Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to extend my sincerest congratulations to 15-year-old Crissia Reay of Wonder Lake, IL. Crissia is the winner of the National Youth Essay Contest for her essay comparing the lives and voyages of explorers Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci. The contest is sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation and the Daughters of the American Revolution. Crissia's essay was selected from hundreds of entries from across the country. As a well-deserved reward for her dedication and hard work, Crissia will receive a $1,000 prize and a trip to Washington, DC later this month where she will participate in ceremonies honoring Columbus by reading aloud her winning essay. I am proud to have Crissia as one of my constituents. Her accomplishment reflects a love of learning and the discipline and motivation to accept a challenge and meet with success. I join with Crissia's parents, relatives, teachers, and friends in commending her and her remarkable achievement. Crissia's winning essay, entitled ``Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci: The Men and Their Discoveries,'' appears below. Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci: The Men and Their Discoveries (by Crissia Ahnna Reay) Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci were both explorers, born in the same country in the same time frame, but there the similarities end. They were worlds apart from each other in their personal lives and significant differences were also visible in their voyages. Columbus was born Cristoforo Colombo near Genoa, Italy in 1451. His father was a weaver and Columbus' family were humble, common folk. He had very little schooling in his early life. Bordering on illiterate when he left his home in Italy, he learned to read and write in Portugal. Vespucci was born in Florence, Italy in 1454. However, his early life was very different from Columbus' owing to the fact that Vespucci was born into a noble Florentine family. Vespucci was described as having a ``sagacious'' (scientific) mind and was educated in the areas of commercial science, cosmology, astronomy and geography. Consequently, we can understand why money and titles were so important to Columbus, while they seemed to play a lower key role in Vespucci's life and explorations. Having grown up with a common, almost low background, explains why Columbus felt that land, titles and wealth were symbols of success. Whereas, Vespucci's affluent background sheds light as to why he didn't seem driven to obtain those symbols of success and could explore for the simple quest of knowledge without stipulating what he must receive in return (as Columbus felt he must). Columbus made four voyages to the new world, Vespucci only two that can be proven. In his explorations Columbus visited mainly the islands of the West Indies, San Salvador, Cuba, Jamaica and what is now modern day Mexico; touching only lightly on the continent of South America. Vespucci mainly explored and charted the eastern coastline of South America (from this experience, he concluded that it extended too far and couldn't be Asia). Columbus was interested in settling the places he found, Vespucci in mapping them. There are other important discoveries that came from their journeys that are rarely mentioned. Columbus found the most efficient way to use the North Atlantic wind system for transatlantic sailing. He was the first to notice the equatorial current and made the first observations of the westerly compass variation. It was because of Vespucci that people found out that there were two oceans separating Europe from Asia instead of one. He created his own method of celestial navigation by which he obtained longitude and came within 50 miles of being correct in his estimation of the earth's circumference one of the closest guesses of that time. Columbus and Vespucci were both undoubtedly great men. Their voyages, although each holding its own different significance, greatly complement one another. Columbus (though unable to claim title as the first European setting foot on the Americas due to previous Icelandic adventurers) was the first to make the discovery stick. In that essence Columbus discovered the new world. Columbus was the rock that started the landslide of exploration and settlement of the Americas. Vespucci, picking up where Columbus left off, was the one to conclude that it was not Asia that his predecessor had found (Columbus died thinking it was) but it was indeed a new, previously unknown land. In Vespucci's own words. ``These regions we may rightly call Mundus Novus, a New World, because our ancestors had no knowledge of them.'' Vespucci actually outfitted and helped prepare far more voyages than he was part of himself. In fact, it was in that way he and Columbus first met. In collaboration with Berardi, a ship builder in Seville, Vespucci prepared a ship for Columbus' second voyage in 1493. In 1498, he and Columbus first became personally acquainted when Vespucci made even more ships for Columbus' third voyage. Though there was much friction between their supporters, there is nothing to suggest any personal rivalry on the parts of these two renowned explorers. In fact, towards the end of Columbus' life when he was ailing and virtually deserted, he found in Vespucci a caring, sympathetic friend. This is apparent in the words Columbus wrote of Vespucci a year before Columbus' death in 1506. ``He has at all times shown a desire to serve me, and is an honorable man.'' Whatever else is said about them, one thing remains outstanding and undeniable; they were bold and courageous explorers, who made remarkable discoveries that have permanently changed the face of the world's geography and in a great part shaped the history of the world that followed after.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, the Eximbank, to my dear colleague from the State of California, does not build factories overseas. That is not what the Eximbank does. What the Eximbank does is make loans to foreign companies so that they can buy goods that are manufactured by American companies. That is what this is about. I met with two gentlemen from the Republic of Georgia; perhaps the George Masons and James Madisons who are in the process of writing the Constitution to set up an independent judiciary. They do not have one yet, they are working on it. The gentleman from California would draw this arbitrary line and say, well, if their government does not meet our standards of running a government, they cannot be involved in buying American goods. Eximbank is about allowing people in foreign countries to buy goods manufactured in the United States, because Eximbank has a rule that most of the content of that which is financed has to be American products. That is what Eximbank is all about. It is very, very simple. The gentleman from California would cut off sales to China, cut off sales to Saudi Arabia, even cut off sales to Peru, where ultimately the independent judiciary there is the military triumvirate.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, with all deference to the gentleman from California, the Eximbank has nothing to do with projects overseas. All Eximbank does is make otherwise unavailable financing to companies, such as Beloit Corporation, which is one of three worldwide manufacturers of papermaking machines and has 2,900 subcontractors, hundreds of thousands of jobs. These are blue-collar workers. The purpose of Eximbank is to allow blue-collar workers to keep their jobs in the United States. Eximbank does not subsidize projects outside of the United States. Madam Chairman, that is the problem with people attacking Eximbank thinking it is corporate welfare when they do not even understand what this bank does.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, every bill and subsequent law that we pass in the House of Representatives has a face to it, and I would like to tell my colleagues about a couple thousand faces, people who get up at the crack of dawn, pack their lunch, get their kids off to school, go off to work, come back home, and oftentimes their spouses are also working. These are the 2,000 faces of the highly skilled union members of Beloit Corp. in Beloit, WI, and South Beloit, IL. They are the ones on behalf of whom I speak this afternoon in urging this body to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Chairman, there are only three manufacturers of papermaking machines in the world: one in Finland, one in Germany, and one in the United States. These are obviously very sophisticated and huge machines. Some run as long as an entire football field. In doing battle with countries overseas that have subsidies of a sort to the manufacturers, these men and women who work very hard at the Beloit Corp. do not quite understand the intricacies of international banking, but they do understand when their company is put in a position where it is being hammered by overseas export agencies that prefer Finland and Germany. So the Export-Import Bank was started on behalf of these working men and women so that the corporation for which they work could be on an equal footing with the Finns and the Germans. An opportunity came up for these men and women to build some huge machines to go to Indonesia. We helped Beloit Corp., and we helped those 2,000 people, and by helping those 2,000 people get that type of loan, the loan of last resort, the loan that would not exist otherwise, the loan were it not for the existence of Ex-Im Bank would have meant that they would have lost their jobs for a considerable period of time, that that loan not only made possible the work for these 2,000 people, but also 2,940 suppliers all over the United States. In fact, over 640 in the State of Massachusetts alone; several hundred in the State of Illinois, and likewise throughout the country. Because these types of loans that are given to companies doing royal battle in the international market really are not about corporate subsidies, end of quote; they are about the 2,000 people I represent at Beloit Corp. and about the nearly 3,000 suppliers, many of whom are little bitty guys that are battling it out, and Ex-Im is really for them. Now, most of these people do not even know what the Ex-Im Bank is. All they know is whether or not they have an order to ship parts and to do some labor for Beloit Corp. So I am here today to speak on behalf of these 3,000 suppliers and the 2,000 people directly involved at Beloit Corp., and to the tens of thousands of workers across the land whose very livelihood depends upon the ability of the United States to engage competitively for overseas markets. That is really what Ex-Im Bank is all about; it is about people. It is not about big companies, it is not about corporate welfare; it is about people, people who get up at the crack of dawn, pack their lunch, go off to work and thank God that they have a job so that they can raise their children. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of this body to reauthorize Ex-Im Bank because it does one thing that the private sector simply cannot do. It provides the tough, last-chance financing that companies need in order to be competitive globally. Ex-Im, in fact, in 1995 helped generate $13.5 billion in exports for the U.S. economy, which directly exported 200,000 high-wage U.S. jobs.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 459 I inserted my card in a voting station and voted ``aye''. A green light appeared next to my name. However, I am officially listed as not having voted. I want to indicate for the Record that I supported the Hoekstra amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that those Members who favor the Castle substitute amendment would vote ``yes'' on the first vote, and those who favor the Istook-Manzullo amendment would vote ``no'' on the first vote?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to involve parents in the conversation of their children's sexuality, because the U.S. Congress has made a decision that parents are irrelevant when it comes to their sexuality. We are trying to reverse it. Because of the present law, parents are being denied the opportunity to protect their children from sexual predators in many cases, from giving advice on abstinence or getting out of a relationship once a parent is notified that his or her child is about to receive sexual devices. It denies the parents the opportunity to work with their children and contraceptives, if that is the choice, and in fact in over half the children visiting clinics, the parents are already involved in a conversation. Parents are being denied the opportunity to protect their children from being given a prescriptive medication that in itself could have harmful side effects, such as Depo-Provera, and parents are being denied the opportunity to protect their children from being given prescriptive medicine which could harm the child by mixing the drug with medication the child is already taking. In fact, before Depo-Provera is given, there has to be a complete medical history. But most of all parents are being totally excluded from their right to raise their children. There is no evidence to the claim that pregnancies and abortions will increase once parents are involved. Let me give my colleagues a study. We have a study that shows the more involved a parent is with a child, the less likely the child will become pregnant. A study entitled Family of the America's Foundation, Fertility Appreciation for Families Program conducted by the University of New Orleans involved 3,600 adolescents and 2,500 parents from across the country. It was a special program designed to involve parents in discussing and counseling sexuality with their children. The purpose of the followup study was to determine the effect of the program which stressed parents involvement in sexual education and decisionmaking of their children and to see how that would affect adolescent premarital relationships. The conclusion, when parents are involved in discussing child sexuality, the rate of pregnancy of the children is 22 times lower than the national average. That means irrefutably that when parents exercise their right to raise their children, which this law denies them by putting a barrier of confidentiality between the child and the parent, that means the child is being protected. Who protects the child? Not the State. It is the parent, because the parent becomes involved in it. In all this debate tonight, not one person has stood up and said, is it not terrible that a 14-year-old child in Crystal Lake, IL, was shot up with Depo-Provera. Look what Upjohn says about their drug which was injected into the veins of that precious little girl: ``Patient should be counseled. This product does not protect against HIV/AIDS.'' It is rubbish to say that when you give girls contraceptives, they are protected against infection of HIV. They are not. There is no female protection against HIV. In fact, when the boys stop using the condoms and the girls go on the pill or the other devices, that increases the opportunity for STD's with the kids. And Upjohn says it could affect bone mineral density changes, it could cause thrombotic disorders; that is, blood clots. It could cause temporary blindness. No 14- or 15-year-old child is capable of making an informed decision as to whether or not she should take that drug. That is the bottom question here. Do you believe a 14-year-old is capable of making an informed decision that she can take these drugs? If you do, let her have all the drugs she wants. Just throw the parents out of the equation, which it is now. But in America today, little girls as young as 12 years old are being injected, they are being implanted and they are ingesting very, very strong drugs. In fact, this is the drug that is the drug of choice for the States such as California that allow chemical castration of convicted pedophiles who choose themselves voluntarily to undergo castration. Think about that, Members of Congress, that in their clinics today our precious little ones at the age of 12 are given the same drug that is used to give to convicted pedophiles for chemical castration. That is horrible. And what else goes on in these clinics? What is not going on is the fact that they are not reporting the cases of rape and incest and sexual abuse. If you are concerned about incest, you should vote for this bill. When the little kid goes there, the title X provider has to call the police and the father goes to jail. That is how you protect the children. We have heard a lot of talk in the past several years about protecting the children. This is an opportunity to protect the children. This is an opportunity to allow children to receive STD protection, STD medication, without parental notification, because there is an epidemic going on. All this says is this: If you believe that the parents of America have a right to be involved in the conversation of sexual activity with their children, then you must vote for Istook-Manzullo. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Federal Government knows better than the parents; if, on the other hand, you believe that we are to penalize all the parents in this country because of a handful of parents that cannot communicate with their children, then parents become irrelevant. Then you might as well say, Give them all the drugs they want. You might as well say, Give them all the alcohol they want. You might as well say, Give them all the tobacco they want. But there a reason we have parents. The purpose of the parent is to protect the children. Under title X regulations, a child is deprived of the opportunity to be counseled by his or her parents before receiving birth control devices. Think about 12-year-old little girls around this country being implanted with Norplant. Think about 12-year-old girls being shot in the arm with Depo-Provera. Think about 12-year-old girls getting prescriptions for birth control pills, all without even the knowledge of their parents. All this amendment says is give parents the right to know that their children are involved in sexual activity.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. That is right, parents can still talk to their kids.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. MANZULLO. What does that mean, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MANZULLO. This is on the substitute amendment. It is not the committee position. Therefore, would not the person who provides the amendment have the right to close?

Mr. MANZULLO. Can the Chair advise as to who has the right to close?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].

Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs. Helen Chenoweth.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].

Mr. MANZULLO. Except when the health department says they cannot.