Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President Clinton's veto of the Product Liability and Legal Reform Act and urge my colleagues to support this effort. I think it's unfortunate that the President fails to understand the plight of small businesses and manufacturers--those entities that are the engines that drive our economy--who are the victims of unreasonable liability lawsuits. These lawsuits stifle innovation, erode competitiveness, and cost money that would otherwise be reinvested to increase productivity and job growth. Whether or not the President appreciates it, this plight is real and affects companies all across our Nation. I can point to a typical example from a small company in my own district, Mattison Technologies in Rockford, IL. Mattison has been manufacturing machine tools for 100 years and presently employs 150 workers. Yet, despite establishing a stellar record for quality and craftsmanship, Mattison is facing liability lawsuits involving some of its products that are as old as the company itself. Recently, it was sued for a machine tool it built way back in 1917. In 1917--the year Americans went off to fight in World War I. Mattison's general manager, Robert Jennings, justifiably complains that they are being penalized for machines built 60 and even 70 years ago, ``for building quality and longevity into our equipment, yet we believe this is what Made in America is all about.'' The bill the President vetoed would help rectify this problem by preventing lawsuits against manufacturers of products more than 15 years after delivery. This is certainly a reasonable step and one that would have a tremendous impact on the approximately 1,800 companies in the district I represent. Mr. Chairman, these types of liability lawsuits do not have to happen. They should not happen. The one obstacle that prevents them from stopping is the President's veto pen. Today, we here in this body have an opportunity to support small businesses and manufacturers and encourage productivity and economic growth. We can do this by voting to override the President's veto. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton boldly declared that the era of big Government was over. Sadly enough, our vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, proves the hollowness of his claim. H.R. 1561 is the first bill in 40 years to reduce and reform this country's international affairs bureaucracies. A multitude of international agencies and programs proliferated during the cold war in an effort to contain and roll back global communism. With this mission successfully completed, it is time to redesign our foreign policy apparatus. H.R. 1561 consolidates the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the U.S. Information Agency into the State Department and reduces their budgets to force streamlining efforts. This bill will save the taxpayers $1.7 billion over 4 years. In January 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher proposed to President Clinton that he consolidate the many foreign affairs agencies that had sprung up during the cold war. Mr. Christopher wisely argued that the Agencies' independence did not facilitate cohesive policymaking. Republicans took the Secretary at his word and devised such a streamlining bill. Unfortunately, President Clinton ignored the advice of his own Secretary of State when he vetoed H.R. 1561. Mr. Speaker, this bill reduces bureaucratic duplication, it cuts the budget, and provides a bold new direction to U.S. foreign policy for the coming century. I ask my colleagues to help end the era of big Government and support the motion to override President Clinton's veto.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, so much has been written, and so many discussions have taken place about how quickly life seems to pass us by in these modern times. We are always trying to make time for the parts of our lives we hold most precious: our families, our children, our spouses. It is never until we are faced with our own mortality that we stop to realize the sweetest parts of our lives, a nectar that sustains us and refreshes our thirst to be connected to the human race. Life has meaning. All of our lives have meaning. We are all born and nurtured and educated for a purpose. We tend to forget that. We tend to forget that one so important lesson. I have been reminded of this lesson by witnessing the journey of a constituent from Rockford in the 16th District of Illinois, Cindy Jensen, who for years has battled a liver disease and is now recovering from her third liver transplant in the last 4 months. She has not surrendered life during this difficult time. She has remained positive and has taken each day at a time. Cindy has demonstrated the type of courage and faith that few of us ever experience. She and her family have allowed the people of the city of Rockford to share in her journey, not out of self-interest but to engage us in discussion of a much greater human cause--the importance of organ donation. There is no greater demonstration of the importance of life than when someone is faced with a life-threatening illness and still maintains the courage of her conviction that there is a greater good. Cindy Jensen's purpose in life has become a mission of education. She has reminded us that we all share life. In yesterday's Rockford Register Star, Judy Emerson distilled the soul of Cindy Jensen. I would like to share some of that essence with you. Keep in mind that these quotes came from Cindy just a week after her third liver transplant. ``There's been a good reason for all of this,'' Jensen said Monday. I know that when I hear people say they never considered being a donor and now they will be. I hear people say they stopped praying and now, they pray all the time. Other people have said, ``You've given me my faith back.'' In spite of everything--or, maybe, because of it--her own faith remains intact. ``This liver is going to work beautifully,'' she said firmly on Monday. ``God has brought me too far for it to be any other way.'' Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record the complete column by Judy Emerson from the April 24, 1996, Rockford Register Star: Jensen Staying Focused on Her Mission Even if Cindy Jensen weren't a friend, I'd admire her courage. Jensen, who had a third liver transplant last week at University Hospital and Clinics in Madison, Wis., granted a television interview a few days later. Anyone who knows Jensen knows it's not like her to go on TV without makeup. Yet there she was, lying in her hospital bed, so weak her voice was barely a whisper. Cindy will forgive me for saying it, but I've seen her looking better. Seriously, though, it's all a part of the mission, Jensen says. Her intention in granting media access every step of the way during her ordeal was to encourage organ donation. She invited cameras into the operating room as her diseased liver was removed and replaced. When she was unable to do interviews, her daughter, Andrea' and son, David, did them. By letting the public get to know her family during Jensen's life-or-death crisis, she personalized organ donation and showed why it is so important. How like Jensen to turn something so difficult into something positive. Her campaign to educate the public about organ donation began several years ago, when she learned she suffered from primary biliary cirrhosis, a disease that causes the liver to deteriorate and, eventually, stop functioning. She organized an annual organ fair at CherryVale Mall, and even as her own health deteriorated, she knocked herself out to ensure the event's success. Her positive attitude and smile make it easy for her friends to forget she was sick. Finally, her condition became critical and a transplant was absolutely necessary. She went to University Hospital Jan. 2 for the first transplant. A blocked duct kept that liver from functioning properly, and she had a second transplant in early February. That liver never worked well for some unexplained reason, and Jensen's condition was deteriorating. She needed a third transplant to live. ``I was dying,'' Jensen said Monday from University Hospital. ``I knew I was running out of time.'' A week after the procedure, Jensen is convinced she got her miracle. All indications are that this liver is functioning well, said Bob Hoffmann, the hospital's procurement and preservation director. Jensen, meanwhile, is concentrating on getting strong enough to attend her own fundraiser Sunday at the Clock Tower Resort. The event is to help cover medical expenses, which haven't been totaled yet, but are expected to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. The $25 tickets are on sale through 5 p.m. Friday at the Clock Tower box office. The event, which begins at 4:30, features a silent auction, pasta dinner and dancing to the music of Wayward Wind. People who can't attend the event but who want to make a contribution may send it to: Cindy Jensen Trust Fund, 5601 Knollwood Drive, Rockford, IL 61107. ``There's been a good reason for all of this,'' Jensen said Monday. ``I know that when I hear people say they never considered being a donor and now they will be. I hear people say they stopped praying and now, they pray all the time. Other people have said, `You've given me my faith back.' '' In spite of everything--or, maybe, because of it--her own faith remains intact. ``This liver is going to work beautifully,'' she said firmly on Monday. ``God has brought me too far for it to be any other way.'' Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor of this ennobled Chamber often more full of vitriol for our own political advantage. We seem to forget that we are not here at cross purposes, rather that we are here for a common cause. We are here because we want to create jobs. We are here because we want to lessen the tax burden on the American people. We are here because we want to balance the budget. We are here because we all want our children to grow up well educated in a safe, clean, healthy environment. There is not one of us that comes to this well or enters the doors of this House Chamber who wants anything less. We simply have differences on how to reach those common goals. We demean ourselves with the ugliness of partisanship. We are all guilty of that from time to time. In doing so, we, too, forget what is most important about our mission here. I have taken this time today because I think that it is imperative that we remind ourselves of what is important--selflessness, courage, and the greater good. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, I would like to wish a speedy recovery for Cindy Jensen.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill, and I rise in full support of it, H.R. 3132. The last title, title 2, that appears on page 50, represents an incredible set of events that took place in our Committee on International Relations several months ago. I raised the concern several months ago, along with the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] that a request of an admiral would come before the committee on a relatively routine, in his mind, and in the past a routine, procedure of simply asking the House of Representatives to give away ships. As I sat there and listened to the admiral talking about giving away these ships, it dawned on me--why is the United States in the business of giving away ships when, in fact, we can simply sell these or lease them, and at that point the particular bill was pulled. The people who were working on it decided that perhaps we should do something different, and as a result of that, there was a committee hearing held March 21, 1996, before the Committee on International Relations and this time this particular bill was before our committee, and that is to sell ships or to lease them to Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Taiwan, and Thailand, and I asked the person from the Department of Defense, the fact that they are now requesting a sale or lease of the ships, is this in direct response to the inquiry that Mr. Brownback and I had over our consternation that our country was giving away excess ships. And the answer by Mr. Caines was, ``Very much, sir.'' He said, ``We have understood what the committee and the Congress have said, and therefore you will see that in that package, which I believe includes a total of 10 ships, there is only one grant, sir. There are eight sales and one lease.'' This particular bill brings in revenues to the U.S. Government in excess of one-half billion dollars, and what this amounts to is that the U.S. Navy has now changed its policy so that henceforth any excess ships are not routinely given away, they are now sold or leased to our trading partners overseas. This is a good bill. It is a revenue generator. It is going to make a lot of money for this country, and it is good, sound foreign policy. So I would encourage my colleagues wholeheartedly to support the passage of H.R. 3132.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today commemorates one of the most significant events that has ever taken place in the history of this great country. One hundred thirty-four years ago today Congress emancipated over 3,000 slaves owned by residents of the District of Columbia. This city's slaves were the first to be freed in our country--9 months before President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. Sometime in the early 1860's, while this Nation was embroiled in a civil war, a conversation took place between Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and President Abraham Lincoln. Sumner asked the President, ``Mr. President, do you realize who is the largest slaveholder in the United States?'' The President had to think, and the Senator said, ``It is you, Mr. President.'' At the time there were over 3,000 slaves in the District of Columbia who were stuck in slavery and bondage and could be freed by an act of Congress. That conversation began a monumental epic in the history of this country. Within a short period, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed legislation, and on April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signed the D.C. Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Speaker, let me read to you from a history of the Nation's Capital written by M. Bryant in 1960 that explains the significance of the D.C. Emancipation Proclamation. He said: The proclamation brought to a close an issue about which the anti-slavery Congress had raged for years. As well as placed on the statute books the preliminary measure of what proved to be national policy that would not merely destroy the chains from the slaves, but raise them to civil and political equality. That was done with an act of Congress. The Congress could not really set free the slaves in the District of Columbia though. What Congress did was to recognize what God intended from the beginning: that all men are created equal, and all men are created free. All Congress could do was to recognize that which God had intended. Abraham Lincoln affixed his signature to that great document. That began the pealing of bells in the District of Columbia. The pealing of the bells said the Nation's Capital shall no longer be a stronghold for slavery. Here are the words of the document that was the precursor of the Emancipation Proclamation: Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of all claims of service of labor. From and after passage of this Act, neither slavery or voluntary servitude shall hereafter exist in said district. Those were the words. Nine months later he did something else quite significant. Spurred on by Congress to set the slaves free in the District of Columbia, President Lincoln, by Executive proclamation, issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Two years ago, I took to the Library of Congress my family and Loretta Carter Hanes--the wonderful lady who, along with her son, Peter, has revived the D.C. Emancipation Commemoration ceremony in this city. There, we read the words of one of the original drafts of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an extremely moving event. Reading these words, Loretta's knees buckled and she turned to me and said: ``I have to sit down because of the majesty of seeing one of the original drafts penned by Abraham Lincoln.'' This is one of the few documents Lincoln signed with his full first name, ``Abraham''. Lincoln did this because he wanted these two documents, the two Emancipation Proclamations, to be among the most remembered and revered of everything that he signed into law as a President. Listen to these words: That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be remanded as the United States, shall be thenceforward and forever free.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have this opportunity to rise in support of House Resolution 316, a bill that deplores individuals in the United States and abroad who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust, and commends the crucial, ongoing work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. This important piece of legislation coincides with the 1996 Days of Remembrance which will be held in the Capitol rotunda today. In 1980, Congress established the U.S. Holocaust Museum to serve as a memorial to the 6 million victims of the Holocaust and as a center for the study, interpretation and presentation of Holocaust history. The museum uses the historical record in its exhibits and outreach programs to counter the outrageous charges by revisionist historians who attempt to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. The Holocaust Museum leads the charge in fighting against ignorance, racism and anti-Semitism. Every year, more than 2 million people travel to Washington to visit the Holocaust Museum. An overwhelming majority of these visitors travel more than 100 miles to do so. Tens of thousands of survivors, scholars, students, members of the media and Government officials utilize the museum as a center for scholarship and learning about the Holocaust and genocide. The U.S. Holocaust Museum is truly a national treasure. I am deeply honored to have this opportunity to highlight its outstanding work.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today we have a great opportunity to move America forward by passing this conference report on products liability reform. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a fair bill. It is fair to the consumers in America, and it is fair to the companies that make the products. One of the companies is Mattison Technologies of Rockford, IL. This is a company facing liability lawsuits involving products that are as old as the company itself. Madison is celebrating its 100th year of operation. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Mattison Technologies have been manufacturing tools for one century. Recently they were sued by a plaintiff in Ohio for a machine that was built in 1917. That is right, 1917, the same year Americans went to fight in the First World War, the same year the Bolsheviks were turning out Czar Nicholas. That is a long time for a machine tool to be functioning and too long for a company to be held liable for one of its products. Mattison has 150 employees and yet every 3 months the sheriff shows up with a brandnew summons bringing a brandnew lawsuit against the company. I have a letter from Robert Jennings, the general manager. Listen to what he said: ``The present product liability situation in this country has had a tremendous impact on our ability to successfully compete in the marketplace.'' We are continuously defending lawsuits concerning machines built 30, 60, and even 70 years ago. ``We are being penalized for building quality and longevity into our equipment, yet we believe this is what made in America is all about.'' And what a bitter irony it is that current law keeps manufacturers from making better equipment or modifying it because that modification could be used to prove the initial design may not have been safe enough. This bill would help rectify the problem. A 15-year statute of repose would stop such lawsuits on old products. Mr. Speaker, a company being sued for a machine they manufactured in 1917. This is outrageous. This bill provides a balance. It protects the consumers. It protects the employers. And it also protects employees. Why are the 150 employees of Mattison Technologies the beneficiaries of this legislation? It is easy. Because if Mattison did not have to defend against these lawsuits, they could pour more into productivity, more into investment, more employees would be hired. They would become more competitive overseas. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a tough bill. It is a bill that is good for the economy of America. It is a bill that relates to one of the 1,800 companies in the district that I represent. I would encourage the Members of this body to vote in favor of the conference report. Mattison Technologies Inc., Rockford, IL, March 28, 1996. Re Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act. Hon. Donald Manzullo, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Manzullo: On behalf of Mattison Technologies, Inc. and its 150 employees, I ask that you support the above referenced legislation. The present product liability situation in this country has had a tremendous impact on our ability to successfully compete in the marketplace. We are required to defend product liability claims against equipment that we built 50, 60, and yes, even 70 years ago. We recently received a Complaint on a woodworking machine we built and shipped in 1917; that's 79 years ago! We are being penalized for building quality and longevity into our equipment, yet we believe this is what ``Made In America'' is all about. Among other sensible uniform product liability changes, this Act addresses the ``forever liability problem'' with a 15 year Statute of Repose. The machinery manufacturing community, so vital to Illinois and the nation's economy, needs this reform. Thank you for your support. Sincerely yours, Robert K. Jennings.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering here today, H.R. 3103, will enable millions of Americans to purchase affordable health insurance. H.R. 3103 will extend to Americans of all incomes, health status, and employment status the ability to enter into the health care market. One of the biggest problems facing workers in job transition is that health insurance is not portable. Although the average person will change jobs eight times during his working life, employees are limited in their ability to keep their health insurance during job changes and periods of unemployment. One consequence is that many employees experience job lock, remaining in jobs just to keep their health insurance. H.R. 3103 addresses this problem in several ways. This bill allows individuals to purchase tax-free medical savings accounts [MSA's], which allow people to contribute to their own health care savings fund. Under MSA's, people could confine health insurance to catastrophic coverage, reduce their monthly insurance premiums and make deposits to a MSA instead. Insurance would be used to pay for expensive and infrequent treatments, while MSA funds would be used to pay small bills covering routine medical services. Moreover, these accounts would be portable so that if one person moves to another job or loses their job, health coverage would not end. MSA's would make it easier for employees to pay premiums during unemployment or job transition. Since workers are spending their own money, MSA's also would restrain health care spending by empowering consumers to make cost-conscious purchasing decisions. This legislation also provides portability for persons moving from one employer group health plan to another. Under this bill, when a person is covered by an employer health plan, the plan cannot refuse to cover a preexisting condition for more than 12 months. However, individuals changing jobs would receive credit for periods of continuous health care coverage under their previous employer's group health plan. So if a person has employer-sponsored health coverage for at least 12 months and switches to another employer who provides health benefits, no preexisting condition exclusion will be allowed. The Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act also allows small employers to band together in associations to form multiple employer groups that could fully-insure or self-insure. Under current law, large businesses are allowed to buy health insurance under a different set of rules than small business. Large, self-insured businesses are exempted from State law in their health plans while small businesses are stuck with State mandates, premium taxes, and other forms of regulation. This inequity between big business and small business in large part explains why the premiums of corporate America are going down while small business premiums are going up. In addition, this legislation seeks to provide a greater incentive for the self-employed of this country to purchase health insurance by raising the amount they can deduct for health care costs from 30 percent to 50 percent by the year 2003. One of the major problems facing small business is the high cost of health insurance. There are nearly 3 million self-employed Americans without health insurance. If this group of business owners were given a greater deduction, many of these uninsured would purchase insurance, substantially reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3103 encompasses measures that will enhance the current market system and make health insurance accessible and affordable for millions of Americans, and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud supporter of the Small Business Growth and Administrative Act, now retitled the Small Business Regulatory Simplification and Enforcement Act. This bill, as contained in the Contract With America Advancement Act, will: First, require agencies to publish easily understood guides to assist small businesses in complying with regulations; Second, require agencies to provide informal, nonbinding advice, about regulatory compliance to small business; Third, create a Small Business Administration [SBA] small business and agriculture enforcement ombudsman to allow citizens to confidentially comment on SBA personnel; Fourth, create independent boards to provide a greater opportunity to track small business regulatory enforcement and policy; and Fifth, require agencies to develop programs to waive and reduce civil penalties for violations by small businesses. I might note, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions unanimously passed the Senate by a 100-to-0 vote on March 19. I am attaching an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune last week about Perry Moy, who lives in the district I am privileged to represent and owns a Chinese family restaurant. This article explains the effect of regulations on small business. Regulators in the executive branch should heed his insights, and I urge a similar resounding vote of confidence in small business by my colleagues in the House. [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 18, 1996] Restaurateur Awaits Relief From ``Wasteful'' Regulations (By Wilma Randle) McHenry County Restaurant owner Perry Moy spends his days doing a lot more than running his eatery. He also has to handle a lot of paperwork, much of it dealing with various governmental regulations. Moy is the owner of the Plum Grove Restaurant, family-owned eatery in McHenry. And, he says the paperwork he has to deal with is something he really could do without. Moy also served as a delegate at last year's White House Conference on Small Business where the issue of government regulations was a major concern for small business owners. Thus, Moy is among the nation's small business operators who are watching with interest a bill currently being debated in Congress that would relieve small business owners of much of what they say is the burden of governmental regulations. The ``Small Business Growth and Administrative Accountability Act'' would require federal agencies to periodically review regulations to determine whether they need changing, according to a recent notice distributed by the National Federation of Independent Business, a Washington-based association representing more than 500,000 small business owners around the country. The NFIB contends government regulations force employers to waste billions of hours each year filing paperwork as well as billions in costs related to complying with different regulations. ``That time and money could be better used and spent expanding businesses and creating jobs,'' said Jack Faris, NFIB president. Paperwork isn't costing Moy billions of work hours, but he says when you run a small business, any time that isn't devoted to running the business is time you really can't afford to waste. ``The amount of paperwork I have to deal with--just in my business--is immense,'' he said. ``I have to deal with everything from employee taxes to the health and liquor regulatory agencies. And it's not just federal agencies. There are all these state and local regulations too.'' So, he said, ``Whatever changes can be made to relieve the paperwork and regulatory burden on small business I would welcome. It's truly one of the drawbacks about running a small business.''

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is long overdue. This bill, the Judicial Mandate and Remedy Clarification Act of 1996, seeks to limit the authority of Federal courts to fashion remedies that require State and local jurisdictions to assess, levy, or collect taxes in any way, shape, or form. We are currently entering into a debate on reforming the Federal Tax Code. We will be studying the impact of Federal tax policy on personal savings and spending, on State and local governments, as well as the over all effect on the economy. It is time for Congress to address the effect judicial mandates and taxes have on State and local governments. Actions by Federal judges that directly or indirectly force a State or local government to raise taxes have serious ramifications on our Nation's economy. In many cases, remedial decisions have forced State and local governments to increase taxes, further squeezing take-home pay or affecting property values. For example, in the congressional district I serve, people living in Rockford Illinois Public School District 205 are alarmed over the sharp increase in their property taxes as part of a remedy decision to pay for the implementation of a desegregation lawsuit against the school district. The complaints I have received include the fact that taxpayers are funding millions of dollars for a master, attorney's fees, consultants, and so forth, while seeing little money going to educate their children. They also complain that huge hikes in real estate taxes are making homes in Rockford very difficult to sell. Seniors have advised me that they can barely pay the taxes on their homes. This situation with the Rockford schools is dividing, if not slowly eroding the ties that bind the community. Rockford, IL, is not the only community affected by judicial taxation. Hundreds of school districts across the country have the same problems. A Federal judge in Kansas City ordered tax increases to fund a remedy costing over $1 billion. Yet, there has been little improvement in the school system. Lawyers, masters, and consultants have been the beneficiaries of such court orders while the childrens' education has seen little improvement. Judicial taxation is not, however, limited to school districts. Federal judges have ordered tax increases to build public housing and expand jails. Any State or local government is subject to such rulings from the Federal courts. The U.S. Congress is given the authority under article III of the U.S. Constitution to define the scope of judicial powers. My bill will place very strict limitations on the power of a Federal court to increase taxes for purposes of carrying out a judicial order. It is not a statement about desegregation, prison overcrowding, or any other decision where a Federal law has been broken. It is about taxpayers obligated to pay for Federal court remedies through higher taxes without recourse--i.e., taxation without representation. Judicial remedies should be, must be, tempered by the community's ability to pay for it, without raising taxes. If a school board, municipality, or State government feels that taxes must be raised, then the people should be asked. Otherwise, the governing board must operate within its means. There is no such thing as a school district dollar just as there is no such thing as a Federal tax dollar. The money belongs to the people. Judicial taxation is a back door method to take people's hard-earned money without representation. A judge works under the parameters of the laws available to him or her. The purpose of my legislation is to make it very difficult for Federal judges, who are unelected officials, to raise taxes, and therefore press them to work within the budgetary constraints of the State or local government. Any lasting result that could come out of a judge's remedial decision must come from the community and must have the people behind it. There has been no success in cases where judicial mandates alone act as the remedy. As I mentioned before, there are many people who are willing to make a positive contribution to solving these problems. By relieving the State and local governments of the burden of judicial taxation, the people of a State, city, or school district will be able to step forward and be part of a solution that is best for the community. Let me be explicitly clear that I am not talking about whatever remedies are made by the court. I am talking about how to pay for whatever remedy or settlement results from any decision. That is where Congress can have input into this area. I take no position on what remedial actions may be enacted--that is a matter of the elected officials on the State and local level, but I am compelled to take a position on how those Federal court remedies are funded. Mr. Speaker, I urge that congressional hearings be held soon on the effects of these court orders and this important legislation. Congress must bring to light the effects of such remedies. In the past, there have been attempts to limit the power of the Federal courts to act in certain areas, but there has been little focus on placing restrictions on the courts issuing orders that are essentially unfunded judicial mandates. To date, none of these bills has passed. That is why I crafted carefully focused language to address this very difficult issue.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, agricultural exports are the unsung heroes of American trade. Yesterday the Census Bureau released the annual U.S. trade figures, revealing that $111 billion deficit for 1995. Many people are legitimately frustrated with the high trade deficit. But most people are surprised to learn that the United States actually has a trade surplus, yes; surplus, in agricultural exports. America exports more corn than coal, more meat than cosmetics, and more fruits and vegetables than steel, iron, and aluminum combined. In fact, our trade surplus of foods, feeds, and beverages actually increased by over $6 billion from 1994 to 1995, reaching a record $50.5 billion in total exports. The future of ag exports is in the area of high value products. These are products that have value added to them through processing and those which require special handling or shipping. The 16th District of Illinois is fortunate to have many of these companies, including thousands of pounds of pork tenderloins that are shipped each week from Rochelle Foods in Rochelle, IL. The programs authorized under the Roth amendment all contribute to the continued success of our ag exports. Our Food for Peace Programs help the poorest of the poor countries in dealing with fighting malnutrition. This is a program which provides surplus U.S. commodities directly to the people in need around the world. The export credit guarantees contained in the Commodity Credit Corporation are also a win for all sides, the farmer, the exporter, and the taxpayer. The CCC is a loan program that helps boost ag exports, especially to those emerging markets where there has not been a large U.S. presence before. Finally, all of these authorized programs fall within the budget resolution caps. This amendment does not create new spending. If we want to maintain a positive surplus on our trade account ledger for ag exports and if we want to help fight starvation and malnutrition around the world, I urge support for the Roth amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the House has passed several measures today. Let me concentrate on one that is very, very simple. It extends to the President an opportunity to do something historic. We are saying very simply: If by January 26 the President of the United States submits a balanced budget in 7 years, scored by the neutral Congressional Budget Office, then we will agree to open up the entire Government 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, that means at that point that both parties have their budget on the table or in the process of negotiating. That is the bottom line. That is how simple it is. That is how to reduce a day of very complicated transactions into one line. Give us a balanced budget agreement or proposal scored by the neutral Congressional Budget Office and we will agree to open up the Government.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the House just voted a few minutes ago to override the President's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. Whenever the President vetoes a bill, that mean he does not like it. But when the President vetoed the Interior appropriations bill, that meant that 130,000 Federal employees could have been working, 369 national parks would have been open, 500 national wildlife refuges would have been open, 155 national forests would have been open. Let us get candid about this. Whenever the President vetoes a bill, he shuts down the Government. If the President is complaining about the Government being shut down, all he has to do is to sign the appropriations bill. That is what this process is about. So, if you want the Government to be open, all the President has to do is to sign the bills, the appropriations bills that Congress has sent to him. It is that simple.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as we debate reaching the balanced budget by the year 2002 and what role the Federal Government should play in restoring hope to our children's future, one of the misguided arguments that some of my colleagues continue to banter in Congress and in the media is that the American people cannot trust anyone but the Federal Government to provide assistance and/or programs in the areas of need. By what arrogance can this argument be made? To suggest that left to their own devices, the American people cannot provide for their families and neighbors? The notion that local communities and local governments cannot be trusted? Please. This country was built through the goodness of people helping people. From the earliest days of the original colonies, the people of this Nation have thrived off the common goodness of its neighbors, its communities. If we are to believe that there is nothing trustworthy outside of the Federal behemoth bureaucracy, whom are we accusing of being untrustworthy? Which Governor? Which State legislature? Which county? Which city or school district? Which community can we not trust? I believe men and women, parents, elected officials, churches and other community leaders are best able to achieve the longest lasting and most effective changes we need in our society. Day by day, neighborhood by neighborhood, child by child, family by family, America gets stronger. President Coolidge once said: ``No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.'' Let me tell you about what one community has done. On November 18 of this year, the city of Freeport in the 16th District of Illinois celebrated the achievements of hard effort and leadership when it opened the new Martin Luther King Jr. Community Campus, and this is a picture of that beautiful campus. This beautiful $3 million facility was built and paid for without any tax dollars or Federal grants. The facility was built with the commitment and dedication of the local community. It started with a vision by the late Rev. Robert Huff to create a community center where area children and families could get whatever assistance they needed. Unfortunately, he passed away before he could witness the reality of his vision. This beautiful new facility was made possible by the hard efforts and dedication of people like Jack Meyers, who led the fundraising campaign, and Ray Alvarez of Honeywell's Microswitch, who was instrumental in rallying community support for this construction. The new MLK Campus in Freeport has not been erected only of mortar and bricks. It stands firmly on the convictions and hopes and dreams of the people dedicated to making Freeport a city committed to the future of their community, a future that is unified behind helping their neighbors locally. The community campus has already provided many tangible results. It helped Wendy Mader realize her dream of becoming a licensed day care provider; Tameka Carter, who is reaching her dream of becoming a lawyer. And the Martin Luther King Campus helped Sharon Serna work through the single parent program to get off public aid, get an education, and become a registered nurse. Her dream was made possible by the local people who make the MLK Community Campus not only the envy but a model of what other communities in this country are accomplishing. Again, the facility was built without one Federal dollar, built by the dedication and hard effort of the people of a small city in rural Illinois. Have any of their programs used Federal dollars? Yes, but the programs are designed and tailored by the local people for the local people. Currently, Congress is working on major changes on how social services in this country are funded. The idea is that after 30 years of spending 40 cents out of every dollar on a huge Federal bureaucracy, we can be more efficient with our programs if we get the money back to the local people in the best manner possible. If centers like the King Campus choose to apply for tax dollars, they should be able to get the most out of every tax dollar, not just 60 cents but 90 or 95 cents. That kind of efficiency cannot be accomplished through a huge Federal bureaucracy. The campus is the perfect example of local control and local success. I salute the efforts of everyone at the MLK Campus. I salute the people who have found a second chance or the special assistance they need through the center. And I want to salute the people of Freeport, who in their own way have proven that we do not need the Federal Government dictating policy to provide for their community. What we need is the commitment and dedication of the people of the community who are willing to face a challenge and willing to meet the needs of the people they love so dearly and the people they serve so well.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members of Congress to examine the exact document which is called the peace agreement, especially the military annex which is attached to it, and to compare the rules of engagement there with the statement put out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, and those rules of engagement contradict each other. In the one put out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff it says we are not to be involved in moving any people or equipment out of the demilitarized zone, we are not to be involved in any type of disarmament, and yet the NATO troops, in the military annex attached the peace agreement, gives our troops that type of power. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of defining the mission to send our beloved troops to a country that has experienced war for 1,500 years. I support the troops. I do not believe it is wise to send them, but I support the troops.

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Two years ago I was approached by several business owners in McHenry County, IL, in the congressional district I represent. Jim Allen, Vince Foglia of Dan McMullen Local Leaders, took their time to educate me about this mandate started in the last Congress. Dan McMullen traveled to Washington to testify before our Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Procurement, Exports, and Business Opportunities. He also testified before a field hearing which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] chaired in Crystal Lake, IL. The people such as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] are also dramatically responsible for this bill. Businesses in Illinois will spend between $200 million and $210 million if this mandate had been allowed to exist. But today this shows that, working together, we can maintain the high standards of clean air to which we all ascribe while at the same time giving the States maximum flexibility in order to reach those clean air standards. Many Governors such as Illinois Governor Jim Edgar have been critical of this mandate and issued moratoriums on the mandate. California recently enacted two laws essentially eliminating the trip reduction mandate from State law. Some States, such as New York, have been enforcing the law by travel to Westchester County, NY, to speak about this with our good colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly]. There are some very real problems in that State as a result of the enforcement of this inflexible law. I want to close by saying that I am extremely happy and encouraged to know that this body can come together in a bipartisan basis to reach accommodation on this issue. This is a commonsense solution that everybody can support. I deeply appreciate the efforts of all involved and, Mr. Speaker, this also goes to show something else, that when parties recognize a problem, and cross over philosophical and party lines and sit down and work very, very hard; many times into the late evening I recall at one meeting when Bob Myers and I met at midnight in order to make sure this language is correct, that we can achieve a consensus and move forward on passing legislation through the House of Representatives, and I especially want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], for his graciousness and his tenacity in trying to work with me in steering this through the House of Representatives.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act mandates that in the 14 population centers across the Nation, States require companies with 100 or more employees to reduce the number of automobile work-related trips to and from work. The EPA estimates the number of people impacted to be between 11 and 12 million and that the cost of this would be somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion annually. The number of affected businesses ranges in the area of 30,000. This past January, an Assistant Administrator from the EPA stated that car pooling simply does not work under all circumstances. In fact, the exact words are, ``The air emission reductions from these programs are minuscule, so there is not any reason for the EPA to be forcing people to do them from an air quality perspective. We are not going to double check those plans. We are not going to verify them. We are not going to enforce them.'' Our bill, H.R. 325, as amended, is a simple commonsense bill that will not change the goals or standards of the Clean Air Act. They will not change the deadlines set up in the act. It simply lets the States decide if they want to use trip reduction in their menu of options for cleaning the air. Thus, it makes this mandate now voluntary. Working with distinguished Members and staff of the Committee on Commerce, particularly Bob Meyers and Charles Ingebretson, and my colleague from Los Angeles, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], Phil Barnett and Phil Schiliro of the staff, we were able to come up with a clarifying amendment that stipulates the emissions reductions committed to in the State implementation plans for trip reduction will be made up in some other fashion. Where the original bill is implicit, the amended version is now explicit that the emissions will be made up. But, and this is very important, the emissions will not need to be equivalent to those that would have been achieved under a full-scale compliance with the current law. Simply, the State must account for those emissions actually set apart for trip reduction purposes. In other words, a State may offer any plan that is outside what is required under current law. If a State would have only accomplished removing 2 tons of emissions per day utilizing the current employer trip reduction mandate, a State, with a mandatory--required--program stipulating 15 tons of emission removal per day, may add 2 tons per day to that same activity because anything over and above the mandatory requirement is, by definition, nonmandatory. That basically means that identified reduction may make up for those emissions that go over and above the requirements of the law. Is that the way the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] understands it?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are about to be subjected to a situation where 20,000 American troops will be sent into very difficult territory in the area that we know as Bosnia- Herzegovina. Let us take a look at the circumstances under which they will have to do that. I am holding the Proximity Peace Talks, which is an outline of the circumstances giving rise to the exact language of the peace talks. Listen to the country created by these peace talks. ``The country will be known as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the country will be split in two because it will also have two entities comprised of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina will control 51 percent of the country.'' I ask you, is that type of a situation tenable? Let me also throw something out here. There will not be one President on the new Constitution, there will not be two Presidents, it will be a troika, three Presidents, if that is correct. There will be three Presidents to run this country we know as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That will be one Moslem, one Croat, and one Serb. Do you really think that a troika comprised of these three who have been fighting essentially for the past 1,500 years can get along? But, Mr. Speaker, more important is the fact that American troops will be sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina for the purpose of killing, if necessary, to protect the peace. That is correct. The language in this report says that the troops should use ``necessary force to ensure compliance.'' What does that mean? That means they can use the gig guns to clear out the 2\1/2\-mile-wide demilitarized zone, but it means something else. American troops actually under the NATO command will try to do one of two things. They will try to keep the big guns away from the Serbs, and if that does not work, then they will try to arm the Bosnians to try to bring about military parity. Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense. This is a peace agreement? A peace agreement means people shake hands, repent, reconcile, and say, ``Let's go on with our lives, and put the war behind us.'' But what has happened here is the fact our President is going to put American troops in the position of fighting the war that the Bosnians have not been allowed to fight themselves. That is right. The United Nations, with the approval of the President, has steadfastly refused to allow the Bosnians to have the weapons with which to defend themselves. That has cased the tremendous amount of carnage in that country. Now we have this great peace plan, the peace plan where Americans will be authorized to kill in order to enforce the peace. True peace in that area can only be brought about if the Americans [[Page H 13709]] leave the area, if NATO leaves the area, and we allow the Bosnians to arm themselves. I ask this question: Is it right for American blood to be spilled in Bosnia when the American President has not allowed the Bosnians to fight their own war?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress will within a very short period of time take up the very delicate issue as to whether or not American fighting troops should be positioned in the country that we know as Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the past 3 years, our President has, without consulting Congress, made a commitment that somehow he is going to send 20,000 to 25,000 American troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now we find ourselves at this point in American history where this body has to make a reasoned decision as to whether or not we should put these young men and women in harm's way. We have to take a look at the historical background of this country as we know it. One can go back 1,000 or even 1,500 years to see continuous fighting on either side of the Balkans as the various tribes from the areas that we know as the former provinces of Yugoslavia, now independent nations, have risen up, engaged each other in mortal combat, then been quiet for a period of time only to have these types of prejudices flare up again and result in killing. The question is this: Does America have such a strategic interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina so as to commit our young men and women into combat? And that other question is this: If there is, indeed, a peace treaty, then why should our young men and women, as part of a NATO force, be sent in heavily armed for the purpose of killing to keep the peace? As I examined last night the very thick document that sets forth the memorandum of understanding among the parties to this horrible conflict, several points stood out, and I think the American people have a right to know the terms upon which American troops would be sent into this country. Let us take a look at the nature of the country that will be set up. There will be an elected house. There will not be a president; there will not be two presidents; there will be three presidents. Can you imagine a constitution that has a troika for a presidency and is able to rule? And, incidentally, each of these presidents have to come from each of the three warring factions, the Moslems, the Croats, and the Serbs. So now you take one of each, put them into a government and say, ``You rule.'' What is even more ironic is that in the constitution that will be set up is called the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and yet it is legally split, one country that is already split, and this is supposed to be a peace agreement. How is this peace agreement formed? Well, a demilitarized zone is set up. American troops have to pour in, and the language of the agreement says that the troops will use whatever force is reasonably necessary in order to carry out the peace plan. So that if the warring factions do not clear out of the DMZ, then after some type of a warning, presumably NATO forces will be called upon to shoot in order to secure a peace. Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: What type of peace is this? And that is not all. The agreement says that within a year the troops are to be withdrawn. So everybody gets together for a year, possibly acquiesces in a DMZ zone, and then knowing at the end of the year they can pull out only to have the fighting resume. But there is more to it than this. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to examine very closely the agreement before they vote in favor of this type of peace plan.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, let me pose one simple question: Why are United States soldiers being asked to flight the Bosnia's war? The Bosnians should fight their own war. The Bosnians should be arming and defending themselves. In fact, they have been asking us even since the war began in 1991. Yet, the administration has refused to allow the Bosnians a level playing field. It is unconscionable that President Clinton has refused to lift the Bosnian arms embargo, while making every effort to send 25,000 American troops to protect the very country he has worked to disarm. This contradiction involves the proposed roles of the U.S. personal in Bosnian. Can someone explain to me how some U.S. personal can serve as neutral peacekeepers, while others serve as suppliers and instructors to the Bosnian government's army? These contradictory jobs personify the conflict and confusion in the Clinton administration's Balkan policy. American soldiers will not be viewed as neutral, they will be viewed as Bosnian mercenaries. Therefore, we should vote for the resolution.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have heard incredible words today. Cruel, inhumane, barbaric. I will tell you what is cruel, I will tell you what is inhumane. If we look at the President's budget last year, there was a chapter called Generational Forecasts. That states because of the $5 trillion debt, that children born after 1993, if there are no policy changes, by the time they enter the work force, will have an effective local, State and Federal tax rate of between 84 and 94 percent. This country is going to collapse under the tremendous burden of debt. That is cruel. That is inhumane. That leaves our children no future. If you want to give our children a future, pass the rule, pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and allow our children not to live under a system that takes away all of the money they want to earn. Mr. Speaker, the American dream is at stake today. This is an opportunity to balance the budget. Let us do it for our children.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I spoke at the Temple Beth El in Rockford a few nights ago and would like to share those same thoughts with my colleagues this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the United States Congress, I had the rare opportunity to meet Yitzhak Rabin in the recent past. I recall a man of great intensity, and as he spoke in his baritone voice, my colleagues and I were mesmerized. A photographer captured my meeting with Yitzhak Rabin, and that photo hangs proudly in my office in Washington. As you peered into his deep-set eyes, it was apparent he was the consummate warrior and the ultimate peacemaker. Yitzhak Rabin was the warrior who helped Israel become a nation in 1948, the warrior who led Israel against insurmountable odds in the Six Day War, the warrior who knew he had to rely on God's strength to protect his tiny nation. He persevered only because he believed that the cause of Israel was greater than Israel itself; a cause for freedom for all people who had been oppressed. And Yitzhak Rabin was the peacemaker, the one who saw Israel's role in the world from the perspective of a lasting peace. The warrior was tired of fighting and turned his energies to making peace. I met those whom he had touched deeply: King Hussein of Jordan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. They respected Rabin because of his strength. He was a strong man--strong at age 73--strong in his beliefs for free Israel and strong in his convictions for a lasting peace in the Middle East. They respected him because he respected them. They're gone now: Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir, David Ben Gurion. Now, the only native-born Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, has gone to rest. At the funeral service Monday in Israel, King Hussein was visibly moved. Who would have thought we would have seen that happen in our lifetime, a once bitter enemy shaken by the loss of a comrade in peace? And Rabin's granddaughter, who is preparing to go into the military, as do all young people in Israel, said, ``as a pillar of light led our people through the wilderness, my grandfather led me, and who will lead me now?'' His memory leads us now. The memory of one who fought for peace, and who died for peace. We honor the warrior turned peacemaker, the one who had the courage to believe the sons of Hagar and Sarah would someday reconcile, the one who believed Isaiah: ``and he will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples. And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.'' [[Page H 11843]]

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the U.S. Congress, I had the rare opportunity to meet Yitzhak Rabin in the recent past. I recall a man of great intensity, and as he spoke in his baritone voice, my colleagues and I were mesmerized. A photographer captured my meeting with Yitzhak Rabin, and that photo hangs proudly in my office in Washington. As you peered into his deep-set eyes, it was apparent he was the consummate warrior and the ultimate peacemaker. Yitzhak Rabin was the warrior who helped Israel become a nation in 1948, the warrior who lead Israel against insurmountable odds in the Six-Day War, the warrior who knew he had to rely on God's strength to protect his tiny nation. He perservered only because he believed that the cause of Israel was greater than Israel itself; a cause for freedom for all people who had oppressed. And Yatzhak Rabin was the peacemaker, the one who saw Israel's role in the world from the perspective of a lasting peace. The warrior was tired of fighting and turned his energies to making peace. I met those whom he had touched deeply: King Hussein of Jordan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. They respected Rabin because of his strength. He was a strong man--strong at age 73--strong in his beliefs for free Israel and strong in his convictions for a lasting peace in the Middle East. They respected him becaue he respected them. They're gone now: Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir, David Ben Gurion. Now, the only native-born Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, has gone to rest. At the funeral service Monday in Israel, King Hussein was visibly moved. Who would have thought we would have seen that happen in our lifetime, a once bitter enemy shaken by the loss of a comrade in peace? And Rabin's granddaughter, who is preparing to go into the military, as do all young people in Israel, said, ``as a pillar of light led our people through the wilderness, my grandfather led me, and who will lead me now?'' His memory leads us now. The memory of one who fought for peace, and who died for peace. We honor the warrior turned peacemaker, the one who had the courage to believe the sons of Hagar and Sara would someday reconcile, the one who believed Isaiah. And he will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples. And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield at this time.