Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. But what if your pets are wild birds?

Mr. MANZULLO. Starting lower.

Mr. MANZULLO. Right.

Mr. MANZULLO. And would the gentleman comment on whether or not the new Clinton tax would impact birds that decided to be hygienic and take a bath?

Mr. MANZULLO. Wild birdbaths.

Mr. MANZULLO. And You know what is amazing about this is that Mr. Babbitt, claiming to be a conservationist, would want to try to do everything possible to encourage the wisest use possible of our natural resources and to encourage people to feed the wild birds in the backyard, and instead he wants to impose another tax.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on the Exports, Jobs, and Growth Act. This bill is divided into three parts, first the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which helps to ensure against long-term political and commercial risk. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that OPIC will lower the deficit by $600 million over the next 5 years. OPIC is not corporate welfare because companies pay, I will repeat, pay for the services they receive. Second is the Trade Development Agency. This small 38-employee agency designs in-U.S. specifications into foreign infrastructure projects so American companies can gain valuable contracts overseas. Finally is the International Trade Administration division of the Commerce Department. Within this division is the United States and Foreign Commercial Service which operates 83 field offices in the United States. They primarily serve small business exporters in the search for export opportunities. If Members vote against this legislation, it will unilaterally disarm American workers in the global trade war. Our European and Asian competitors spend much more on these programs. It is time to wake up to the imperfect reality of the global trading system and support this legislation. The Clinton administration supports it; business groups support it; labor unions support it. Vote for H.R. 3759.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, do you want to do something about improving wages and job security for your constituents? Then, support this bill. As chairman of the Exports Subcommittee on Small Business, I held eight hearings on Federal export promotion programs. I've come away convinced that these programs are very helpful to small- and medium- sized firms, especially those new to exporting. What I discovered at these hearings is that the main problem facing small business is a lack of timely, accurate, and cost-effective information in finding potential customers overseas. This bill authorizes the trade functions of the Department of Commerce, including export assistance centers like the one headed by James Mied in Rockford, which small business exporters can use to find this information. Many pundits have directed low wage growth and company downsizing. But several academic studies point to a growing correlation between companies that decide to export and higher wages, benefits, increased productivity, and more jobs. A study sponsored by the respected Institute for International Economics and the Manufacturing Institute concluded that: First, firms that export grow jobs almost 20 percent faster than comparable nonexporting firms; second, exporting plants are 9 percent less likely to shut down than similar nonexporting plants; third, exporters pay their workers up to 10 percent more than nonexporting firms; and fourth, worker productivity is 20 percent higher at exporting firms. What many do not realize is that these amazing statistics apply equally to small firms located in the heartland of America. During the early 1980's, Rockford led the Nation in unemployment at 26 percent. Now, thanks to an export-driven recovery over the past decade, Rockford has now one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country at 4 percent. During my visits to the 16th District, I am constantly amazed at the number of small firms engaged in world trade. RD Systems of Roscoe manufactures assembly machinery. Six years ago, they employed 11 people and only 5 percent of their business went overseas. Now, they employ 30 people and 60 percent of their business are exports, including a $1.7 million sale to China of a machine to manufacture cellular phone batteries. I find this repeated over and over throughout the 16th District where a little help from the Rockford export assistance center was the difference in making an overseas sale. If we want small firms to stay alive and grow, then looking to foreign markets should be one tool in their arsenal. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a story from Business Week detailing this nationwide phenomena and an article from the Rockford Register Star providing local examples. The Federal Government can serve as a helpful partner through OPIC, TDA, and the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration division in encouraging more and more small businesses to enter the global marketplace. This is not corporate welfare. This one important way we can grow jobs and increase job security in this country. And, H.R. 3759 raises revenue from corporations for the Government because OPIC's political and commercial risk insurance premiums brought in $122 million into the Treasury last year. That's why the title of this legislation, the Exports, Jobs, and Growth Act of 1996, is aptly named. I also appreciate the willingness of Chairman Roth to accede to my request to place in the statutory mandate of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee a requirement that they identify more ways they can coordinate export promotion services to work for small- and medium-sized businesses. Big companies have their own sources of information and more resources at their disposal. Encouraging more small business to become ready to export must be a top priority of the TPCC. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I could not let this opportunity pass without a salute to the magnificent work of the chairman of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Roth of Wisconsin. Toby, this may be the last time, as a manager of a bill on the floor, that we can formally thank you for your service to this House. We will all miss your leadership next year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence, and I urge the adoption of this bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Coalition for Employment Through Exports; the National Foreign Trade Council; and the United States-Russia Business Council are but a sample of the organizations in support of this legislation. Let's pass this bill on suspension today so that the other body can act expeditiously before OPIC expires at the end of this month. [Special Report from Business Week, Apr. 17, 1995] It's a Small (Business) World (By Amy Barrett in Washington) For 102 years, Bicknell Manufacturing Co. has made industrial drill bits for construction equipment at its modest plant in Rockland, Me. For most of that time, the family-owned concern thrived, with growth of about 8% a year in the late 1980s. Then came the 1990 recession. The construction market withered--and with it demand for Bicknell's products. As sales stalled, the company scrambled for new business. ``We had to change course,'' says John E. Purcell, Bicknell's general manager. With little likehood of a quick turnaround at home, Bicknell set its sights on markets abroad. ``There was much trepidation, with a capital T.'' says Purcell, 38, recalling that none of the 65 employees at the $4 million company had had any foreign experience. Still, with construction booms in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, the foreign market was beckoning. After Purcell found a distributor while visiting Mexico on a trade mission sponsored by the Small Business Administration, Bicknell began exporting to Latin America two years ago. And Purcell couldn't be more delighted with the results. He has just signed a deal to begin selling in China and Vietnam. This year, Purcell expects international sales to grow 20%, for 15% to 20% of the company's total revenue. ``We're starting to see it pay off,'' he says. Purcell's enthusiasm is just one case of a new global fever to hit U.S. business. This time, instead of afflicting the goliaths of Corporate America, it's sweeping through the ranks of U.S. entrepreneurs. Whether they're seeking to escape sluggish markets at home or build on their successes, more small companies are looking beyond the local and regional markets that have long nurtured and sustained them. A survey of almost 750 companies by Arthur Andersen & Co. and National Small Business United, a trade group, found that 20% of companies with fewer than 500 employees exported products and services last year. That's up from 16% in 1993 and 11% in 1992, the first year the survey was conducted. And many experts expect that the trend will continue as more and more small businesses plumb the potential of foreign markets. ``It presents a huge growth opportunity,'' says David L. Birch, president of economic researcher Cognetics Inc. The push abroad by a whole new stratum of U.S. companies is having a profound impact on the trade front. True, the $200,000 in foreign sales that Bicknell chalked up last year is nothing compared with Boeing Co.'s $11.4 billion in exports. But together, small companies are helping fuel an export explosion that has more than doubled total overseas sales since 1986, to $696 billion last year. While service sector exports are difficult to measure, dri/McGraw-Hill figures that small businesses could account for 50.8% of the $548 billion worth of manufactured goods that the U.S. will likely export this year, up from 45.5% a decade ago. Entrepreneurial success overseas is bound to produce other economic benefits. Bountiful markets abroad could insulate small companies from periodic downturns at home. And as it carves out more foreign business, small business could enhance its reputation as the job generator of the 1990s. ``A lot of small businesses adding five or six people may not sound like much,'' says Donald T. Hilty senior fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington. ``But when you add it all up, there's real potential for job creation.'' Tiny Lucerne Farms in Fort Fairfield, Me., is certainly doing its part on the job front. Thanks to the dollar's precipitous drop against major currencies in recent months, George A. James, president of the $350,000 horse-feed company, says his products are 25% cheaper in yen terms compared with a year ago. That drew an inquiry from a Japanese distributor. Now, orders from Japan could double his total revenue this year. To keep up with the flood of business, James is planning to take on five new employees on top of his current eight-person team. ``Without this international business, we could never expect to grow as rapidly and add these jobs,'' he says. ``This is a real shot in the arm.'' High-profile pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade have also accelerated the march by small business into the global arena. Both agreements have gone a long wait toward lowering barriers to imports in foreign countries, while alerting entrepreneurs to opportunities abroad. Jeff A. Victor, for one, credits NAFTA for his surging export volume. The general manager of $6 million Treatment Products Ltd., which makes car cleaners and waxes, had been trying to expand his small presence in Mexico since 1990. But stiff Mexican tariffs that ran as high as 20% made that impossible for the Chicago-based company. Six months after NAFTA went into effect in January, 1993, and tariffs started gradually dropping, Victor says he landed contracts with almost every major retail chain in Mexico, including Futurama, Gigante, and Soriana. His shipments to Mexico have tripled, to roughly $300,000, about 20% of the company's total exports. Victor concedes that Mexico's financial meltdown has hurt. One retailer has put a big order on hold. But he's sticking it out. To make his car wax more affordable to Mexican consumers, he's considering selling it in smaller bottles. ``After selling in Mexico for five years, I'm not going to pack my bags and leave,'' he vows. risky shores The threat of a Mexican-style calamity in other countries isn't the only thing that makes venturing abroad so risky and complicated. Lining up customers and distributors--tough enough at home--becomes an enormous challenge when a market is a continent away. And then there's financing. Lenders are already leery of small companies. But the thought of a pint- size outfit venturing into uncharted markets is enough to give some bankers the vapors. They have reason to be worried, because plenty of small companies are innocents abroad. Many entrepreneurs get their first taste of global markets by filling stray foreign orders that come their way. Often generated by referrals or chance meetings at domestic trade shows, these orders are quick and painless to fill--and can give the false impression that exporting isn't so tough. ``A lot of small businesses export opportunistically,'' says Abby K. Shapiro, chairman of International Strategies Inc., a trade consulting firm. ``The problem is not enough of them do it thoughtfully.'' Lack of proper preparation can lead to costly mistakes. John P. Woolley, general manager of PC Industries, recalls how he shipped a $10,000 replacement computer component to a French customer six months ago and was stunned when he was billed $2,500 for value-added tax. Woolley's company had to absorb the unexpected bill. He says such expensive lessons are causing his $3 million Glenview (Ill.) company to rethink its overseas commitment. ``The jury is still out on how strongly we'll pursue it,'' he says. For small companies that decide to persevere with their export strategies, identifying suitable markets is generally the first step. Many turn to federal and state agencies for market information (page 101). The U.S. Commerce Dept., for instance, has a trade database available through its 73 field offices and public libraries. The database has research reports on 117 industries in 228 countries. It's a good starting point for figuring out what's hot and what's not. Right now, environmental companies--those specializing in everything from waste-water treatment gear to landfill management--are finding opportunities in the newly industrialized markets of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Taiwan. And in Latin America, a growing middle class is fueling a new wave of health consciousness. Companies making cholesterol-testing equipment, for instance, may find eager customers in Brazil and Mexico. Some entrepreneurs display a lot of ingenuity when scoping out markets. Harden H. Wiedemann, chairman of Assurance Medical Inc., a $2 million Dallas company that sells alcohol- and drug-testing services, uses the Internet. He says he has found voluminous online information on the growing concern with alcohol-related problems in Argentina. ``Some of the best information we fund we just stumbled on as we were surfing around,'' he says farther afield Not surprisingly, most first-time exporters head north of the border. With few language barriers, a similar business culture, and now NAFTA. Canada is the most appealing market for small companies. But entrepreneurs, emboldened by past trade triumphs or tempted by flourishing markets, are setting their sights on more distant climes. Fully 12% of those responding to the Arthur Andersen/Small Business United Survey say they export to Western Europe in 1994, while 11% targeted fast-growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Heather Stone has certainly expanded her horizons. Last year, she began selling her invention-- a scooter for people with leg or foot injuries--to a distributor in Canada. Then last fall, Stone was invited by the Japan External Trade Organization to display her product, called Roller-Aid, at a Japanese trade show. She now expects her company, Stoneheart Inc. in Cheney, Wash., to start shipping to Japan this summer. She figures exports will generate about 20% of her company's $500,000 in sales this year. ``This international business just kind of fell in my lap,'' she says with a smile ``For me, it wasn't as difficult as I expected.'' Chasing emerging markets requires something many entrepreneurs already have: a stomach for risk. Like his counterparts at much bigger companies, Robert A. Giese of RGdata Inc. was quick to set his sights on untapped markets in the then-Soviet Union--as early as 1989. The Rochester (N.Y.) computer-net-working company that he founded in 1974 hadn't done any serious exporting. But he felt the opportunities in Russia and nearby countries were overwhelming. True, shipping was a nightmare, and phone communication was in the dark ages. But he says waiting until a market is stable makes no sense: ``By then, everyone already has a dance partner.'' In 1989, he teamed up with three other small companies to pay for a $25,000 booth at a Commerce Dept.-sponsored trade show in Moscow. Last year, 20% of his $19 million in business came from former Soviet countries. Some entrepreneurs have turned themselves into globe- trotting promoters to drum up business. Katherine Allen, who with her mother runs Allen Filters Inc., figures she spends almost a third of her time abroad, schmoozing with potential customers for her oil-cleanup products and services. Allen reckons that, of her yearly $4 million in sales, half comes from exports, thanks to her network of contacts from Singapore to Sao Paulo. And now--two years and numerous cocktail parties after her first visit to Beijing--she has potential customers in China. Allen Filters may not have the marquee value of big U.S. exporters, but Allen says her journeys have convinced her that a small company can make it if it understands markets and customers. ``If they have a good foundation, I think the world is open to most small businesses,'' she says. For the typical small company, however, a foreign partner or distributor is the only access to a new market. It's a crucial relationship. Lazy distributors won't do much for business, while inept or unsavory ones can ruin a small company's reputation in a new market. Two years ago, computer maker win Laboratories Ltd. in Manassas, Va., pulled out of a joint venture in Chile, blaming its Chilean partner for customs delays and weak sales. ``It hasn't soured the outlook on exporting here,'' says Mark H. Magnussen, win's director of business development, who is considering joint ventures in Brazil and Mexico. ``But in the future, we'll do a lot more legwork.'' fish story Such research doesn't have to mean frequent trips to far- flung ports of call. One gold mine of information: U.S. companies that sell related products. Fred Hansen, vice- president for marketing at Mardel Laboratories Inc. in Glendale Heights, Ill., which makes water conditioners and other supplies for tropical-fish aquariums, hired a distributor in Hong Kong after contacting Penn Plax Plastics Inc., a Garden City (N.Y.) company that sells plastic underwater plants. The company didn't compete with Mardel, but it knew both the distributor and the industry well. Small companies with bigger budgets can participate in trade shows sponsored by state and federal agencies. The Commerce Dept.'s Gold Key program, for example, can arrange for a small-business executive to meet with prescreened potential partners in a foreign country. Jim DeCarlo, president of Phenix Technologies, based in Accident, Md., met his Spanish distributor on such a jaunt. He spent three days in Madrid in 1993, meeting with potential partners at the U.S. embassy. The trip cost the company, which makes electrical testing equipment, roughly $3,500--a wise investment, says DeCarlo. ``I wouldn't have known where to start'' to look for a partner, he concedes. Like their bigger brethren, some small businesses are establishing overseas arms. Eli E. Hertz, founder of Hertz Computer Corp. in New York, bought a small distributor in Israel in 1990 to sell his equipment. He says being nearby to handle his clients' servicing needs gives him an edge over rival exporters. Today, Israeli customers account for 25 percent of his $10 million in sales. ``Being there is a huge advantage,'' Hertz says. His customers agree. ``When they get a call, they're here in four hours,'' says Shlomo Stern, the head of systems operations for OFEK Securities & Investments Ltd. Whatever their strategy for penetrating foreign markets, small companies inevitably find that lining up trade financing to pay for manufacturing or to extend credit to customers is the stiffest challenge of all. Many U.S. banks abandoned trade financing in the 1980s after the Latin American loan debacle. Even banks though to be entrepreneur- friendly shy away from tiny, complex, labor-intensive trade finance deals. Jeanne A. Hulit, vice-president for international banking at Key Bank of Maine, a unit of KeyCorp, says one recent small trade loan--less than $100,000--took so much time and energy that she might require an up-front fee from exporters in the future. ``It was way too much work for a small loan,'' says Hulit. Some small companies have benefited from trade finance programs sponsored by government agencies. Phenix Technologies' DeCarlo recently lined up a $400,000 revolving credit for his export business with the help of a guarantee from the Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority. But such programs are poorly funded. Though the Small Business Administration and the Export-Import Bank have doubled the size of their financing programs since 1991, together they guaranteed only $253 million in export-related lending for small businesses in 1994. And entrepreneurs still complain about excessive paperwork. Last fall, Thomas Parks, chairman of 423 million Quickway Industries, applied for a line of credit backed by the ExIm Bank to boost his company's auto machine-tool exports. The bank wanted to see audited financial statements for the past three years from Parks' customers. When Quickway asked six big foreign customers for such documents, all but one flatly refused, Parks says. ``They said: `It's just too complicated dealing with you guys,' '' he recalls. In the end, Parks continued to draw on his company's own limited cash flow to finance his export expansion. But he says he hasn't grown nearly as fast as he had hoped. Unfortunately for small companies, there's plenty more red tape awaiting them overseas. Foreign governments impose standards for imported goods that are often intended as barriers to imports. The Commerce Dept. figures that for the typical U.S. machine manufacturer, the cost of additional paperwork and certification can add up to $100,000 a year. That's a big bite for any company and potentially crushing for a small one. On top of that, importers often insist that suppliers meet guidelines set by the International Organization for Standardization. The group, representing 91 countries, sets quality measures on manufacturing procedures, design, and servicing. Many small companies find the certification too costly and time-consuming. Of course, no one said that exploring exotic markets would be easy. It never has been--neither for caravan drivers plying the Silk Road nor for sailors seeking the Spice Islands. But like them, today's entrepreneurs know that playing it safe by staying at home may be the riskiest strategy of all.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, in the last 31 years this country has spent over $5.4 trillion on the welfare system, and what do we have to show for it? We have generation after generation locked in a seemingly endless cycle of destitution and poverty. They are the lost forgotten statistics, dependent on the Federal entitlement trap that strips them of their dignity, destroys families, damages our work ethic, and destroys the self-esteem of those trapped in the system. Cruelty is allowing this destructive system to continue. By passing this welfare reform bill we will restore hope and opportunity by making work, and not welfare, a way of life. Our current welfare system has not only failed those in the system, but it has also failed those who have been supporting it, the hard working taxpayer. It has failed the forgotten American, the one who gets up in the morning, packs a lunch, sends the kids off to school. That person is working harder than ever to make ends meet, and the typical American family is paying over $3,400 a year in taxes for welfare payments to perpetuate a failed system. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill and pass it swiftly.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, Theodore Roosevelt once said the credit belongs to the one who is actually in the arena and who spends time in a worthy cause. This is the spirit of the Olympics. Shining examples of this indomitable spirit are Judy Wilmarth from Leaf River, IL, and Stephanie Brooks from Algonquin, IL. Judy helped carry the Olympic torch in Illinois, chosen because of her devotion to service to the needy and distribution of food. Fourteen-year old Stephanie Brooks is competing in the Paralympics in Atlanta. She is qualified for the 50- and the 100-meter free style and the 50-meter butterfly swimming events. She competes in these games as an elite athlete. These accomplishments stand in the face of the fact that Stephanie was born with spina bifida which has caused her to lose the use of her legs. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to salute these two Olympic champions: Judy Wilmarth and Stephanie Brooks.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, Paul Swanson from Lake in the Hills, IL, which I represent, knows what welfare reform means to him. Paul is a carpenter, a secretary for a union PAC committee and believes in welfare reform. Let me quote from Mr. Swanson's letter: More people going to work will reduce the welfare burden and thereby reduce taxes. You see, Paul is one of those forgotten Americans, who get up at the break of day, pack their lunch, send their kids off to school, and are working harder than ever in their lives, but having less money to spend. The reason Paul has less to spend is that taxes are too high, and it takes high taxes to support the welfare state. Our goal is to help the Paul Swansons of this world by reforming welfare so that less money is spent on welfare, and Paul Swanson would have more money to spend on his family.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, due to a family emergency, I missed rollcall votes 332 through 337. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 332 and ``yes'' on rollcall votes 333, 334, 335, 336, and 337. I request unanimous consent that my statement be included following the vote in the permanent record. Thank you.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, many people are legitimately concerned about the large U.S. trade deficit, which reached $111 billion in 1995. But few people know that the U.S. Government maintains barriers to American exports to willing customers overseas. In 1993, the respected Institute for International Economics measured this barrier, totaling up to $40 billion in lost U.S. sales abroad. Even if you use the most conservative estimate, the current export control system stymies the creation of 600,000 high-paying, highly skilled jobs. We have entered a new post-cold-war era where our national security threats have fundamentally changed from the large Soviet menace to a select group of smaller national dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction and to the promotion of state-sponsored terrorism. We need a revised export control system that recognizes these new threats to our national interests while balancing our economic interests. This bill meets that challenge. The new Export Administration Act brings more rationality into the system to provide more predictability and transparency for U.S. exporters. It emphasizes coordination with other nations, as opposed to our usual unilateral sanction, ``shoot ourselves in the foot strategy.'' The new Export Administration Act reduces by almost in half the number of days allowed for issuing export licenses. As chairman of the Small Business Exports Subcommittee, I especially know how delays in the export licensing process can hurt a small exporter. H.R. 361 is needed so that bureaucrats do not unnecessarily delay an important sale. I also want to extend my appreciation to the chairman of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Toby Roth of Wisconsin. For the past few years, we were unable to pass a comprehensive Export Administration Act reform. This year, the chairman adopted a different tactic to include the National Security Committee in the drafting of this legislation. The results speak for themselves today: H.R. 361 is on the noncontroversial suspension calendar. I also want to thank the administration for moving many export control reforms internally through regulatory changes. Increasing the MTOP levels on computers to 2,000 to most every country in the world and 10,000 to our strongest allies was a welcome move because our competitors, even in Brazil and Taiwan, are making functional equivalents of these computer systems. Because of these administrative changes, we do not have to include these reforms in this legislation. I hope that same spirit of reform will continue because this legislation provides discretion to the administration to resolve some of the most contentious issues in export control reform such as a dual-use definition and foreign availability criteria. I urge my colleagues to adopt this landmark job-creating reform and that the other body act expeditiously on this bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about normal trade status with Romania. We are not providing any favorable benefits to Romania from this action. It simply authorizes the President to determine when the United States should treat Romania on equal trade terms with all other nations. The most-favored-nation law was written to deal with freedom of emigration from East bloc Communist nations. These governments do not even exist anymore. It's time to update our trade legislation to reflect the realities of the times. In fact, I wish we were here today granting permanent MFN or normal trade status with all other former East bloc countries still on the list. Times have changed. While the rest of the world trades normally with these countries, including Romania, we're still wrestling with these issues. All political parties in Romania support permanent MFN or normal trade status with the United States. Holding this bill up will only embolden the hard-line nationalistic elements in Romania who do not want foreign influences inside their country. And, there will be no time later this session to vote on this issue if permanent normal trade status in held up for Romania's fall elections. We'll be back at this issue during the next Congress, and there will probably some other excuse devised so that normal trade status is held up another 2 years. It's in America's interest to provide permanent normal trade status because without this designation, the United States cannot take trade disputes with Romania to the World Trade Organization. It will also solidify our bilateral economic relationship to ensure that Romania continues on the path of free market reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to focus on the issue at hand-- support normal trade relations for Romania.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, every day in this country men and women get up at the crack of dawn, pack their lunches, send their kids off to school, go to work and work harder than ever in their lives, and then realize they are taking home less money. The reason they are taking home less money is that Government is taking more of their money, and Government is taking more of their money because Government is too big. It is too big at all levels, at the local, at the State and the Federal level. These people, who are laboring in the fields and working harder than ever in their entire lives and taking home less money because Government is too big, are the forgotten Americans. In 1950 the average family in America paid 2 percent of their income for Federal income taxes. Today it is 26 percent. If we add State and local taxes, it is around 40 percent. Just think of that. Forty cents of their dollar earned goes for taxes. While taxes increase, your take home pay decreases. The more Government takes, the more Government taxes, the less freedom we have. We work from January 1 through May 7 just to earn enough to pay taxes. Just think of that. The American worker has to work more than 4 months just to pay taxes. In fact, if a husband and wife are working, one of them is working almost solely to pay for taxes. If Government taxes you 10 percent, then it controls 10 percent of your life. If Government taxes you 20 percent, then it controls 20 percent of your life. If Government taxes you 30 percent, it controls 30 percent of your life. If Government taxes you 50 percent, it controls 50 percent of your life. How does Government control our lives by taxes? It does so by making choices for you that you cannot afford to make for yourself. Big Government chooses to spend money on welfare for immigrants while you worry where you are going to get money to pay for your kid's braces. At the same time President Clinton claimed that the era of big Government was over, he increased your taxes in 1993 with the biggest tax increase in American history. The American family is hurting because taxes are too high. The Republican-controlled Congress set out to free the American family from this tremendous tax burden. The Republican Congress passed the $500-per-child tax credit so that American families could decide how to spend their own hard-earned dollars, as opposed to Washington, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. If President Clinton had not vetoed this bill, 1.3 million families in Ohio and the same number in Illinois would have been eligible. That means that these households in Illinois and Ohio would have had an extra $1,000 per year to spend on clothing, education, food and shelter. But people who like big Government do not trust Americans to make those decisions because they want Government to spend money that rightfully belongs to the hard-working Americans. The Republican Congress passed the $2,500 interest deduction on student loans so that families could better afford to send their kids to college, but President Clinton vetoed that, also. The Republican Congress passed a meaningful welfare bill so that the hard-working Americans could take home more of their money, and the President vetoed that bill, also. So who is the friend of the working person in America, the forgotten American, the one who is lost in the shuffle of big taxes, the one who is lost in the cloud of big Government? Certainly the friend of the working person is not the ones who insist on taxing more and more. The friend of the working people insists that Government is too big, it is too intrusive, it is too invasive, it takes too much money, it is robbing the American family of the ability to support themselves. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point in American history where the debt is so big because of a runaway liberal big Government mentality, with a $5 trillion debt that, according to a chapter in the budget called Generational Forecasts, if we do not put a rein on Government, by the time children born after 1993 go into the work force, they will pay between 84 and 94 percent of their income in taxes. That is no future for Americans. That is no future for our children. This Government is too big. It has to shrink. This Government has to lower the taxes on the working people. This Government has to allow working people to keep more of their money. The message is this: The forgotten American, the one who works hard, the one who asks for nothing but freedom, the one who wants to raise his children in a society where he can afford to send them to college, the forgotten American covered by a sea of redtape and taxes, deserves a break. He deserves freedom in government, he deserves freedom from government, he deserves these Republican proposals to allow him to keep more of his hard-earned dollars.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, every day millions of Americans get up, pack their lunch, send their kids off to school, and go to work. Denying normal trade relations with China hurts these families. These Americans have no idea the products they make end up in China. Denying normal trade status for China jeopardizes the long-term survivability of these high-paying jobs. For example, in addition to 600 Neons shipped directly from Belvidere, IL, to China, Chrysler Corp. purchased $1.3 million in parts from six automotive parts makers spread throughout the 16th District of Illinois to supply their Jeep plant in Beijing. Sunstrand Corp. and Woodward Governor sell industrial and aerospace products to China. Ingersoll Milling Machine of Rockford sells electrical generating machines to China worth $3.5 million. Honeywell in Freeport expects to sell 5 percent of their total production to China by the year 2004. Motorola of Schaumburg sold roughly 1.2 billion dollars' worth of goods to China in 1994. They are building a factory in the district I represent that will employ 5,000 new people making cellular phones to ship to China. It is not just large companies. RD Systems of Roscoe landed a $1.7 million contract to build four machines for a Chinese manufacturer of cell phone batteries. That is 30 percent of the business for a company with only 30 employees. The list goes on. T.C. Industries of Crystal Lake supplies blade tips to Caterpillar. Mr. Speaker, MFN for China means jobs for America. Mr. Speaker, every day millions of Americans get up, pack their lunch, send their kids off to school, and go to work. Denying normal trade relations with China hurts these families. These Americans are forgotten in this debate. They have no idea that the products they make end up in China. Denying normal trade status for China jeopardizes the long-term survivability of their high-paying jobs. For example, in addition to 600 Neons shipped directly from Belvidere, IL, to China, Chrysler Corp. purchased over $1.3 million in parts from six automotive parts makers spread throughout the 16th District of Illinois to supply their Jeep plant in Beijing. Sundstrand Corp. of Rockford and Woodward Governor sell industrial and aerospace products to China. Ingersoll Milling Machine of Rockford sell electrical generating machines to powerplants in China worth $3.5 million each. Honeywell in Freeport expects to sell 5 percent of their total production to China by 2004. Motorola of Schaumburg sold roughly 1.2 billion dollars' worth of goods to China in 1995. Their rapid expansion in Asia is one reason why Motorola is building a 5,000 employee factory in Harvard, IL, to manufacture cellular telephones for the iridium system. And, it's not just large businesses. RD Systems of Roscoe landed a $1.7 million contract to build four machines for a Chinese manufacturer of cell phone batteries, representing one-third of the total annual sales for their 30 employee company. T.C. Industries of Crystal Lake supplies blade tips to Caterpillar tractor, which has a vast interest in China. Clarcor of Rockford has a joint venture in China to manufacture heavy duty engine filters for heavy equipment. Reed-Chatwood sells textile machinery directly from Rockford to China. And Illinois farmers are jumping at the opportunity to sell agriculture products to China. In 1995, United States agricultural sales to China doubled from the previous year to $2.6 billion. It is expected that China will account for 37 percent of the future growth in United States exports. Thus, trade with China is a cornerstone for resolving the most pressing problem in the minds of the forgotten American--stagnant wages and job growth.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to ensure that families of police and fire chaplains killed in the line of duty will receive well-deserved death benefits. I introduced this legislation in the previous Congress. It passed the House as an amendment to the omnibus crime bill but was taken out during the conference between the House and Senate negotiators. Thankfully, it is a rare occurrence when a fire of police chaplain loses his life in the line of duty. However, if such a tragedy does occur, the families of these courageous men and women will not be left out in the cold. These unsung heroes will have the assurance of knowing that their loved ones will be taken care of. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a rare occurrence did take place on June 18, 1994, when Los Angeles County Police Chaplain Bruce Michael Bryan was killed. Chaplain Bryan was an officially recognized and trained police chaplain. The night he was killed, he accompanied a sheriff's deputy on a routine call to a bar. The deputy first detained and subsequently drove home an intoxicated individual. Apparently, the individual believed he was under arrest, panicked and wrestled the deputy's gun free. The detained shot the deputy, did not kill him, and proceeded to chase Chaplain Bryan before shooting him three times in the head execution style. Chaplain Bryan was a volunteer chaplain based out at the Carson Sheriff's substation. He was certified as their official chaplain and would hold Sunday morning services for the other officers. Yet, his record of public service was not only that of a police chaplain. He was very involved in his local church and also established and operated New Heart Ministries which offers continuing help and rehabilitation to former criminals starting new lives outside incarceration. It is on behalf of all police and fire chaplain that I introduce this legislation today. In the memory and honor of Chaplain Bryan, I have titled the legislation the ``Bruce M. Bryan Police and Fire Chaplain Public Safety Officers's Benefit Act of 1996''. It is my sincere hope that Congress will pass this important and necessary piece of legislation. Police and fire chaplains are often called upon to confront dangerous circumstances. For example, they may be counted upon to participate in situations where criminals are holding hostages, drive an ambulance if needed, or even pick-up a fire ax to combat a deadly fire. These men and women to to work every day and perform their duties diligently and quietly, responding to the same crime and fire scenes that their colleagues do. I would like to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues that they join me in cosponsoring this legislation which would compensate the families of police and fire chaplains who, while in the line of duty, could pay the ultimate price possible for doing their job. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to ensure that police and fire chaplains killed in the line of duty receive federal death benefits. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Fateher William Wentink, police chaplain for the Rockford, IL, Police Department and the Illinois State Police, be inserted here as part of the Record. Rockford Police Department, Saint Anthony Medical Center, Rockford, IL, May 17, 1996. Congressman Donald A. Manzullo, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Manzullo, for over a quarter of a century I have served as Chaplain for the Rockford Police Department. I am also Chaplain for the Illinois State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The City of Rockford Police Department has approximately 30 Police Chaplains. There is a Chaplain on duty 24 hours a day every day of the year. These are all volunteer positions. Our Chaplains are involved in many areas of Police work. This includes helping people who need a place to stay, food or medicine. We also talk with people who might be lonely or suicidal. We are also involved in death situations. Our Chaplains are on the scenes of major disturbances and incidents in our city. More and more Law Enforcement Agencies are utilizing the expertise and professionalism of Police Chaplains. Estimates are that between 25% and 50% of the 17,000 Law Enforcement agencies in our Country have Police Chaplains on staff. Approximately 1,200 of these Police Chaplains belong to the International Conference of Police Chaplains. Of these 1,200 Police Chaplains over 93% are volunteer. They offer their time, talents, and service to the citizens of their communities. In the United States there are over 100 Police Officers killed in the line of duty each year. There is a Federal death benefit of over $100,000.00 that goes to the estate of a Police Officer whose life is taken in the performance of duty. I am asking if it would be possible to include Police Chaplains in this benefit. Although most are volunteer, they are officially appointed to their Departments and carry out their obligations and duties under the command and direction of the head of the agency. Thank you for your consideration and efforts in this important matter. Very truly yours, Rev. William R. Wentink, Chaplain.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. It is $4.1 million.

Mr. MANZULLO. The total amount would be minus $3.6 million, and his would be $1 million, that is correct.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the reason for the unanimous consent request.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that the generator business is going to Canada because of the decision by Eximbank, and those generators that can be American built and shipped are now going overseas for shipment to China?

Mr. MANZULLO. I am not punishing, Mr. Chairman. All I am saying to the gentleman, why should the Eximbank administrative account have an increase when all other agencies, including social service agencies, are having decreases?

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, how many agencies is the gentleman aware of that have had an actual increase in administrative expenses besides border patrol?