her 37-year-old teacher began having sex with her. A few months into the affair, the teacher--tired of using condoms--brought her to a place where he knew the young girl could get birth control products without anyone finding out: the county health department. This teacher knew that federal Title X rules prohibited clinics from notifying parents when issuing birth control drugs to minors. When the young girl arrived at the health department, the clinic nurse gave her a shot of a powerful birth control drug that would last three months. This hormonal drug, Depo-Provera, poses severe side effects including excessive bleeding and bone loss. In fact, the ACLU protested its use in chemically castrating male sex offenders in California because of the ``cruel and unusual punishment'' the side effects constitute to the criminals. But yet, it is safe and appropriate for little girls. And its use is widespread. In Illinois alone, health clinics injected Depo-Provera into the veins of young girls more than 6,500 times over a two-year period, despite the minimal testing of the drug on adolescents. The little girl from Crystal Lake received at least two more shots of Depo-Provera from the county health clinic. And her teacher continued molesting her--all behind her parents' backs. The crime was finally uncovered 18 months later when the girl broke down and told her parents. The teacher was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The young girl spent five days a week in therapy and is recovering from effects of anorexia nervosa. I told this little girl's story to the United States Congress last year when Congressman Istook and I were trying to attach a parental notification amendment to the Title X program. I spoke of how her pain continued because the federal government had rules in place which shielded the teacher's crime. I spoke of how irate and helpless her parents felt when they learned that the federal government had cut them out of the discussion of their young daughter's sexuality. But in the end, parents lost again. The House's 220-201 vote for a toothless, alternative bill killed the Istook-Manzullo amendment and sent another message that parents are irrelevant in our society. Shortly after our loss last September, I vowed to continue this battle to bring sanity and parental responsibility to this flawed program. And today, I come before you to announce that I have introduced two free-standing bills to give parents more protection and knowledge when their children seek birth control drugs from federally funded clinics. The ``Title X Parental Notification Act of 1998'' would require clinics receiving Title X money to notify parents or legal guardians before providing minors with prescriptive birth control products, including birth control pills, IUDs, Norplant and Depo-Provera. The clinic would have to give actual written notice to parents or guardians at least five days before issuing the drugs to the girls. In addition, the bill would require the clinics to follow any state mandated criminal reporting requirements for signs of child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest in their clients. The second bill, known as the ``Title X Child Abuse, Rape, Molestation and Incest Reporting Act,'' deals solely with the provision requiring Title X clinics to follow any state reporting requirements. Any clinic that violates the provisions in either of the bills would lose its Title X funding. The general argument for providing young girls with birth control products behind their parents' backs is cloaked in double standards. On one hand, we make laws to protect children from the dangers of drugs, alcohol and tobacco. But then we open them to the dangers of AIDS and other diseases by giving them the tools to have sex. We make laws requiring children to get their parents' permission for an aspirin at school, an earring or a tattoo. But then we give them confidential injections of powerful birth control drugs that carry tremendous side effects. We make laws saying parents are legally responsible for their childrens' actions until the children become adults. But then we rip parents from the equation when it comes to something as critical and potentially dangerous as sexuality. This doesn't make sense. In addition to notifying parents, clinic workers must get more vigilant in protecting our children and reporting cases of child molestation. According to my amendment, clinic workers who have any suspicions that a patient is being physically or sexually abused would have to follow the state's procedures for reporting those suspicions to police. This is especially critical considering that young girls are having sex with older and older men, according to an Alan Guttmacher Institute study. In fact, the study shows that half of the babies born to mothers between 15 and 17 years old were fathered by men 20 years or older. That is statutory rape, and that should be reported and prosecuted. These are very straightforward, simple pieces of legislation that I bring before you today. They demand the answer to one question: Who is in charge of raising our children, parents or the United States Congress? I still have faith in the parents of our great country. They deserve a chance. The parents of a traumatized little girl in Crystal Lake, Illinois deserved a chance. Thank you.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a real American hero, Congressman Sam Johnson, and to all his fellow POWs who so bravely and valiantly served this country. As you well know, Sam was shot down over North Vietnam and imprisoned for almost seven years under horrifying conditions. What strikes me most about Sam's story is his unshakeable faith in the Lord. On the evening of his 72nd day in leg stocks, Sam was ready to give up. For months he had not been able to move from his shackles. For months he had not seen the sun or sky through the boarded-up windows of his tiny cell. As he fell asleep that evening, Sam thought to himself: ``It would be okay if I never woke up again.'' That night, a powerful typhoon struck Hanoi. As Sam's cell filled with water, be began to pray as never before. He knew then more than ever that the Lord was his hope and his salvation. As Sam later recounted, ``When I woke up the next morning, I realized the storm has blown the covers off the window, and that morning I saw the sun rise for the first time in 72 days. That was God in all His glory coming up out there. And it's good to know He's there; it certainly helps to put your mind at rest. It helps you to get through those tough times.'' God bless you Sam Johnson. God bless our POWs. And God bless America. Congressman Sam Johnson (Testimonial as told to Northwest Bible Church) Listen, I want you to know that we've been doing a little bible study up there in Washington, DC, believe it or not. . . . My goodness, the Lord is directing you and, you know, it goes to show you the faith and the grace and the failures that make our lives worth living. Let me tell you a little bit about what happened to me in Vietnam. I was shot down in an F-4 and ejected to get out. Our air speed was about 650 knots, which is kind of slow I guess. I broke my left arm in two places and dislocated my left shoulder and broke my back. When I landed the bad guys were on me in about 30 seconds. We were right in the middle of a division of the enemy troops, and I was caught pretty quickly. They threw me around and they took over a house and just kicked the people out. The guards and I were thrown in there. My back-seater also got out, fortunately, and was put in another house where they threw people out. We stayed there for just one night and then went to a place called ``Dong Hui'' which was in North Vietnam. There they accused us of being air pirates and took me out and put me in front of a firing squad. Even though you've been trained in the Air Force Survival School and you know or think they are not really going to hurt you, when you're standing there with six guys facing you with rifles, and you see them pull a clip out of their pockets, jam it in the gun, and charge the weapon, you know you can't really tell whether there's a bullet going in or not. And they pull them up and the officer gives the signal to fire and they all go click, click. . . . You're facing them and you wonder about that. They tried again later, and the second time I laughed at them. They threw me in a pit. You know, in retrospect, that was the Lord being with me. I followed him by praying as hard as I could at that time, but the real faith you know, the Lord really being with you, doesn't come home until you stop and think how he provided. Later they put a cast on my arm. They dressed up some guards like doctors (which is how you become a doctor in Vietnam). They pulled it down to the extreme (that it broke it in two places) and then they folded it up and put a cast on it. That was their medical deal. They broke it again in route to Hanoi during the travel which took us about 25 days. And when we got to Hanoi nearly everybody was treated the same, it was a week of torture, while they were trying to get military information. And you know, they never found out that I ran the Fighter Weapons School of the Air Force. My back seat pilot Larry Chesley and I made up a couple of stories. Like, ``I had just gotten there, I didn't know anything about the airplane, they just put me in it and told me to fly over, and they put bombs and napalm on it, but I didn't know what was on the airplane. And the back-seater got in the plane there, so I didn't know him. He was new to Vietnam and he didn't know a thing about radar.'' They told me when I got up over N. Vietnam push that button. We told them that story and they gave up after awhile. I was put into an empty dirty room. When they came in to interrogate you they brought a table in so the interrogators can sit behind it and start asking questions. You were without food and water for about a week. But, it was one of those trials that you go through. They took this broken arm of mine and broke it again and twisted it right on around and tore it out the other side, trying to make me talk to them. And really, the Lord was protecting me as I look back on it. It was very painful. So we didn't change our story and apparently my backseater told the same thing. Later (five years later) the commander, who was the colonel, walked in and said ``You lied to us.'' I said no, what are you talking about. He said when you first got shot down you didn't tell us the truth. I said, ``No, you must be mistaken, Americans never lie.'' I later was put with a guy named Jim Stockdale who is now in California. We were in a place where they kept bringing men who had just been shot down. I tried to talk to them and tell them how they could guard themselves and how to react and respond to the Vietnamese so they wouldn't get into too much trouble. They knew we were doing it but they couldn't catch us. If they had caught us they would have really punished us. I don't understand that mentality, but they would punish us and it would be in communist ways. One of the most serious incidents involved Stockdale and I. We were caught communicating with other prisoners and the guard busted in the door of our cell. Stockdale tried to fight him and he knocked him to the floor. Our punishment for this was the worst of my entire time in prison. They put me in a little cell that was about two and a half foot wide by eight foot long that we called the Mint, we named everything after a Las Vegas hotel. So, there's one other guy in an adjoining cell with me, and at the same time they put me in leg stocks. I don't know if you know what that is but it's kind of like the pilgrims when they used to punish people they put them in the middle of the town square. They set me in those stocks and locked my legs down so I couldn't move for 72 days. I didn't get up for anything. But, on the 72nd day an amazing thing happened. My cell was on the corner, so I had windows, but they were all boarded up. I hadn't seen the sun or anything for 72 days. That night a typhoon came through Hanoi. It was a terrible storm and my cell started to flood. The water was rising fast and since I couldn't move because of stocks I had no way to escape the water. I had nothing else to turn to but my faith. I began to pray. I prayed like I had never prayed before, because I knew that the Lord was my only salvation at this point. It ends up that the Lord was with me that night. When I woke up the next morning I realized the storm had blown the covers off the window and that morning I saw the sun rise for the first time in 72 days. That was God in all his glory coming up out there. And it's good to know He's there, it certainly helps to put your mind at rest. It helps you to get through those tough times. That very day they came and took me out of the stocks. I could not walk, obviously. Two guards carried me over to an interrogation office and set me down on a three-legged stool, and this guy says ``We're going to kill you.'' They threatened to do that fairly often. But, they said they had this confession from Stockdale and obviously you're involved. I said, let me see it because I don't think he'd write one. And he, of course, wouldn't let me look at it. So I told him that he was lying, I knew Stockdale didn't write anything. He got mad and said just go back. Well, that month they took 11 of us to a place we called Alcatraz. Jim Stockdale was one of them with us, and Jeremiah Denton from Alabama, ex-senator. He was in the same camps with me practically the whole time, he taught me the tap code. This was a code where we took the letters of the alphabet and put them into five rows of five letters each and eliminated the ``k'' and used the ``c'' for ``k'' for a while, but later tucked it back in where it belongs. And a ``b'' would be tap--tap, tap (1st row second letter) and we became pretty adept at doing that. In Alcatraz we were all in 11 different cells, side by side, and kind of in an ``L'' shape, and we could talk to each other pretty rapidly with that code. We then decided we weren't talking fast enough, so we developed a ``cough, hack, spit code.'' And I said, ``you know Jerry, we're going to get caught for this and the Vietnamese are going to really clamp down on us and we're going to be in trouble.'' But, he said, ``no, we're going to try it.'' It was around 1968, I guess, when they started letting us out for exercise, first time ever. And about 15 minutes a day. So Jerry got out of his cell and he was walking around and he was talking and having the prisoners communicate with him. We used a clearing of the throat for one, two clears for two, a cough for three, a hack for four, and a spit for five. We talked for three years with that code and the Vietnamese never caught on. Their population over there must think Americans have a respiratory problem. We always signed off in the evening with ``God bless you.'' Every Sunday, we would pray together, somebody would know it was Sunday, and the Vietnamese took about half a day off. Some guy would stomp on the floor and we'd all get on our knees and pray together. We could feel the power of prayer when we were together, everybody praying, even though we weren't side by side, separated by walls. We did that for as long as I can remember. And then one day they had the Son Tay raid and I don't know if ya'll remember that or not, but it was an effort to try to rescue the guys out of the camp at Vietnam. They failed in that effort because they had moved about 30 days earlier. And it was unfortunate because they were going to move them back, but it scared them enough that they moved us all together for the first time. And when we moved together we decided to have a church service and I'll never forget because Jerry said ``Sam you sing for us and lead,'' and I said ``I can't sing,'' but I did. Well, it happened to be New Year's Eve when we moved together so we sang Christmas carols and that was just a great time. But when you're in a communist world like that, the Vietnamese think that it's a demonstration so they came charging in and said ``Stop, you are not authorized to do that.'' We didn't care, we were going to have a church service every Sunday regardless. And we did, they took 3 senior officers out and put them in solitary and in irons, and we kept doing it and they came in one night and they took about 40 more of the seniors out and put them in solitary and in fact doubled them up in bunks and really made them uncomfortable. We got in the windows and started signing ``Battle Hymn of the Republic,'' ``God Bless America,'' all the good songs that you know, in our room. There were about 370 of us in that camp and every room got up in the window and started joining in with us. The North Vietnamese came running in with their guards in full battle dress with gas masks on, and we thought they were going to try to throw tear gas in, but they didn't. We could peek through the walls where we had but holes and we noticed that the whole town of Hanoi had come out to see what the commotion was. Well that died out that night and the next day the camp commander came on the loud speaker and said ``the camp authorizes you to have church services.'' You know that only God could make that happen, and I'll tell you what, the Lord was with us. I think each and every one of us is stronger from that experience. I never really thought about being involved in the Congress, which has brought me here to talk to you today. Jerry Denton and Jim Stockdale and all of us talked about how badly managed our government was and decided that when would we get involved when we got back to the U.S. and do something about it, instead of just complaining. So, I got involved in the State Legislature and when Steve Bartlett resigned to run for mayor of Dallas, I decided to try for the House. And I think the Lord led the way and prompted me to do that and hopefully, I can be there for you and represent you and our beliefs up there. I do know that this is one nation under God, our founding fathers wrote this Constitution under the precepts of the Bible. The Supreme Court needs to use the Bible as a guide, as a Law book. We have been drifting, as a country, far from these founding principles. And I'm hoping that we can get more people up in D.C. to turn that around. Thank you so much for letting me share my story with you today, and I hope you will share with me. My office is always open. God bless you and God bless America.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my family and I had the opportunity to attend the commemoration of Veterans Day held at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. My children, ages 9, 11, and 13, don't know the meaning of the word ``Vietnam,'' though several times we have talked to them about the Vietnam war. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Vietnam war veteran, and now head of our Office of National Drug Control Policy, gave a stirring speech about the ones who fought the war, reminding us that the price of freedom is very high. I also heard the incredible speech of Ann Cunningham, a nurse who served two tours of duty in Vietnam and who shared her experiences of the war. Then I met a group of Vietnam veterans in the rotunda of our Capitol, and they advised me that in many school history textbooks the Vietnam war is relegated to a simple paragraph. The memory of the 58,000-plus men and women who perished in that war deserves more than cursory comment. Therefore, I am requesting the speeches given by Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Ann Cunningham be included in the Congressional Record for today. I trust that they will be read by children and serve as a missing chapter in our history books. Remarks for Veterans Day, Vietnam War Memorial (By Gen. Barry McCaffrey) Introduction Senator Hagel, Jan Scruggs, distinguished guests, ladies, gentlemen, fellow Veterans of the Vietnam War. In particular the assembled soldiers of B Company, 2-7th Cav who I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam during 1968-1969--thank you for your courage and dedication in combat and the joy of our reunion during the past two days. I am especially honored to be here with our keynote speaker, the Honorable Charles Hagel, Senator from Nebraska, who courageously served in Vietnam as a squad leader in the 9th Infantry Division. He is one of the seven U.S. Senators and nine Congressmen, members of Congress, who fought in Southeast Asia. Today we honor all those who served in Vietnam--both the living and those who never came home. A ceremony at this site brings to mind the images of the nearly three and a half million men and thousands of women who served in the Vietnam theater. It also brings into sharp focus the faces of mothers, fathers, young wives, and children who braved the uncertainty of that conflict, waiting with anticipation for the return of loved ones. Our country did not treat any of you with the respect, support, and compassion you deserved. It was a shameful blot on our history to send our country's young men and women off to this terrible conflict and then use our soldiers as objects of blame for the divisive political struggle that ripped the nation apart for a decade. The names inscribed on this monument are those of men and women who went to Vietnam with their futures ahead of them and who came back home only as memories to their loved ones. More than 58,000 died and over 303,000 were wounded. The bloodshed was terrible, and the suffering has not ended. At least 80,000 of our ranks still suffer from severe service- connected disabilities; around 6 percent of our Vietnam War comrades suffer from drug abuse or dependence; 11 percent suffer from current alcohol abuse; many are homeless; and others still suffer from war-related psychological and physical problems. This continuing heavy human toll demands that we Americans vigorously support the finest possible health care in our Veterans' Administration facilities and sustain strong outreach programs to assist Veterans suffering from drug and alcohol dependency and physical and emotional wounds. Our nation needs to make the sacrifice for those who sacrificed so much in Vietnam.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, many people have diverse opinions on the issue of fast track and its potential impact in a wide range of areas. I wanted to take this opportunity to define fast track and explain what it is intended to do and what it is not designed to do. Fast track is simply the process by which Congress provides limited authority to the President to enter into more trade negotiations in order to lower barriers to our U.S. exports. All fast track does is allow the President the ability to negotiate these trade agreements and then present the agreement to Congress for a final ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on the entire package without adding or taking away specific words or sections from the agreement. During the negotiations and the drafting of the final agreement, fast track mandates that there is sufficient consultation with Congress so that the President will not present an agreement that does not have the support of a majority in Congress. That, simply, is fast track, nothing more, nothing less. Fast track is not a new concept. It has been a common practice for over 60 years, in some form, for every President since Franklin Roosevelt as tariffs became less and less a source of revenue for the U.S. Government and foreign trade policy grew in complexity and importance to the U.S. economy. The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 was the first time Congress delegated to the President the broad authority to set, within specific limits and for a limited time, tariff and other foreign trade policy. Up until 1945, 32 bilateral tariff-reducing agreements were reached. In 1947, the United States became a founding member of the multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], whose aim is a mutual reduction of barriers to trade among all the free market nations of the world. During this time, Congress extended the 1934 act 11 times to open up more markets to U.S. products by lowering tariffs. Then, in 1962, Congress gave President Kennedy a 5-year authority to participate in the first major GATT round or negotiation to not just lower tariffs but eliminate duties on specific products. These global trade talks became more commonly known as the Kennedy round, named after his untimely death. The Kennedy round concluded in 1967 when agreements were reached to reduce not only tariffs but, for the first time, non-tariff or redtape barriers. But more controversial, the executive branch, under President Johnson, also negotiated an international antidumping agreement that was not contained within the authority Congress originally gave President Kennedy. Congress subsequently enacted a law in 1968 nullifying any provision of this antidumping agreement that was not consistent with U.S. law. Because of this dispute between the executive and legislative branch, a compromise was reached after a 7-year period when there were no significant global trade barrier reduction negotiations. Thus, the fast track procedures were formally adopted for the first time as part of the Trade Act of 1974. This legislation granted then President Ford another 5-year time period to negotiate a further reduction in trade barriers. These talks became more commonly known as the Tokyo round of the GATT. This round eventually produced a package of 14 international trade agreements that eventually became part of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, negotiated by President Carter. As part of this renewed fast-track authority, the executive branch agreed to more closely consult with Congress, even to the point of accrediting 10 Members of Congress to serve as advisors to trade negotiating teams. But, in return, Congress agreed not to amend or change the final agreement. Countries will not negotiate with the United States until they are assured that the final agreement will not be changed. However, the legislative branch established an informal process with the executive branch, from the beginning of the negotiating process to crafting the implementing legislation, that the final agreement reflects the will of a majority of Congress. Fast track was further extended again to President Reagan as part of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984. Thus, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement in 1985 and the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988 was negotiated and enacted into law under this authority. Fast track was extended again to President Reagan as part of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. This authority allowed him and, subsequently Presidents Bush and Clinton to negotiate and enact the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] in 1993 and the third major GATT agreement, otherwise known as the Uruguay round, in 1994. Thus, President Clinton's fast-track proposal is nothing new. It has been used by 11 Presidents of both political parties for over the last 60 years. The previous fast-track authority expired in 1994. In the specific proposal before Congress, the President would be given until 2001, which can be extended until 2005 unless one House of Congress disapproves, the ability to negotiate further reductions to trade barriers around the world. Once again, fast track does not take any power away from Congress. In fact, this procedure requires constant congressional review and input throughout each stage of the process from deciding which country to negotiate with to proposing the final legislative bill to implement the agreement. No President will submit a trade agreement that has not been thoroughly analyzed and supported by a majority in Congress. Without fast track, we would never have any more major agreements. That's why I support providing any President, regardless of party affiliation, the ability to enter into comprehensive trade agreements to help boost our exports as long as the negotiations stick closely to resolving trade problems, not unrelated issues. Most observers believe Chile would be the next logical candidate to enter a free-trade agreement with the United States. A free-trade agreement with Chile will be very beneficial to the United States. The average tariff or tax on United States exports to Chile is 11 percent. Yet, the average tariff rate for Chilean imports into the United States is less than 1 percent. Essentially, Chile already has a one-sided free-trade zone with the United States. Obviously, a free-trade agreement with zero tariffs on both sides is of greater benefit to the United States. Chile has already entered into a variety of free-trade agreements with other nations, such as Canada and Mexico. There are documented cases when U.S. workers lost approximately $500 million in export opportunities in 1996 to foreign competitors because the U.S. product had an 11-percent tax added on top of the base price. For example, workers at a major United States telecommunications firm lost the opportunity to help rebuild Chile's phone system to Northern Telecom of Canada because of the lack of a free-trade agreement with the United States. With fast-track authority, we can knock down these trade barriers, not just with Chile but with other countries and in specific sectors such as agriculture, automobiles, and environmental technology to help United States workers make products that will be sold abroad. I understand that many oppose fast track because they sincerely believe that this vote serves as a referendum on the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. Many opponents of fast track believe that NAFTA has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of jobs. First, the analysis is based on a false assumption that any trade deficit automatically translates into job loss. In some cases, imports create job opportunities here at home, from longshoremen to clerks in retail stores. In other cases, goods are imported into the United States for final assembly for consumption here or exported abroad. Thus, no one should assume that because there is a trade deficit with a certain country, then that automatically translates into U.S. job loss. If that were the case, then oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela would be the greatest displacer of United States jobs because oil imports comprise most of our global trade deficit. In the specific case of Mexico, it is important to remember that NAFTA actually prevented a bad situation from turning worse. United States exports to Mexico suffered a decline in 1995 because of the peso devaluation and the ensuing economic downturn, which had nothing to do with NAFTA. A less serious economic crisis affected Mexico during the early 1980's but the impact on United States exports was much greater than 1995. Mexico's economic growth rate dropped by a significant 7 percent in 1995 as compared to a growth rate decrease of 0.6 percent in 1982 and 4.2 percent in 1983. United States exports to Mexico dropped by 35 percent in 1982 and 24 percent in 1983. However, in 1995, United States exports to Mexico decreased by only 13 percent. Why? Because Mexico honored the tariff reduction commitments it made in 1993 as part of NAFTA. In 1982, Mexico responded to its economic downturn by raising tariffs and other import barriers against United States products to protect their industries. But in 1995, while Mexico significantly raised tariffs and trade barriers against other nations not part of NAFTA such as Europe and Japan, Mexico did not do so against the United States and Canada because that action would have violated NAFTA. Thus, while United States exports to Mexico dropped off by half in the early 1980's, they only decreased by 13 percent in 1995 during a much more severe economic crisis thanks to legal protections contained in NAFTA. In other words, whatever United States job loss can be associated with trade with Mexico after NAFTA would have been much greater in 1995 if NAFTA was not in place. Thus, NAFTA prevented the loss of more United States jobs because under the terms of NAFTA, Mexico was prohibited from raising tariffs and more red-tape regulations to restrict U.S. exports. While many northern Illinois exporters faced a rocky road with Mexico in 1995, prospects now look brighter. I see news headlines such as: ``Midwest Boom Fueled by Mexico Trade,'' ``Spurred by NAFTA, Illinois Exports Finally Rebound,'' and ``NAFTA's Impact on Jobs Has Been Slight, Study Says.'' I have heard from many companies in the 16th District of Illinois whose workers have specifically benefited because of the increased openness in Mexico thanks to NAFTA. For example, Eclipse Corp. closed up their factory in Mexico and relocated operations back to Rockford because NAFTA now allows their product to be shipped much more easily into Mexico. But regardless of anyone's position on NAFTA, opposing fast track will not do anything to solve any remaining trade problems the United States has with Mexico. To defeat fast track will not stop United States companies from moving their factories to Mexico or slow down Mexican imports into the United States. It is very important to remember this because many who oppose fast track sincerely believe defeating this initiative will stop these practices. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support fast track as one tool in our trade arsenal to help lower barriers around the world to U.S. exports. I have been fighting to make sure that our trade policy has all tools at its disposal, from antidumping laws, which helped Brake Parts of McHenry keep 400 jobs by fighting off unfair competition from unscrupulous Chinese brake rotor manufacturers, to the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which allowed Beloit Corp. with a manufacturing facility in Rockton, IL, keep 2,000 union workers employed along the Wisconsin-Illinois stateline border by providing a major loan to help sell two large, fine papermaking machines to Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, fast track is simply another method to help break down trade barriers so that workers and farmers in the 16th District of Illinois can continue to build and grow products that will be shipped around the world. We cannot rest on our laurels during these good economic times, which have been caused, to a large degree, by the growth in U.S. exports, as we enter the next millennium. We need continued, further progress on the global elimination of barriers to U.S. exports. There is much more work that needs to be done. That's why we need fast track.