Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Small business Subcommittee on Taxes, Business Opportunities and Exports, and as a private individual, there is nothing more inconsistent and unfair than estate taxes, better known as death taxes. This is the last opportunity the Government has to say thanks for a job well done. What you have accumulated at death is after a lifetime of paying electricity, sewer, water, gasoline, sales, real estate, mortgage, and deed filing, capital gains, excise, State and Federal income, and in some cases, death taxes when one or both of your parents die. Are We There Yet? My kids made up a game to play when we drive back and forth to Washington. It's called, Name That Tax. Have you ever tried to entertain three little kids in a mini van? It beats, Are we there yet? What happens when you get married, you get--that's right--a marriage tax. This is not the cost of the wedding, which is not about a ticket tax? Got that. What about a toll tax? Yes, we have that also. What about gas tax? Yes, President Clinton raised that by 4.3 cents to pay for more welfare spending--he calls it deficit reduction--the Government gets fatter while you get slimmer. And what happens when you make a phone call? Yes, the long-distance tax, the short-distance tax. If you put a string between two tin cans for primitive communications, you have to pay tax on string. If you stop at a grocery and make sandwiches, most States have a lower sales tax on grocery items, but if you are in a hurry you pay a travelers's tax at the local McDonalds. But you dare not phone ahead to another cell area, because you'll get hit with a roving tax. The death tax is the Federal Government's last chance at leveling your income and spreading the wealth--socialism. As an attorney, before I was elected, I had to tell a farm family that half their land had to be sold to pay for death taxes: that's a tough sell when it takes $1 million worth of assets to make $30,000 a year. And it had to be paid within 9 months. some relief coming Each year I have been a Member of Congress I have cosponsored legislation to outlaw this tax. Now, under Republican leadership in this tax by nearly doubling the exemption to $1.2 million, even more for farms and small businesses. If we had a Republican President, perhaps the entire estate tax could be eliminated. Writing in the June 30, 1997, edition of ``FarmWeek,'' Ross Korves, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, cites some very interesting facts. In spite of the annual $17 billion in death tax revenues, this drive to collect 1 percent of the annual taxes paid to the Federal Government comes from a general dislike for people who have wealth. And, he states, ``a tax on savings and investing will quite logically result in less saving and investing. Less saving and investing leads to a slower growing economy, fewer increases in productivity, and a slower rise in the growth of the standard of living.'' A Tax Foundation report compared the disincentive effects of the estate tax and of the income tax. The foundation calculated how high the top income tax rate would have to be to have the same disincentive effect as the current estate tax system. Get this: the study showed the estate tax has roughly the same effect on entrepreneurial incentives as a doubling of the income tax. And in 1993, Fiscal Associates, Inc., estimated that if the estate tax had ended in 1993, by the year 2000 the effects of ending the estate tax would be reflected in economic output with an economy about $79 billion larger, an increase of 228,000 jobs, and a total capital in the economy of about $640 billion larger. Korves quotes B. Douglas Bernheim of Stanford University, who wrote 10 years ago in a publication called, ``Does the Estate Tax Raise Revenue?'' Bernheim says no. Korves agrees: Stronger economic growth would help offset the loss of direct revenue resulting from repealing the estate tax. The increased revenue from economic growth and the revenue losses from estate tax avoidance outlined by Bernheim are definitely larger than the current direct revenue from the estate tax. Eliminating the estate tax is likely to result in more revenue to the federal government than the current tax system. Hey, what about fairness? I visited a farm family a few weeks ago. The wife had inherited the farm from her parents. When her dad died 20 years ago, the family had to pay death taxes. The mother died a few months ago, and death taxes again have to be paid. The goal is to pass the farm on to the three children, each of whom works full time on the farm and has a full time job in the city. I read an article by a university professor on why she thought death taxes were appropriate. After her various spread the wealth and social responsibility arguments, I concluded that we should impose death taxes only on those people who think death taxes are appropriate. What's more annoying is we pay taxes for higher education and use our precious after-tax dollars to send our kids to college so they can hear this professor. Then they become Congressmen who believe taking everybody's money is real justice, and that is the reason the death tax is not repealed.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is with a distinct privilege and honor that I introduced legislation yesterday designed to reform the Overseas Private Investment Corp. or OPIC. As we begin the appropriations process this year, one of the most hotly debated issues in future funding for trade promotion agencies, including OPIC. OPIC provides political risk insurance, in addition to project finance, for U.S. investments overseas in developing nations and emerging economies. OPIC's insurance covers one of three broad areas of political risk: currency inconvertibility, expropriation, and political violence. OPIC's project finance provides direct loans of between $2 million and $10 million for small businesses and loan guarantees for businesses of any size, which typically range between $10 to $75 million. This legislation I introduced along with 34 bipartisan original cosponsors retains what is best about OPIC and proposes to make a variety of reforms to make it even a stronger agency. OPIC makes money for the U.S. Treasury. For 25 years, OPIC has operated at a surplus, accumulating more than $2.7 billion in reserves and has written off only $11 million in losses over that same time period, which is a record no bank or insurance company can match. These reserves are used by the U.S. Treasury to reduce the budget deficit. In 1996, OPIC took in $209 million more than it spent through the collection of user fees from corporations. This amount is considered a net contribution to the 150 or the International Affairs Account. Even if OPIC was forced to put this money in a mattress and made no interest on these reserves, OPIC would still make money for the taxpayer to more than cover its annual operating expense through user fees imposed on corporations. Thus, by definition, OPIC is not corporate welfare. OPIC also generates U.S. exports and creates U.S. jobs. Where foreign investments start, U.S. exports soon follow. OPIC-backed investments have generated $52.8 billion in U.S. exports and have created more than 225,000 U.S. jobs. In 1996, OPIC-backed projects generated $9.6 billion in U.S. exports and supported approximately 30,000 U.S. jobs. OPIC is specifically mandated in law that no project it supports costs U.S. jobs, and this legislation keeps current law. OPIC fills a commercial void in the private sector. The international trade playing field is not level. All of our major trade competitors have OPIC-like national agencies providing similar products. OPIC never provides all of the financing required in a venture, which is a risk shared with the private sector. However, in dealing with developing economics, only a government agency can provide political risk insurance, especially over the long term. For those who advocate that we should sell OPIC to the private sector because it makes money for the Government, privatization will cost the taxpayer money. According to a 1996 study by the respected J.P. Morgan Securities firm, the taxpayer would have to put up between $700 and $900 million to privatize OPIC because the commercial banks and insurance companies will not purchase OPIC's $2.7 billion in reserves dollar for dollar because of the loss of Government backing. One key benefit of OPIC that cannot be duplicated by the private sector is that OPIC also advances U.S. foreign policy goals. OPIC mobilizes private sector activity in support of overarching U.S. foreign policy aims including free market economic reform and democratization in developing nations and in formerly Communist countries while, at the same time, maintaining stringent environmental, health and safety standards, and supporting internationally recognized worker rights. There are still some legitimate concerns about OPIC, and this legislation attempts to address the specific issues raised by constructive critics of the agency. First, the legislation authorizes a separate inspector general for OPIC and for the Trade and Development Agency [TDA]. This would provide for very close oversight of these agencies to insure that taxpayer money was fully protected. Even though OPIC has written off only $11 million in losses over 25 years, an IG would be charged to continue this excellent track record to make sure OPIC accounts adequately protect the interests of the taxpayer. The legislation also includes a safety net provision that ensures any OPIC project commitment of more than $200 million are sent to Congress for a 35-day waiting period prior to final OPIC board action. This provision is similar to policies already in place at the Export-Import Bank of the United States [Ex-Im]. This will give an opportunity for the appropriate congressional committees to become aware of impending action of this magnitude and to be able to comment to the OPIC Board regarding their views on this proposal. While OPIC has never entered into any deal throughout its 25 year history that breached the $200 million mark, there may be such opportunities in the future. The bill also requires the administration to negotiate with other countries providing OPIC-like services an arrangement that would provide greater transparency, better notification, and maximum common terms for all such financing and insurance programs. Critics of OPIC often forget that other foreign governments have much more aggressive export promotion programs, and this provision, I hope, will bring the opponents and supporters of OPIC together in a common cause to multilaterally reduce foreign government-sponsored investment assistance. To let OPIC expire without addressing the massive export promotion spending by other countries would amount to unilaterally disarmament by the United States in the global trade wars. Another key feature of the legislation is a requirement that OPIC develop transparent and public participation guidelines as part of its policies to implement obligations relating to protection of the environment. OPIC has been criticized in the past for supplying insufficient information in a timely manner to the pubic about some of its projects. It is already part of OPIC policy that no project it supports can harm the environment. Anyone can see the clear difference United States investment can make in places like Russia where a diamond mine supported by OPIC is, in terms of environmental protection, light years ahead of their Russian-owned counterparts. But this provision would ensure that adequate information is provided to the public and to Congress on the implementation of OPIC's environmental protection obligations. The bill would also create a 12-member export promotion commission comprised of individuals from both the private and public sectors to examine all Federal Government export promotion programs, including OPIC. The commission would be charged with making recommendations to Congress as to which programs should be retained, terminated, or merged with similar programs in other agencies. There are 19 different Federal agencies that are part of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee [TPCC]. Once and for all, we will resolve the question of which export promotion programs are necessary to maintaining our competitiveness and which programs deserve to end. While this report is being prepared, the TPCC would be charged in this legislation to develop a comprehensive strategic export plan to encourage more small- and medium-sized businesses to export. This has been an issue close to my heart, as chairman of the Small Business Exports Subcommittee, where I have learned after holding 10 hearings on the subject of trade of the large number of small businesses that do not know where to got to take the first steps of finding customers overseas. This strategic export plan would reorient Federal export promotion agencies to be more proactive in reaching out to small businesses. The plan would also require more coordination of export promotion programs at the Federal, State, and local levels. The bill also abolishes the separate ceilings on financing and investment insurance, combining the two in one overall ceiling and increase this combined ceiling by a total of $6 billion through 1999. This allows OPIC to manage its resources more effectively and thus does not require the higher ceiling level that was proposed in the previous OPIC reauthorization bill that the House debated last year--H.R. 3759. In addition, a 2-year authorization also allows for more frequent congressional input, as opposed to a 5-year authorization that was contained in H.R. 3759. Finally, the legislation would enable the administration to appoint the most skillful and able officials and vice chairman of the OPIC Board. Current law requires that the Administrator of the Agency for International Development [AID] and the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] or the Deputy USTR to serve on the board in these positions. This reform would allow the executive branch to appoint individuals who could best serve OPIC without having their time and attention devoted to their other important duties. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and the 34 other Members from both sides of the aisle in helping to reform and reauthorize OPIC by cosponsoring H.R. 2064.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the people of the district I represent earn between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. What does that mean to them? It means that 113,600 children in my congressional district are eligible for the $500-per-child tax credit. That means that people in the district I represent will have an additional $48 million in money that they otherwise would have paid to the Federal Government. It means to those people that they will be able to keep an additional $1,500 in money they would have paid for Federal income tax in their own pockets to give to their kids who are going to college. Who is the beneficiary of this? It is the people that I represent, the hard-working Americans, the ones earning between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. It is 113,000 children in the district that I represent. A good tax cut bill for the hard-working, middle-income American families.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in becoming an original cosponsor of the China Human Rights and Democracy Act of 1997. I especially wish to applaud the actions of my colleagues, Representatives John Porter, David Dreier, Jim Kolbe, and Matt Salmon, in writing and pushing this legislation. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the right, targeted approach to take in opposing the policies of the People's Republic of China that all Americans find repugnant. As evidenced by the vote last Tuesday, the most-favored- nation [MFN] or normal trade status debate is the wrong place to express our disagreements with the Chinese Government. This legislation would allow Radio Free Asia to broadcast 24 hours a day to give the Chinese people the truth about their government and current events. In addition, the bill would help various foundations to promote democracy, civil society, and the rule of law in China and would encourage more international exchanges between our two peoples. It would also promote a voluntary code of conduct for United States businesses. The vast majority of United States companies operating in China already provide exemplary models to China of how to conduct business and treat people equally and fairly. This code would help give these U.S. firms concrete goals to measure their success. The bulk of the legislation focuses on promoting human rights in China. It requires an annual report on human rights conditions in China. The bill also proposes to create a prisoner information registry so that people in the United States could plead for specific political prisoners in China. It would also deny visas to Chinese Government officials who have been involved in human rights abuses or in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The bill would also publish and disseminate a list of Chinese companies that are affiliated with the People's Liberation Army so the American people would know if a particular product they wish to buy is made by a Chinese firm affiliated with the Chinese military. However, I have one minor but important reservation about the legislation, which I hope can be worked out before it reaches the House floor for a vote. The legislation requires a one-to-one ratio between State Department Foreign Service officers with an expertise in human rights and Commerce Department U.S. Foreign & Commercial Service [US&FCS] officers, who are experts at promoting U.S. exports. The China Human Rights and Democracy Act mandates that the State Department appoint at least six human rights officers. The problem is that there are 13 US&FCS officers in China, with 9 in Beijing alone. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the Commerce Department currently only has seven of these nine positions in Beijing filled. Plus, one of these officials is really an export control officer who is charged primarily with ensuring that Chinese importers comply with United States export control laws. If the State Department is unable to fund more than the minimum number of six human rights officers, then the unintended consequence of this legislation will force the Commerce Department to withdraw as many as seven US&FCS officers from China to comply with this one-to-one ratio. Thus, the real-life practical effect of the legislation could translate into having only five full-time US&FCS officers for the entire country of China. Compare that with Tokyo, Japan, 12 US&FCS officers, or Seoul, South Korea, 7 US&FCS officers, and I hope you see the need, Mr. Speaker, for more than 5 US&FCS officers for all of China. Our foreign competitors already have dozens more export promotion officials in China than us. This legislation could place United States exporters at a competitive disadvantage I believe the better way is to have the legislation stress the importance of stationing human rights officers in China but leave the number of these officers up to the discretion of the State Department and not require a one-to-one ratio to US&FCS officers. Mr. Speaker, with this minor reservation, I am pleased to join on as an original cosponsor to the China Human Rights and Democracy Act of 1997, and I hope to work out this problem through the committee process.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this is not a vote about who is more against religious persecution in China. We all deplore violations of human rights not just in China but in the entire world. Defeating MFN will not stop human rights abuses in China. Many Christian ministries with an outreach to China believe that religious persecution will get worse in China if MFN is defeated. For these Christian missionaries it is their life's work. They are the experts on religious freedom. The Rev. Billy Graham, his son Ned, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the President of Moody Bible Institute, Fr. Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, and Bob Grant of Christian Voice, they all encourage us to remain engaged with China. MFN is at the heart of America's engagement policy with China. MFN, if it is revoked, is the wrong vehicle to protest China's behavior. If Chinese goods are being illegally dumped here, we have laws against that and the same with goods that may be made in slave labor camps. We can stop that here with existing laws.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield half my time to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment proposes to kill a gnat with a bazooka. The amendment sounds good, but ignores technological reality on the world scene. First, some facts. Fact: Computers of between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS are widely available on the world market through individual computers, upgrade boards, parallel processing, and networking. We cannot turn back the technological clock. Fact: Computers in this range are not supercomputers. Supercomputers are far more advanced, with performance power in the hundreds of thousands of MTOPS, reaching as high as 1 million MTOPS. Fact: Increasing power levels of computers does not enable anyone to do anything unique. Our entire nuclear weapons arsenal and our pilot space program were designed on computers of two MTOPS or less. Increasing the MTOPS levels does not accomplish any new task. It just simply processes information at a faster rate. If we want to stop foreign military from developing weapons of mass destruction, we do not target computers, we focus on other technologies. Fact: Personal computers like those we have in our offices or at home will soon cross the 2,000 MTOPS barrier next year. Are we prepared to have the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, State, Energy, and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency give written approval every time someone wishes to sell a personal computer overseas to a tier 3 country? That brings me to my fifth point. Tier 3 countries consist of 50 nations, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India. Are we prepared to turn all of these markets over to our foreign competitors? Are we prepared to have four Cabinet Secretaries sign off on every computer sale of over 2,000 MTOPS to 50 countries? It will be a paperwork nightmare without any measurable reduction in the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We have to remember the last time we bungled supercomputer export control policy. The United States Government took so long to review a proposed Cray supercomputer sale to India that India turned around and created its own supercomputer industry. Now American firms compete against Indian firms selling so-called supercomputers all over the world, including China and Russia. I urge my colleagues to cut through the rhetoric and look at the facts. This amendment will not accomplish the goal we all aim to achieve, which is reducing the proliferation threat. I urge its defeat. Otherwise, Congress will surrender America's most innovative industry to our foreign competitors. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that control of the balance of the time delegated to me be given to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, political and religious persecution continues in China. These human rights violations, spotlighted as Congress considers extending its trade status with China, are appalling to everyone. But the question of whether we should keep the trade door open or isolate China in trying to bring an end to these abuses is far from unanimous, especially among the faith community. First, it is important to recognize that the most-favored-nation trade status--up for a vote in Congress in late June--is a misnomer that gives no special treatment to China. In fact, MFN is the normal, unprivileged trade status held by every other nation in the world except six. But some within the religious community believe even normal trading practices with China are unconscionable. Family psychologist James Dobson and his Washington-based Family Research Council, led by Gary Bauer, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, believe that cutting off trade with China will send a message that will convince the Chinese Government to halt the persecutions of Christians and other people of faith. Others, however, insist a public Christian stance against MFN is not in the interest of the church in China and will seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside China who have spent years seeking to establish a Christian witness among the Chinese people. In fact, they fear the human rights violations will be exacerbated if we cut our ties with China, thereby removing our Western influences from this emerging democracy. Those who share this belief include Joseph M. Stowell, president of the Moody Bible Institute; Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; and the China Service Coordinating Office, an umbrella group representing more than 100 missionary groups, many in China, including the Institute for Chinese Studies at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center. The United States Catholic Bishops Association issued a statement opposing renewing MFN trade status for China, though not all the bishops agree with the statement. Ironically, Hong Kong's official Catholic newspaper, the Sunday Examiner, reported new contacts between Beijing and Hong Kong's Catholic hierarchy, which could be a major step toward an official recognition of the Catholic Church inside China. And then there is Father Robert Sirico, president of the Action Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and a signatory to previous advertisements by the Family Research Council protesting religious persecution in China. ``Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope for spreading that influence around the world,'' said Sirico, who supports MFN. Others, such as Ned Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham and president of the missionary organization East Gates, believe the religious leaders opposing MFN should temper their language in speaking on the situation because it has the effect of bringing more persecution upon the church in China. As a believer in the freedom of worship and as a United States Congressman, I have written numerous letters and protested religious persecution in Russia, Kuwait, Romania, China, and other parts of the world. I wrote to Secretary of State Albright to ask her to raise the issue of religious persecution during her visit to Russia and China. I cosponsored and voted for legislation that condemned human rights abuses against religious believers around the world. That resolution urged the President to create a special advisory committee for religious liberty abroad or to appoint a White House special advisor on religious persecution. This battle does not just involve Christians around the world. The persecution of one faith is persecution of all faiths. And wherever and whatever religious beliefs are persecuted, public officials must speak out. I believe we must engage in trade with China and still publicly condemn their human rights abuses. It is important to remember where China has been and where it is today. Thirty years ago, millions of people were executed following political sham trials in the cultural revolution. Now, thanks to the influence of foreign companies, more Chinese people have the opportunity to work without the shackles of state control. The American presence in China is a force for good, where the vast majority of firms pay their workers higher than average wages and offer a host of benefits, such as health care, housing, recreation, education, and travel. I spoke with the granddaughter of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, who overthrew the feudal Manchu Dynasty in 1911 and was the first provisional president of the Republic of China. She told me of the many positive changes in China, from the disappearance of neighborhood spies to the destruction of the internal passport system, which prevented people from moving from one job to another or from one town to another. Missionaries with whom I speak say while persecution continues, the churches continue to grow. It is important not to isolate China. While MFN does not grant China a special trade status, it also does not grant China any special trade rules. While trading with China, we must use our enforcement tools to stop improper trade practices. We did this recently to help Brake Parts in McHenry County, IL, when some Chinese companies were selling brake rotors at below market prices. I advised Brake Parts to file a complaint with the International Trade Commission, which issued a punitive order against those Chinese companies. If goods are found to be made in prison labor camps, then we should enforce our own laws to prohibit their sale in the United States. If the Chinese throw up trade barriers against United States sales in China, then we should impose trade sanctions and retaliate against the Chinese by imposing stiff tariffs. The debate over China is good. Democracy is at its best when well- meaning people of good intentions are involved on differing sides of an issue. I thank God that in America we have the freedom to debate this issue.

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Chair direct the Sergeant at Arms to lock the doors in order to keep the Members in the Chamber so we can finish voting here in 5 minutes.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise procedurally in opposition to this bill, theoretically in favor of it. I will explain that during the course of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerned and in opposition to this bill. This is very difficult, because the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 is legislation that has the greatest of intentions. There is no question in my mind that the sponsor of it, my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is sincerely concerned about the issue of volunteer liability. However, the legislation presented before us today is vastly different than that of the original bill, which has over 150 cosponsors. I encourage those who cosponsored H.R. 911 as it was introduced originally to read carefully the amended version of the bill. Section 3 of the original bill stated that nothing in this act shall be construed to preempt the laws of any State governing tort liability actions. The original bill stated that in cases where a State certifies that it has enacted this type of bill, then there would be an increase in the social services block grant program under title 20 of the Social Security Act. In other words, a State could opt into the Federal law, and if a State did nothing, State law nonetheless applied. This would keep the principles of federalism. However, H.R. 911, as amended, is a major change from that standard. Section 3(a) of H.R. 911, as amended, states that the act preempts the laws of any State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this act, unless the State goes further in protecting volunteers. Under the amended version, States must specifically choose under certain circumstances not to be covered under the proposed bill, and the State still cannot opt out entirely because it changes such important issues as whether or not the State has jurisdiction of the particular action. We realize there are liability problems with the not-for-profits, but not every problem means that there is a Federal solution. The issue of volunteer liability has been addressed by many States because the States have exclusive authority over that, with the exception of very few areas. What we are considering here today is legislation that will federalize tort law for volunteers. I am unconvinced there is any blanket Federal jurisdiction with regard to volunteer protection. States may vary in how they deal with the problems, but it is their prerogative to do so. It is not a Federal matter. There is no Federal law involved. There is absolutely no connection with interstate commerce. I personally like the bill, and if a member of the State legislature, would vote in favor of it. Three years ago I voted against the current bill because it federalized the criminal code. One year ago I voted against the terrorism bill for the same reason. Today I will vote against this bill because I disagree with federalizing tort law for volunteers. It is different from issues of product liability, where in those cases I favor Federal legislation because there is interstate and worldwide commerce with regard to the production of a particular item. H.R. 911 is entirely different. I recognize the increasing liability problems of a not-for-profit. My wife and I helped to start the crisis pregnancy centers in Rockford, IL. It is important, however, to allow States the rights and opportunities to resolve these issues, because that is what federalism is about, that it allows the States the options to come up and craft their own types of laws. Now, let us take this bill and defeat it, and bring it back in the proper form. What I would suggest is this: I would suggest that Congress enact on the Federal level, if it so chooses, a special type of bill to protect volunteers, make it applicable in Federal courts or at the discretion in the State court, providing that there is a finding of interstate commerce. That would give a jurisdictional basis so that this Congress can constitutionally act within the parameters of what we are bound by. That is the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this type of legislation. But we have to protect the rights and allow the States to move in this area, unless there is jurisdiction. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] said what happens in the case that a hammer drops on the hood of a car. There is absolutely no Federal connection. If we were to follow the language of the substitute bill, under this bill, if a hammer drops on a car there would be Federal jurisdiction. Under this bill, because insurance is purchased through interstate insurance markets, there would be Federal jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, that means that simply because somebody buys insurance, that means that the Federal Government will now take over the entire field of saying that this is interstate commerce, and therefore, we have jurisdiction. This bill also says that where there are private entities that operate in interstate commerce, the law is very clear as set forth by the Lopez decision. Let us not federalize everything. This body yesterday just passed a bill to try to devolve power back to the States, away from the Federal Government. We should be doing that. We should be taking the original H.R. 911 of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], which encourages the States to pass this type of legislation and, as part of the encouragement, allows more Federal funds in certain types of programs. But the original H.R. 911 is so totally and dramatically different from this one that I cannot support it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this week I had the opportunity to testify before a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary on the issue of judicial taxation. Rockford, IL, is a city of about 150,000 people. It is at the top of the State in more ways than one. It is my home. It is where I grew up. I lived there for a number of years before I moved to the country some time ago. The city is under a Federal court order to desegregate the school system of School District 205. And what is happening in Rockford is happening across the Nation today as judges take on the roles of legislators, as judges attempt to be school administrators, school boards, teachers, PTA, and as judges arbitrarily and without taking into consideration the impact have raised taxes on the people of School District 205 in an attempt to resolve the proven segregation that took place years ago in that city. The legislation that I introduce says as follows: That a Federal judge should follow the Constitution and leave to the legislature the business of raising taxes. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do away with the power of a Federal court to raise taxes, and that goes back to years ago when railroads were issued bonds by municipalities and municipalities defaulted on those bonds and courts had to pose something called a structural injunction in order to pay back those bonds. What has happened in Rockford is that a court has raised taxes, almost doubled taxation in the past 4 years, and the people of Rockford just got their tax bill 3 or 4 days ago. Taxation went up another 10 to 15 percent. And instead of a remedy bringing together a community, instead of a remedy that looks at the past civil rights abuses and says what can we do to bring this community together in order to redress the past civil rights grievance, the remedy ends up dividing a community; the remedy has increased real estate taxes, lowered property values, made it very difficult for people to sell their homes, made it uninviting for people to want to move into School District 205, and put such a hard press especially on seniors, those who are on fixed incomes, seniors whose taxes are much more than they can afford to pay. As the seniors call my office and as the families who call my office, many with tears in their voice, and say, Congressman, I do not understand why a Federal judge can raise my real estate taxes and I can be subjected to taxation without representation, when in fact a Revolutionary War was fought in that nation over the fact that we as colonies were taxed without having one person representing us in the parliament in Great Britain. We thought that was done away with 200 years ago, but it still continues today. The purpose of my legislation is to send a message to the Federal court that you are not a taxing, that the power to tax is with the legislature. If you dare try to raise the taxes of the people, you have to meet very certain guidelines, the first among which is the fact that a remedy cannot be fashioned without the increase of taxes. Then thereafter, the other guidelines that we set up serve as a curb on the powers of the Federal courts to raise taxes and to destroy the quality of life in cities such as Rockford, IL. My bill, the Judicial Mandate and Remedy Clarification Act, is constitutional because it sets up the guidelines which under those very rare circumstances under which a court can undertake to raise the taxes of the local people. I would encourage my colleagues to become signatories to this type of legislation because when we talk about judicial activism, ultimately it is the U.S. Congress under article III, sections 1 and 2 that has the power to give the jurisdiction to these district courts and the power to set the remedies.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the honor of participating in an event commemorating one of the greatest events in our Nation's history--the 135th anniversary of the emancipation of the District of Columbia. On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law legislation freeing the more than 3,000 slaves owned by residents of the District of Columbia. The action occurred 9 months before LIncoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. The mission to free the slaves in the District of Columbia began following a discussion in early 1862 between President Lincoln and Senator Sumner of Massachusetts. During the conversation, Sumner asked the President if he knew who was the largest slaveholder in the United States. President Lincoln must have been jolted when Sumner answered, ``It is you, Mr. President.'' At that time, the Federal Government controlled the District of Columbia, where more than 3,000 slaves were held in bondage. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed legislation to free the slaves in the District of Columbia, and President Lincoln signed the D.C. Emancipation Proclamation. The first of our Nation's slaves had been set free. This week, many great people came together in the District of Columbia to celebrate this momentous event. Among them was a wonderful woman named Loretta Carter Hanes, who along with her son, Peter, helped revive the annual program commemorating the D.C. Emancipation Proclamation. I must also thank my distinguished colleague, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, for her great work in the district and her diligence in making sure the commemoration ceremony continues year after year. I was honored to be included in the commemoration program at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Sponsored by the U.S. National Park Service and D.C. Reading Is Fundamental, Inc., the 2-hour program featured reflections on history and prayers for the future. Particularly moving were the beautiful spiritual songs performed throughout the program. They represented the powerful hopes of the slaves as they one day dreamed of freedom. Overall, it was an amazing program celebrating an amazing event in history. The only disappointing point of note were the hordes of empty seats in the main auditorium at the Department of the Interior. There should be standing room only for a program of this magnitude. After speaking with the organizers of this year's event, we determined the D.C. emancipation commemoration would get more exposure--and thus more attendance--by presenting it in the Capitol next year. Not only should we encourage our schools to offer this program to their students, but Members of this body should attend as well. I, also would like to bring attention to a related event that is going to take place tonight at the Smithsonian Institution's Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. This event is called the International Emancipation Day Initiative Program and will examine the abolition of chattel slavery by the British Empire within its colonies on August 1, 1834, a historic action which fueled abolitionists movements worldwide. Included at this event, Peter Hanes will speak and exhibit literature about D.C. emancipation. He will also introduce D.C. emancipation historian C.R. Gibbs, noted author, journalist, and historian of the African Diaspora.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to take this opportunity to commemorate the more than 8 million people--6 million of whom were Jewish--who a little more than a half century ago were brutally, deliberately, and systematically exterminated in a state- sponsored effort to annihilate their religious, cultural, and ethnic existence. All across the United States, Americans are commemorating Yom Ha'Shoah--Remembrance Day for those who a couple of generations ago were exterminated in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Today, I join millions of my fellow Americans and people all over the world in remembering the victims of the Holocaust. I also unite with those from around the country, including my constituents of the Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford, IL, to recognize those who risked their lives and those who died trying to intervene and save those who were targets of systematic extermination. The Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford is commemorating Yom Ha'Shoah by paying tribute to the ``Righteous Gentiles,'' those non- Jews who risked death to help save the lives of Jews and others from Hitler's killing machine. These courageous people acted out of a conviction that they simply could not stand by and witness so great an injustice, so horrific a crime perpetrated against fellow human beings. In my district, I am privileged to have one of the surviving Righteous Gentiles, Irene Opdyke, addressing the Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford. Her presence alone is a testament to human compassion in the face of grave personal danger. Yet, her words of wisdom as she relates her personal experiences at saving lives will remind us of what courageous and conscientious people can do and should do when injustice is acted out on a grand scale. We all admire the actions of the Righteous Gentiles. For it was through their courageous efforts to save those condemned to the gas chambers and firing squads that a remnant survived to preserve for us the memory of those who perished, as well as a personal account of the atrocities of that time. In essence, we are all survivors of the Holocaust. Although most of us never experienced its horrors first hand, we carry with us the knowledge and memory of those who did. We subscribe to the common value that human life is precious and abhor the evil committed by the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Therefore, as survivors we must rededicate ourselves to the proposition that we can never again allow the Holocaust to recur. We must never forget our sense of duty--bravely exemplified by the Righteous Gentiles and others--nor neglect our sense of compassion for the welfare of our fellow man. In the words of Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and honorary first chairman of the Holocaust Council, [We cannot] allow anyone or anything to deprive [us] of the great, great miracle which renders a human being sensitive to others.'' Mr. Speaker, 1997 marks the 3,300th year of the establishment of the city of Jerusalem. This year is also the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War. While there will be ceremonies recognizing these events, we must not forget to pause again this year in solemn remembrance of Yom Ha'Shoah. I urge all of us to take time out to remember those who died in the Holocaust and I commend those such as the Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford and Irene Opdyke who remind us of our obligation to never forget.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to take this opportunity to commemorate the more than 8 million people, 6 million of whom were Jewish, who a little more than half a century ago were brutally, deliberately and systematically exterminated in a state- sponsored effort to annihilate their religious, cultural, and ethnic existence. All across the United States, Americans are commemorating Remembrance Day for those who were exterminated in the death camps of Nazi Germany. I unite with those from around the country, including my constituents of the Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford, IL, to recognize those who risked their lives and those who died trying to intervene and save those who were targets of systematic extermination. The Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford is commemorating Remembrance Day by paying tribute to the ``Righteous Gentiles,'' those non-Jews who risked death to help save the lives of Jews and others from Hitler's killing machine. These courageous people acted out of a conviction that they simply could not stand by and witness so great a crime perpetrated against fellow human beings. We are privileged to have one of those surviving Righteous Gentiles, Irene Opdyke, addressing the Jewish Federation of Greater Rockford, IL.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, due to an illness in my family, I was unable to be present for two House recorded floor votes on Thursday, April 24. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 90: ``Yes'' (Roemer amendment). On rollcall vote No. 91: ``No'' (Jackson-Lee amendment). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ney]. Are there further amendments? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, there is a person who has been forgotten about in this entire debate over our constitutional amendment to curb the powers of the U.S. Congress to raise taxes. It is the person who gets up every day at the crack of dawn, packs the kids' lunch, gets the kids off to school, and he walks out the door with his lunch bucket, and oftentimes his wife will go to work also, and they work long hours, and they come back home, help the kids with the homework, and sit down on a Friday night, begin to write some checks and realize that they are working harder than ever in their entire lives and taking home less money. The reason for that is government is too big, it is too pervasive. The Federal Government has over 10,000 programs, and according to a chapter called generational forecasts that appears in most of our annual budgets, by the time their child who was born after 1993 goes into the work force, that child will pay in State, local, and Federal taxes between 84 and 94 percent of his or her income in taxes. We have a crisis on our hands before, and that is that some morning when these Americans get up to go to work they are going to turn on the television set and find out that the dollar has been so devaluated that their pension plans are worthless, that the economy is going to collapse because of the tremendous effect of the debt that $5.3 trillion has on this Nation. They are the ones who have been left out of this debate. The man who wrote my office earning $1,000 a month, not married, no children, paid over close to $900 a year in Federal income taxes. He is paying too much money because the U.S. Congress-- it is too easy here in this body to raise taxes and to strap the American people with the onerous debt that we are passing along to this generation and to the one coming after it. That is why we need, we need the shackles of a constitutional amendment, as Jefferson said. This body has to be restrained in the incredible spending that is going on and how easy it is to save one more tax, one more 4.3 cents tax per gallon of gasoline to fuel one more program, one more investment, and I ask this U.S. Congress to take into consideration those people who are making this country, those who get up at the crack of dawn, those who every day go to work and those who see their money wasted in so many programs, and they are saying to the U.S. Congress today, on tax day, today when they have to write their checks, ``We are demanding you to be responsible so that you can pass on to our generation a legacy other than $5.3 trillion in debt.''

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote to outlaw the practice known as a partial birth abortion. That procedure is both tragic and needless in that there are at least 2,000 such abortions performed annually, far more than advocates have initially claimed; needless in that we now know, thanks to Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who has admitted that he and others misled the American people on the frequency and nature of these abortions, that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on normal, unborn babies carried by healthy moms. President Clinton vetoed this bill last year. A number of pro-choice Members of Congress, during consideration of the measure over a year ago, voted in support of a ban on the partial birth abortion procedure. Said one Member, I am just not going to vote in such a way that I have to put my conscience on the shelf. Ronald Reagan said it as he discussed the issue of defending America's liberty: There is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to join with me in voting to ban that practice.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just passed.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a massive war, not with communist enemies or terrorist states, but with our friends and allies. This is not a military conflict, but a global economic war, competing for billions and billions' worth of export opportunities. The battlefields are the towns and the factories spread throughout this great land of ours, and the foot soldiers in this war are the hard-working individuals whose efforts receive little recognition, but who drive the economy. They get up every morning, pack their lunch, get their kids off to school, go to their jobs and put a meaningful day's work in, and return home to their families, often unaware that a global economic war swirls around them. This year Congress will reexamine several export promotion programs, including the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency, the International Trade Administration, and the Commerce Department. All of these programs are vital strategic arms, helping these forgotten Americans keep their jobs in this global battle for market share. Yet some in Congress would ignore this reality and abolish some or all of these programs. They think these programs are unnecessary or corporate welfare. But just as unilateral disarmament did not work against the Soviet Union during the cold war, efforts to cut or eliminate U.S. government export promotion programs will not stop foreign government subsidies of exports. Who do you think would win if the U.S. withdraws support for the Export-Import Bank or OPIC? Only our vigorous competitors in Europe, Japan, and Canada would be the winners. Japan supports more than 32 percent of its exports with some form of export credit. France finances 18.6 percent. Yet the U.S. supports only 2 percent of its own exports, and some in Congress would do away even with this. No one particularly likes Government support for exports. I wish I could waive a magic wand and everyone, completely based solely on quality and price, would be able to compete. But, unfortunately, that is not reality in the global arena. Let me give you one specific example that impacted the district I am privileged to represent. Beloit Corp., with operations in Beloit, WI and Rockton, IL is a manufacturer of paper-making machines. There are only two other companies in the world that make similar equipment, one located in Finland, the other in Germany. Beloit wished to sell two machines to Asia Pulp and Pacific worth $330 million. This sale represents 40 percent of total sales for Beloit, translating into 2 years of steady work for 2,000 high wage, highly skilled union employees. Obviously a sale of this magnitude takes several months and lots of hard work to compete. At every step of the way, Beloit's competitors from Finland and Germany were waiting outside the door of Asia Pulp and Pacific to take advantage of any opportunity. These foreign companies had already lined up support of their home government's export credit finance agency for their machines. Recently Ex-Im Bank came through with a $270 million loan that provided the winning edge for Beloit to finalize the contract. If Ex-Im was not there, Finland or Germany certainly would have filled the gap, and hundreds of forgotten Americans in Beloit, WI, and Rockton, IL would have been out of work. Ex-Im's actions were vital in solidifying America's position and in the global marketplace in the paper-making industry. It is because of examples like Beloit Corp. that inspire me to fight for these export promotion programs. They are vital strategic weapons, not frivolous. In 1995, Ex-Im helped generate $13.5 billion in exports for the U.S. economy, which directly supported about 200,000 high-wage U.S. jobs. Last year OPIC backed projects generated nearly $10 billion in U.S. exports. The Trade Development Agency has helped generate $9 billion in exports since its creation in 1981. These are not faceless statistics; they are backed by hundreds of examples all across America, like Beloit, where a little help from these U.S. agencies and the Commerce Department proved to be the winning edge in securing a foreign contract. Until all countries do away with all government export subsidies in a multilateral framework, these programs deserve our full support.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the House has just voted on a very interesting bill expressing the sense of Congress regarding the display of the Ten Commandments by Judge Roy S. Moore, who is a circuit court judge in the State of Alabama. The judge had posted the Ten Commandments on the wall of his courtroom as a remembrance and sign that all the laws in this Nation and, in fact all of the laws in the world as we know it, really come from the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, which is the laws that were given to Moses. Another judge in the same circuit in Alabama, in response to a lawsuit that was brought against Judge Moore, ordered Judge Moore to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments that hangs on the wall in his courtroom. The Alabama Supreme Court has decided to review the matter and has issued a stay allowing the Ten Commandments to remain on the wall of the courtroom during the pendency of the appeal. How interesting it is that the U.S. Congress, that the House of Representatives should have to take a vote on whether or not it is lawful that a copy of the Ten Commandments be posted in a public building. James Madison, who was the author of our Constitution, said: ``We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, but upon the capacity of the individual to govern himself, control himself, and sustain himself according to the Ten Commandments of God.'' As one looks at this great Chamber, the House of Representatives, the people's House, the Chamber where Members of Congress from every State in the Union and from the territories come in order to do the people's business, one only has to look at the sculpture directly in front of the Speaker's dais and the sculpture is of Moses. The reason for the picture of Moses in the Chamber of the House of Representatives is to give credence to the people speaking here that all of the laws that we enact have as their moral basis the Ten Commandments. In the Supreme Court itself, there are two versions of the Ten Commandments up on the walls. Here we are in America today at this point in history where we have to defend the posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of the chambers of a judge who looks upon those Ten Commandments in the historical aspect that this is the basis of all of our laws. After all, the reason it is against the law to steal is that this was listed in the Ten Commandments, Thou shall not steal. As a person goes over to the Jefferson Memorial and stands inside that beautiful building, if he stands right in front of Mr. Jefferson, turns his back and looks in the same direction as Mr. Jefferson, immediately to Jefferson's right, the first tablet says very simply: ``Can the liberties of a Nation be thought secure if it has removed so firm a conviction that our liberties are the gift of God?'' As Jefferson and Madison and all of the authors of the Constitution, and Blackstone, and the people who gave rise to the great common and statutory law in this country have observed for years and years and years, it is based upon the law of Moses, it is based upon the Judeo- Christian doctrines that gave rise to our very freedom in this country. So it is with sadness that we have to reach that point in America where one judge orders another judge to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the walls of that judge's chamber. But I am proud today that the people have spoken through the Members of the House of Representatives who have voted today in a majority to commend Judge Moore for having the courage and having the faith to show that he believes, as most Americans do, that the Ten Commandments are the basis of American law.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the charitable activities of the Aid Association for Lutherans, branch 2543, located in McHenry, IL, in the district I represent. This organization is well-known for its volunteer efforts to help improve the quality of life in the community. In 1995, AAL received an award from the local county board for recycling 315 tons of paper and 1,000 pounds of aluminum. It also donated $1,000 to Habitat for Humanity and participated in the construction of one of the homes. In recognition of its outstanding volunteer service throughout 1995, AAL, branch 2543, received a gold star from its home office, one of several it has earned over time. I take this opportunity to personally congratulate each member of the local for its selfless efforts to help others. It is a fine example of how ordinary citizens get together and meet the needs of their community. I wish it continued success.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just agreed to.