Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. When I was a young college student, age 20, thinner, dark hair, I worked for the House of Representatives, for the Member that represented the district in which I have lived my entire life. I was 20 years old. That was at the time that Medicare passed. It was 1965, I believe. And the original cost of Medicare for 17 million people was, I think, $2.5 billion. And the number of recipients has doubled today, but it now costs $140 billion a year for Medicare. And the estimates as to what Medicare would cost in 1993, the estimates that were made back in 1965, I think it was estimated to cost about $9 billion. And it costs in excess of $100 billion. So these projections are just way totally off. It is due to many things. People are living longer. The cost of medical technology has risen and things of that nature. [[Page H 6908]] And as I travel my district, I do not know about the district that you gentlemen represent, I start over on the river, Mississippi River and represent a county by the name of Jo Daviess County, which is heavy in tourism, number one in hay production in the state. Next county is Stephenson County where the Freeport doctrine was debated, the Lincoln- Douglas debates. That county has the highest milk production and a third of all the dairy cattle in the State of Illinois live in Stephenson County and they eat all the hay that comes from Jo Daviess County. Next to that county is Winnebago County that has over 1,000 factories, incredible, over 1,000 factories. This is the county that led the nation in unemployment in 1980. We lost 100 factories and 10,000 highly skilled jobs, but it is now the tool and die center of the world, fastener center of the automotive industry. Below that is Ogle County, a little factory there, Eaton Corporation, makes most of the cruise controls for Chrysler Corporation. And it is just a beautiful town, a beautiful county. In fact, we live outside of Egan, a town of 42 people where the Leaf River converges into the Rock River, the Leaf River Valley converges into the Rock River Valley and that makes part of the Mississippi Basin. Then you go eastward and Boone County picks up Belvidere where Chrysler makes the Neon and then to the east of that is McHenry County, which is the fastest growing county in the state. It has to be one of the most diversified congressional districts in the area, probably the United States. It is one of the leading export districts. As I travel that district, I just love to walk the districts. You walk the areas and sometimes you stop at somebody's house and knock on the door and go in there and exchange howdies or you go into the business district. Everybody is saying the same thing: Continue the revolution that began in November of 1994. Do not get downtrodden. Do not get disheartened because sometimes the press will come after you because you are trying to balance the budget. Everbody has this sense of awesome corporate responsibility that we have got to do something and something big in order to save this nation. I had the opportunity, as many of you did, to speak at the Fourth of July events. I spoke at the prayer breakfast in Rockford, incredible driving rain storm. It was unbelievable. It was buckets of water were pouring down. And people were out there in the gazebos and with the umbrellas. Fortunately, there was not any lightning going on. I could tell just looking at the people, look at the people, especially in mid-America, they are standing there with their little kids, and they are turning out in the rain to hear their Congressman talk about why this country is great. I quoted James Flexnor who had written a book called The Indispensable Washington, the life of George Washington. In fact, it served as the text for the three series that were made about the life of Washington. And he said something very remarkable. He said, for the first time in history people gathered together and set about to prove that people could rule themselves. It had never been done before. Never before in American history had that been done. And now 219 years have come and gone since the scriveners got together and penned their names to that Declaration of Independence. You know, it takes speaking at the Fourth of July celebration to make you realize how magnificent the American people are and how willing they are to give and how willing they are to go along with the programs and how willing they are to say, we are willing to go the extra mile in order to balance the budget because it is worth it for the kids in this country.

Mr. MANZULLO. What a sad commentary.

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Steve. When you talk about the tax burden growing from approximately 5 percent to 25 percent in Federal taxes, there is a chapter in the official U.S. budget called the generational forecasts. That states, because of the nearly $5 trillion national debt, that if dramatic changes are not made in the manner in which this country spends money, that by the time every child born after 1992 goes into the work force, he or she will be paying in local, State, and Federal taxes, between 84 and 94 percent of his or her income in taxes. This is astonishing. It is absolutely unbelievable. I mean, this is a part of the official budget. I mean the Democrats, you know, CBO prepared this. The Republicans, everybody looks at it and says, this is incredible. We have to do something about it. And yet, you know Steve, there are 10,000 programs in this country--10,000 that are run. Every program has a constituency and every program has its own special interests. And one of the things that I noticed is that whenever I go to cut a program, some Federal bureaucrat in Washington calls somebody back in the district that I represent, gets them on the telephone, and the conversation goes something like this: ``Congressman Manzullo?'' ``Yes, ma'am.'' ``This is so-and-so.'' ``Uh-huh?'' ``I live in the district you represent.'' ``Yes, ma'am?'' ``I am a Republican and a Conservative and I voted for you.'' ``Yes, ma'am.'' ``And I really believe that we have got to cut this budget because taxes are too high, the American people are tired of all the spending.'' And then comes the long, pregnant pause followed by the word ``but,'' which is underlined, italicized and emboldened with the comma behind it followed by three ellipses. ``But . . . let me tell you about this program which is an investment.'' And it goes on and on and the American people realize that every single one of these programs, every single one, I will give an example. I sit on the Committee on International Relations with you, Steve, and we found out that the American taxpayer pays $30 million a year to bring over 6,000 high school students for the former Soviet Union on a cultural exchange. You think about that. There are about 19 different agencies in this Government spending about $2.5 billion on all these agencies. In fact, there are universities in this country that are getting incredibly large grants for the purpose of bringing over journalists from Latvia and Estonia and teaching them about fairness in journalism. I wonder who their professors would be. But all this at a cost of billions of dollars. And I moved, and you voted for that measure in the Committee on International Relations, I said, ``Let us do away with these Fulbright scholarships. Let us do away with all of them. Most of the programs are good. Bringing over these Russian kids, that is a fantastic program, but we cannot afford it.'' So we lost in committee and came back and came up with an amendment and ended up being able to knock off $20 million in spending. I was editorialized saying ``Well, we have got to cut [[Page H 6907]] spending, but Mr. Manzullo who is involved in trade issues should understand the necessity of keeping these cultural exchanges.'' Everybody says cut somebody else's program, except mine. And I bet you gentleman have had the same things happen.

Mr. MANZULLO. That is right. We moved to cut it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $25 million to the UNFPA, but we should not send one penny to an organization that not only condones, but praises China's brutal family planning program. In 1991, the executive director of the UNFPA, Dr. Nafis Sadik, referring to China's population control policies, said that she ``was deeply impressed by (China's) efficiency.'' She wanted to, and I quote, ``employ some of these (Chinese) experts to work in other countries and popularize China's experiences in population growth control and family planning.'' With that attitude, I do not think the United States should provide any aid to the UNFPA until it quits China policy. The American people do not want to subsidize an organization which not only collaborates with forced abortions and sterilizations, but heartily condones such policies. Nor do the American people want their tax dollars spent in support of organizations that perform abortions in other countries or engage in activities to alter existing laws on abortion in these countries. I commend the language adopted in the recently passed authorization bill that restores the restrictions on abortion funding. Now, I urge the support of my colleagues for the Smith amendment to restore consistency between what we say and what we do. The Smith amendment will send a clear message to the UNFPA and other organizations: The United States will not condone coercive family planning policies. This is not an issue of pro-life or pro-choice--it's an issue of whether American taxpayer dollars should be used for forced abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith amendment and against the Myers amendment.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, it goes to the overall funding of the UNFPA.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Mr. MANZULLO

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

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, what we are trying to do here is to roll back the aid to the Development Assistance Fund $24 million, back to the authorizing levels. It is very simple. We are trying to save some money. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Gilman's amendment to strike $24 million from the Development Assistance Fund [DAF] in an effort to cut spending and reduce the deficit and national debt. Today the national debt stands at over $4.89 trillion--that's right, trillion--dollars. In fact, the debt continues to increase by $9,600 every second, which means that by the time I conclude my remarks, the national debt will have risen by another $576,000--another half a million dollars of fiscal liability placed on the backs of our children. Mr. Chairman, given this fiscal crisis, we as responsible legislators must continue to look for ways to make reasonable cuts in government spending. The amendment before us now makes such a reasonable reduction. Two weeks ago, we passed a foreign aid authorization bill that set spending levels for the Development Assistance Fund at $858 million. The appropriations bill we are currently considering proposes to spend $25 million above the authorized amount on the DAF. The Gilman amendment simply brings the appropriation in line with the levels authorized without touching the Child Survival Program. I think we all agree, Mr. Chairman, that cutting spending to reduce the deficit and the debt is necessary and will bode well for the economy and for future generations of Americans. I think we can agree, too, that a very basic step in controlling spending is to keep appropriations within approved authorization levels. This amendment does just that. Let's stop the half-a-million-a-minute trend of debt accumulation. I support the amendment by the distinguished chairman and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to recognize the accomplishments of the partnership between AMCORE Bank and the Zion Development Corporation. These two organizations, acting in unison, have stabilized and redeveloped a major portion of the Rockford community. Their commendable efforts were justifiably included by the Social Compact in their 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Awards program. AMCORE Bank and the Zion Development Corporations have a long history of working together. AMCORE Bank, a major financial institution in Rockford, had been located for nearly 100 years on Seventh Street, directly across from the church that founded the Zion Development Corporation [ZDC]. The ZDC, established in 1982, has acted as an instrument to revitalize storefront and residential property in an urban neighborhood. Its mission is to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families of every background, as well as to train the residents of Rockford for worthwhile employment opportunities. Neither AMCORE, nor the ZDC could have succeeded in creating safe, thriving areas within their neighborhood without the help of the other. Acting as a model for other businesses around the Nation, AMCORE granted generous and flexible loans to the ZDC, often financing close to 100 percent of the cost of the properties acquired by the ZDC. AMCORE went on to donate money directly to its partner, to establish a banking service for the residents of the new properties, and to help form the Seventh Street Area Development Council. The ZDC is, like AMCORE, a model itself. It is a nonprofit institution designed to positively impact citizens' lives directly. It has targeted and purchased the properties around Seventh Street which, in the past, have been infamous because of the prostitution and drug dealing that occurred there. These two organizations have earned admiration and respect because of their service. They have been deservedly noted by the Social Compact and provide inspiration to the rest of Rockford, as well as the country, to never concede a neighborhood as lost to crime.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the American Overseas Interest Act and the manager's amendment to this bill. In the midst of the dire fiscal situation in which our Nation now exists, this bill, and in particular, this amendment that I helped craft, begin to set a course in the right direction--to cut back spending and address the problems that come with a $200 billion deficit and steadily expanding national debt. This Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. Each day we are passing on to the next generation a growing $4.8 trillion national debt. Last November, the American people spoke in clear terms that passing on massive bills to our children and grandchildren is simply not acceptable. This new Congress heard their voices and during the first 100 days we passed legislation that represented a change from business as usual--an end to the tax-and-spend policies of the past. The American Overseas Interest Act continues this trend to cut back on Government spending. This bill eliminates three agencies and consolidates their operations into the State Department, eliminating 4,000 positions over 2 years. This bill saves the American taxpayer $21 billion over 7 years--a cut of between 15 and 20 percent from current levels--and conforms to the budget requirement that balances the Federal budget in 7 years. This is the first authorization bill we have had of this nature in 10 years. This bill cuts $2.1 billion over fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, and continues to reduce spending in subsequent years. Clearly we are on the right track to reduce spending. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the manager's amendment, because it goes further and explores areas where additional cuts have to be made. My amendment, which is part of the manager's amendment, says ``Let us take a look at all programs,'' including the cultural and educational exchange programs, the vast majority of which are worthwhile. However, Mr. Chairman, the issue is not one of merit but of cost. Can we afford current spending levels, given the massive debt this Nation has incurred? As a part of this amendment, I have proposed additional reductions in the U.S. Information Agency cultural and educational programs. Specifically, we would save the American taxpayer an additional $10 million in fiscal year 1996 and another $10--half coming from Fulbright scholarships and half from the other exchanges. The effects of these savings would be to reduce spending on these accounts by 27 percent in fiscal year 1996 and 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 from the fiscal year 1995 levels. Mr. Chairman, these are reasonable reductions and ones arrived at with the cooperation of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Gilman, whose assistance I greatly appreciate. I am pleased to see that this Congress takes seriously its mandate from the American people that massive debt is unacceptable, that passing the buck on to future generations must stop and that Government spending must be brought under control and reduced. This bill and this amendment contribute to this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of both.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the Hunger Connection of Rockford, IL, is a privately financed organization that resources food from wholesalers, retailers, and food processors and then makes it available to over 90 agencies which, in turn, distribute the food to the needy. Not 1 cent of Government money is used for this purpose. In addition, the Hunger Connection, led by Mary Cunningham, the executive director, also helps the community through a service called Community Share. In the Community Share Program, people do meaningful volunteer work in the community in exchange for 2 hours of work plus $14 in cash, $28, to $32 in groceries. The Hunger Connection is an example of the type of organization that is leading community service efforts. We are saddled with a massive debt. Therefore, the time has come to recognize private organizations such as the Hunger Connection for innovative, cost efficient solutions to our problems. Besides that, it has always been the American spirit of charity and good works that has spearheaded the country's efforts in alleviating the plight of the needy. Thus we have an obligation to carry on this work and still strive to keep this Nation from taking on further financial burdens. We are approaching a national debt of $5 trillion with annual budget deficits routinely exceeding $200 billion a year. That means $200 billion a year is added to the national debt. What is also alarming are the taxes that future generations will pay if Congress continues expensive spending habits. The President's official budget contains an analysis called generational forecast. This projects the future tax burden on the American people and takes into consideration our national debt and current policies for Federal spending. It predicts that children born after 1992, by the time they enter the work force, will have a combined local, State, and Federal tax rate of between 84 and 94 percent. That means your child or grandchild will be able to keep only $600 to $1,200 for every $10,000 he or she earns. That is not the legacy we want to leave our children. The findings of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform show that, absent policy changes, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt alone will consume all Federal revenues by the year 2012. Our Nation is not on the verge of bankruptcy. It is in bankruptcy, and it is hemorrhaging profusely. If we fail to act, we have made a choice that greatly threatens the economic future of our children and our Nation. Given this financial crisis, we must reevaluate our budgetary priorities. If we are gong to be serious about reducing our debt and balancing the budget, then every program not absolutely essential to the function of the Federal Government must be on the table for consideration. That is why original private sector endeavors like the Hunger Connection are so important. The Hunger Connection and Community Share represent the spirit of Americans working together to solve problems. These are people looking to each other instead of Government to solve the problems of this Nation.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget is the first step toward balancing the budget and putting our Nation back on the path towards fiscal responsibility. We will reduce or eliminate programs that may sound nice on paper, but in reality throw away billions of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars every year. And we may eliminate some worthy programs for which there is simply no money, but without which this Nation can function. We are approaching a national debt of $5 trillion, and each year we go into debt $200 billion more. This means $200 billion a year is added to the national debt. Today the tax rate for local, State, and Federal taxes is 50 percent. That means that a family with both husband and wife working, one spouse is working solely for taxes. According to the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget, if we do not make dramatic changes in this country's fiscal policy, every child born after 1993 will pay between 84 and 94 percent of his or her income for local, State, and Federal taxes. That means out of an annual income of $30,000, a child will be left with only $1,800 to $2,100 after taxes each year on which to live. This is hardly the legacy we want to leave our children. The findings of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform show that absent policy changes, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt alone will consume all Federal revenues by the year 2012. That means no money for defense, no money for education, no money for roads and bridges, no money for law enforcement. The Republicans propose a common sense solution to the deficit problem. Slow the growth of spending to about 2.2 percent a year so that revenues catch up with spending levels, which should occur by 2002. By reducing the deficit, the Nation will benefit in reduced interest rates, more employment, and a stronger economic climate. The Medicare trustees, including those appointed by President Clinton, say that the Medicare Trust Fund will be out of money in 7 years. This means if something is not done to preserve Medicare by the year 2002, there will be no money to pay for seniors' medical expenses. To preserve and protect Medicare, the Republican budget puts it on a road towards fiscal responsibility and puts us on a glide path towards a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican budget.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the passage of the tax legislation that we are considering today will be a triumph for our Nation's seniors. One of the most onerous and counterproductive taxes that exists in our current code is the Social Security earnings test. This penalty reduces Social Security benefits for those ages 65 to 69 by $1 for every $3 earned above $11,280--a 33-percent marginal tax rate. In fact, because of President Clinton's 85 percent tax on so called wealthy senior's benefits, many workers age 65 to 69 face a marginal tax rate as high as 88.8 percent. Without question, these high marginal tax rates affect the behavior of senior workers. About 1.9 million retired workers in this country age 65 to 69 who are eligible for Social Security benefits earn income. An inordinate number of them earn up to or near the earnings limit and then quit working. It is obvious that these workers earn all they can without being subject to the retirement earnings penalty. Mr. Chairman, I know first hand of such behavior and the importance of this legislation. A constituent of mine, Bess Marsala from Rockford, IL, called me regularly last year to find out the status of Representative Denny Hastert's legislation in the 103d Congress that would have raised the earnings limit. She candidly told my staff that she had job opportunities that would have put her earnings over the current $11,280 limit, but had to decline due to the draconian and punitive taxes she would incur. Mr. Chairman, the retirement earnings limit has been part of Social Security since its inception. The original reason given for it was that Social Security should replace lost earnings. Benefits, it was believed, should not go to people who continued to work. This policy was consistent with the Depression era view that Social Security should encourage older workers to leave the work force, making more jobs available for the young. Times have changed. The United States now faces a shortage of workers, not a glut. The continuing labor force participation of older Americans who possess valuable skills acquired over 30 or 40 years is increasingly important to the health of the U.S. economy. The result of the current earnings limit is that a vast store of human capital, rich in talent and ability, is wasted. Raising the earnings limit for retired workers makes good economic sense. The substantial reduction in marginal tax rates on wages will lead to an increase in labor effort that yields additional income and payroll tax revenues to offset the increase in Social Security benefit payments. Mr. Chairman, I am excited that today I will be able to tell Bess Marsala that the House of Representatives has taken the first step toward giving seniors such as herself the freedom to work.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, what a joy it is to participate in such an unique way to honor a person who is truly my personal hero in Congress. I was elected in the 103d Congress, my first term in Congress and Bob Michel's last term in Congress. And I remember Bob was thinking about retiring. I sat next to him right over here. I said, ``Bob,'' I said, ``are you going to retire or are you going to stick around for one more term?'' He said, ``No.'' He said, ``I just think it is time that I retire to give other people an opportunity to come into this body.'' And probably one of the most moving events in my life occurred when the House Republican Conference had its very last meeting of the 103d Congress, and Bob came in. We had a birthday cake there, and everybody was singing and on their feet. I was sitting there in the chair just weeping like a child, knowing that somehow I was going to be deprived of the opportunity to serve numerous years with a man who is a truly remarkable American. You know, in an age where people have incredible angers and will become short on words and sometimes say things we do not like to, probably the harshest thing Bob Michel would ever say would be, if he was really upset, would be ``Gosh darn it,'' and you sort of look at him, and he had this almost comical smile on his face such as you really should not get mad about this, because the country depends upon all of us working together. And I see the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] over here because he used to lock horns all the time with Bob, but you could never get mad at him. Unfortunately, some of us end up getting a little bit upset with each other, treat each other like sandpaper at times, but Bob Michel always served to me as the epitome of a U.S. Congressman, and if I ever wanted to write a book on the person whom I would most want to emulate, that would be my personal hero, the man we are honoring through your resolution, Vic, and that is Bob Michel, and bless you for giving

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to commend my colleagues for working so hard to develop a welfare reform proposal which takes great steps in reforming the welfare system. I support H.R. 4 for many reasons. One of the main reasons is that H.R. 4 reforms the welfare system by providing incentives that move people off welfare into work. Many States have already developed welfare to work programs that have experienced high success rates, my State of Illinois included. In the 16th district of Illinois, which I represent, Project Prosper is enjoying fantastic success and job training and placement of their welfare recipients, and Project Prosper uses no Federal funds. Why? Because the developers of that project work day to day with the welfare recipients and are able to concentrate on individual needs of particular circumstances. I stand firm with my colleagues here in Washington, my constituents back home and many people across the nation in my conviction that the States are in a much better position to create and operate welfare programs that best suit their constituencies. These local programs provide the necessary incentives that move the welfare recipients in the direction of financial independence. The welfare reform debate continues, and it is important to keep in mind that since 1965, when it first began, the Federal program has spent a total of $5 trillion. For cash welfare programs alone, the Federal Government has spent $1.3 trillion; for medical programs, $1.8 trillion; for food programs, $545 billion; and for housing assistance, nearly $\1/2\ trillion dollars. With all the money plowed into the programs, what do we have? The same poverty rate in 1966 as we do today, 14 percent. We want to change the system, give children of this country an opportunity and incentive to enjoy the American dream, to get off the welfare system, to know what the free enterprise system is about. That is the purpose of H.R. 4, to imbue that sense of personal responsibility back into the welfare system.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee recommendation to restrict funding in the bill for the imposition and enforcement of requirements that the States implement trip reduction measures to reduce automobile emissions. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Mr. Chairman, businesses that employ over 100 people in severe ozone nonattainment areas have developed a plan for forced carpooling. This employee commute option is supposed to encourage alternative means of transportation. However this plan is costly and, in some cases, impractical and unnecessary, which is why I applaud the restricting of the funding. Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Illinois the estimated cost of businesses to comply with the employee trip reduction mandate is as high as $210 million a year, and data from southern California shows it simply does not work. One rural county in my district is included in the Chicago severe nonattainment zone and has no mass transit system, and people would be left with no reasonable option other than to instigate forced carpooling to comply with the mandate. This is unacceptable, and I applaud the Governor for standing against it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the issue I want to speak about tonight involves a mandate imposed by Congress which must be enforced by the EPA. It is a plan that affects many of my constituents in the 16th congressional district of Illinois and many businesses in several cities across the country. Many governors have called this the most unreasonable, least thought- out, least effective but very, very costly program ever proposed by the U.S. Congress. The plan, employer trip reduction, was mandated under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Let me explain what this mandate is all about. Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires employers of 100 or more employees in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas to increase passenger occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace during peak travel periods by not less than 25 percent. The idea is to have people find some other mode of transportation to and from work other than using their car. The misnomer applied to this mandate is the Employee Commute Option. Some option. If the State elects not to implement this mandate, it stands to lose some of its transportation funds. In Illinois that is $700 million. In Pennsylvania, it is $900 million. In some States, fines levied against businesses that do not participate may range into the thousands of dollars. Areas across the country that face this mandate include Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura County and Orange County in California. Other affected States include Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Indiana. The EPA, in implementing guidelines for this Employee Commute Option, suggests other options for getting to work including mass transit, jogging, bicycle riding, car pooling, and walking. Well, in the 16th congressional district of Illinois there is a rural county, McHenry County, which is included in the Chicago consolidated statistical metropolitan area. That means residents in and around McHenry County who work in this rural area without sidewalks or mass transit system must car pool. This is a federally mandated car pooling and it is an outrage. When the amendments of the Clean Air Act were passed in 1990, I was not a Member of this body, and to the best of my knowledge there was never any formal debate on this issue in the House; never any specific hearings on the issue before it was simply slipped in to the Clean Air Act amendments. This past Sunday, Illinois Governor Edgar and I took the bold and courageous step of announcing a moratorium on the federally mandated employee commute option. He has directed the Illinois Department of Transportation not to enforce this measure. Why? An assistant administrator for the EPA admitted that air emissions reductions are, quote, ``minuscule,'' and her agency has stated it simply does not intend to enforce the mandate. This moratorium now puts Illinois in the same situation as Pennsylvania and Texas which have announced that they will not participate in enforcing the mandate. There is only one catch, Mr. Speaker: the employee trip reduction mandate is the law. The EPA may choose to not enforce it. The States may not enforce it. However, there is nothing to keep a Federal judge from enforcing it. No, the mandate is clear. It is law. It says that businesses with over 100 employees shall participate and decrease cost up to $210 million per year to enforce this unfunded mandate and that applies not only to the private business business but to the public sector. This law is so ridiculous that it says to a high school that has more than 100 teachers and administrators, that those teachers have to car pool. But the students do not have to car pool, so we would have the incredible result of teachers walking to work, having to hitchhike there to be picked up by their students. And students would rather go to school without their teachers so that they will not have to be taught the subject for the first hour. It is crazy. It is insane. But that is how ridiculous this mandate is. Data from Southern California indicates that forced car pooling costs companies over $100 per employee and $3,000 per vehicle taken off the road. And the EPA itself has estimated the tremendous cost into the billions of dollars annually to address a solution which itself calls minuscule. I have introduced H.R. 325 to return the true meaning to the word ``option.'' It makes the employer trip reduction mandate optional to the affected states. H.R. 325 is dedicated solely to correcting this single provision in the Clean Air Act. Nothing else. It does not decrease the quality of the air. This bill simply makes car pooling an option to reach the goal of clean air. This is not an environmental or anti-environmental bill. It simply makes car pooling voluntary in the menu of options available to achieve clean air standards. This is why this bill has such wide support. It is bipartisan, has more than 152 cosponsors, and I would encourage my colleagues to become cosponsors with us.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the provisions contained in title I of H.R. 926 dealing with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The title I provisions would put real teeth into the Regulatory Flexibility Act by allowing judicial review of regulations. This will permit small businesses to challenge agencies when they propose regulations that will stymie economic growth. I strongly support this legislation and would like to recognize my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for all the hard work he has done on this issue. The goal of blocking unnecessary Federal regulation of the economy is a worthy one. Many in Congress naively believe that no matter what costs they impose on business, these companies can merely absorb them. I do not share their view. I understand that each new mandate or regulation means higher costs, more failed enterprises, and fewer jobs for ordinary Americans. The bipartisan support of this measure speaks volumes about its merit. Both the SBA and Vice President Al Gore support its passage and legislation introduced in the last Congress dealing with this issue garnered 255 cosponsors. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure and inject some measure of fairness into the regulatory process.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House restored maximum crime fighting power to the people who best know how to use it--the men and women who make up the ranks of our local law enforcement. Broken down into six parts, the cornerstone of the GOP crime bill is the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995. This measure directly grants money to local communities based upon a formula which takes into consideration population and violent crime rate. Once the community receives the grant, it can decide how it wants to allocate the funds; for more cops, court personnel, prevention programs, etc. If it chooses to do so, it can spend all the money on cops or on prevention. The point being that the needs of the communities in McHenry County are different than the needs of New York, Los Angeles, or Detroit. The second major provision of the Republican crime bill is the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. This legislation allocates $10.5 billion in prison construction funds to States that enact or make significant progress toward truth in sentencing in their corrections programs. Truth in sentencing will require violent criminals to serve 85 percent of their sentences. This measure is about protecting the American people. In Illinois, 46 percent of inmates released from prison are back in prison within 3 years. In 1980, Illinois released 21,000 prisoners 3 months before the completion of their sentences, solely for the purpose of saving money. The State saved $60 million; however, those prisoners committed 23 murders, 32 rapes, 262 acts of arson, 681 robberies, 2,472 burglaries, 2,571 assaults, and 8,000 other crimes in 3 months following their release. By requiring inmates to serve more of their sentence, fewer will be able to revictimize society. When a judge sentences a criminal to 20, 30, or 40 years, that sentence should be carried out. What will it cost to keep criminals locked up? In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the average criminal, if not detained, costs society $171,566 per year in direct injuries to victims and direct costs such as lost jobs, sales taxes, and educational opportunities. Some of the costs associated with reincarcerating criminals include $26,000 for treatment of a gunshot wound, $2,711 to cover the cost of each criminal investigation, $700 for pretrial detention, and $1,205 for prosecution, defense, and court cost for each felony case. The annual cost of keeping a criminal in prison is $16,000. The GOP crime bills also included the Effective Death Penalty Act which will dramatically shorten the appeals process for death row prisoners. This reform will place a 2-year limit on most Federal appeals and a 1-year limit on most State appeals. The House also passed the Victim Restitution Act which mandates that criminals pay full restitution to their victims for damages caused as a result of the crime. Current law allows judges to order such restitution, but does not require it. Under this reform, restitution can be used to reimburse the victim for necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred while participating in the investigation or court proceedings. This law will also allow, but not require, the courts to order restitution of any person who was harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by the unlawful conduct of the defendant. Last year, the Democratic-controlled 103d Congress passed a crime bill that told local law enforcement agencies that Washington knows best when it comes to their needs in fighting crime. The House of Representatives in the 104th Congress has reversed this arrogance. These amendments to last year's crime bill put crime fighting power back in the local agencies and tells Washington to get out of the way. It is time that victims of crimes are served. It is time criminals are punished swiftly and serve out their sentences. Mr. Speaker, it is time that bureaucrats in Washington realize that they are not crime fighters.