Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the person who has been forgotten in all the debate that has been happening is the American worker. I can remember when I was a little kid, my dad used to pack his lunch box, a black tin box with a round top, with a salami sandwich, a piece of fruit and a thermos of coffee, as he would rise early in the morning, go off to work at the factory, and come back with a sense of satisfaction that he had made something with his hands. And that perhaps is the emblem of the American worker, somebody who actually worked in a factory and then became a master meat cutter in his grocery store, master restaurateur, and at the same time was an expert carpenter and cabinetmaker. He was a person who could do marvelous things with the hands that God gave him. That perhaps also is the picture of the American that we are not examining as we take a look at this entire cap-and-trade system. Because after all, it is the American worker who is going to be disadvantaged in many ways because of this theory that the majority wants to impose upon the American family, which according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would spike the cost of energy for the average American family of somewhere between $700 and $2,200 a year. So we start with the fact that the American worker is going to be paying a lot more for his or her energy at home before he leaves and goes off to the factory. Once he gets to the factory, exactly what is going to happen? Well, the factory is already under tremendous competition, competition domestically because of high productivity of the American manufacturers and competition because of offshore, because of countries that don't have OSHA standards, that have very few environmental standards, who care less about the safety of the worker and more about shipping that product to the United States. So we start with the distinct disadvantage already in the manufacturing sector. How much more can the American worker take? How much more can the owner of that factory take? I assembled this past week--in fact, yesterday--in the congressional district that I represent, a congressional district that has in its largest county an over 25 percent manufacturing base--55 or 60 small manufacturers. I laid out to them this cap-and-trade system and exactly what it would mean to them as manufacturers. The looks upon their faces were nothing less than startling because we start with the proposition that 535 people in Washington, D.C., suddenly wake up in the morning and decide, well, America should go into the green business, that America should get involved in the energy-saving business as if the American manufacturer and his worker have been on the sidelines, doing nothing. You have great manufacturers out there, like the Perks family from Rockford, Illinois. The Perks family has been around for three generations now, involved in combustible burners. Their goal has always been to make the most efficient combustible burner possible, and they lead the world in that technology. They just didn't wake up one morning and say, ``We should start saving energy.'' That's what productivity is all about. That's what the American manufacturer is all about--to be giving him and the small inventor the opportunity to be able to go out and to make products--to make them run faster, quicker, and leaner. The Federal Government didn't invent the term ``lean manufacturing.'' The Federal Government didn't come up with ISO standards of excellence and productivity. The Federal Government does more to hinder the innovation ability and the productivity and the energy savings of the American manufacturer than it does to help them out. Take, for example, all of the American machinery in Harvard, Illinois. There is an extraordinary patent on being able to run hydraulics on an as per unit. It gives a shot of power to move that hydraulic pump, and then the unit shuts off, saving between 60 to 80 percent of the energy costs versus a machine that runs all the time. No one in Washington called the people back home in Harvard, Illinois, and said, We have this great idea for you. The people in Washington are calling the people whom I represent and are saying, I've got news for you. I don't have new innovations for you. I don't have new technologies for you. I have a new task that's going to make you less competitive with the world, the so-called ``cap-and-trade tax,'' because the people in this body and in the other body are going to say that we are manufacturers and that we know everything about manufacturing as we sit here in our pin-striped suits and don't even know what the sweet smell of machine oil is because most of them have never been in a factory in their lives. They're going to tell our American manufacturers how to run their factories. As I talked to our American manufacturers yesterday, 55 or 60 of them, several have places where they're already manufacturing for domestic consumption in China and in Mexico. Their faces spoke the results. If it's going to become so much more expensive to manufacture in the United States, we'll just do more manufacturing in Mexico and in China. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The cost of shipping finished items from China to the United States will be less than the cost of the increase in power for people to make their products under the new cap- and-trade bill. This is absolute lunacy to be able to subject the American manufacturer and the worker to this, the worker who gets up at the crack of dawn every morning, who packs his lunch box and goes off to work and gets in his old car and puts in 8 or 10 or 12 hours a day, working to support his family, working to get the kids through college, working to pay the mortgage. All of a sudden, Congress says, You don't know what you're doing. You don't know how to run your factory. All we have to do is look at what happened in Europe. Look at the famous cap-and-trade system in Europe. Now, I don't usually look to the Europeans for examples except when they fail. In this case, the cap- and-trade system, Mr. Speaker, has been a complete and total failure. Why is that? Well, it's because you go across the Strait of Gibraltar, into Morocco and northern Africa, and you see countries that are not locked into the same type of system of control emissions. In fact, Kollo Holding in the Netherlands makes a silicon carbide. According to an article in The Washington Post, it's used as an industrial abrasive. It's the finest factory that you could find, the best in ecological construction, the finest in meeting the most stringent requirements to reduce the emissions of carbon. They're in big trouble, huge trouble, because right across in Morocco you will find a competitor--and in China--that can make it cheaper and that can ship it to Europe. So what happens to the brave soul in Europe who complies with their ill-fated cap-and-trade system? He'll probably go out of business. That's exactly what happens. What's going to happen to the United States? There will be a southern movement to Mexico as American manufacturers will be making more of their products in Mexico and shipping it across the border because it will be a lot cheaper as they won't be sacked with a cap-and-trade system. If you take a look at the Government Accountability Office report of December of 2008, this is their own organization that sets up standards by which to make measurements of efficiencies in different programs. The Government Accountability Office says there are better, less expensive and more direct methods to accomplish the goal of reducing emissions. Well, that's interesting. What are those? Well, perhaps someone ought to take a look at what the American manufacturer is already doing. You can go to a Danish manufacturer in Rockford, Illinois, called Danfoss. Danfoss makes these machines that hook onto another machine. The Danfoss machine, Mr. Speaker, measures the exact amount of energy necessary in order to run the machine right down to the lowest fraction of electrical unit required. It is highly efficient. No one from Washington called the Danfoss engineers and said, We have an idea for you. We, in Congress, wear pin-striped suits, and we can tell you how to run your manufacturing facility. No one called the city of Rockford years ago and said, We've got a great plan for you where you could take the sewage that you have in the city, turn it into methane and run three turbines so you could help the electrical grid, and there would be many fewer carbons going into the air. Mr. Speaker, Washington has no news for the American manufacturer or for the American worker except bad news. That's why we have to defeat this. We already have a lot of plans in place. One is the Republican alternative, and that's the one that rewards ingenuity. It makes it a lot easier for people to change to the latest techniques, to scrub the air, to scrub the environment. It just amazes me. It totally amazes me. We are in Rockford, Illinois, where there is close to 14 percent unemployment. It's the same in Belvidere, Illinois. Our Chrysler plant is closed for 60 days. Chrysler is in bankruptcy. We've gone from 16 million cars sold 2 years ago to 8 million cars sold this year. On top of all of the problems that manufacturing is having, now we need one more--one more regulation, one more requirement, one more chop on the block of the American manufacturer. It's time to say ``no'' to this big government that thinks it knows best. It's time to say ``no'' to Washington that thinks it has all of the answers. It's time to say ``yes'' to the American worker, ``yes'' to the little inventor, ``yes'' to the American manufacturer--the people who made things with their hands, the people who created all the wealth in the world, the leaders in technology, the leaders in ingenuity--not with the help of government but with the help of their own minds and their own hands.

Mr. MANZULLO. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman. Perhaps the answer to the number of jobs that would be lost may be found in the draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This is the Cap-and-Trade Act under title IV, if I'm reading this correctly, because it talks about worker transition. Now, that normally means somebody who's lost his job as a result of a government regulation and has to transition to something else. So they already are figuring that some people are going to be losing their jobs. My gosh, you take a look at the quote of the President. It's going to cost a tremendous amount of money, electricity rates will skyrocket in factories. When you look at the small margin of profit, for example, on castings--already under tremendous pressure from overseas--they won't be around. But something happened interestingly yesterday at the conference we had in Rockford, Illinois. Dr. Redmond Clark is a Ph.D. in environmental sciences. He's also an inventor and runs a business, and he said this astonishing statement: If American manufacturers, if all of America went to zero carbon emissions, within 7-10 years, the Chinese would more than compensate and put into the air all of the carbon emissions that the Americans had saved. Now, that is how flawed this plan is.

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentlelady yield? Another shocker that we found out is built into this proposed bill, there is a threshold limit so that the smaller manufacturers--and you don't even have to have a smokestack to be covered by this because buildings naturally emit a carbon dioxide going out through the windows--but the smaller manufacturers would be exempt from cap-and- trade. However, the EPA has now empowered itself to control carbon for greenhouse emissions. So they will be coming in with another layer of regulations even for the smaller ones. And--and this is almost certain--the EPA, in the past several months, had this proposed standard to tax cows. Any farmer that has a herd in excess of 25 cows--because cows are big methane emitters--$125 per head per year. I don't make that much profit when I sell my beef cattle, even though we haven't done it in the past couple of years. Washington, D.C. must be its own planet, how people can come up with these absurd ideas. And back home, we have two methane digesters. Some farmers got a little grant from the government to help out, and that's fine, and all of the waste from 300 dairy cattle near Pearl City, Illinois, go into this methane digester, and the methane is recaptured, goes back on the grid. It's enough to run a city of 500 homes. It's amazing. How is it that people that know so little about manufacturing can, overnight, come up with the idea that they are the experts on green manufacturing as if American manufacturers were doing nothing to increase productivity?

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded an hour of debate on manufacturing and the impact that this cap-and-trade system will have on manufacturing. I wanted to add a footnote from the congressional district that I represent. It's the top of the State of Illinois. And near east of Dubuque, on the Mississippi River, is a company called Rentech that makes hydrous ammonia urea and products for agriculture. They were in the process of switching to what's called the Fischer-Tropsch process--it's an old German process--substituting natural gas and in its place putting coal, bringing coal up the Mississippi River. And one of the byproducts of that coal would be diesel fuel, in addition to the hydrous ammonia, urea, et cetera, that could come from that facility. Once the owners found out about a proposed cap-and-trade system, that stopped that half-billion-dollar investment in the congressional district that's smarting with unemployment, running as high as 14 and 15 percent. Just the talk, just the threat of a cap-and-trade has already stifled innovation. And that's why it's extraordinarily important that we take a look at alternatives such as the ones suggested by GAO that can accomplish the same things without these onerous requirements and regulations on the backs of our American manufacturers. And so those of us who were really concerned about the loss of manufacturing in this country, those of us who really want to see us become less dependent upon the Chinese and the Indians and the Mexicans and other countries around the world and to look to ourselves for self- sufficiency, to restore manufacturing in America, we cannot have this cap-and-trade system because that has already stifled a half-billion- dollar investment in the congressional district that I represent.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If you take a look at the different lock-in periods, add to that the additional cost for appraisals that are necessitated by a flawed system in this bill, it is going to cost the industry close to $3 billion, or an extra $700 per loan. That is the hidden cost of this bill, and that is why the bill should be defeated. I had offered in the Rules Committee an amendment which, unfortunately, is not allowed to come to the floor. And I know that the taxpayers are greatly distressed that this body is supposed to be for free and open debate, and yet Members cannot freely allow amendments to come to the floor. There is an agreement that is signed between the Attorney General of New York and the people who regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on something called the Home Evaluation Code of Conduct. It is supposed to regulate the mischief that took place between the big lenders and the appraisers to cook the books in order to make the loans. The problem is this: The agreement still allows that collusion or the opportunity for collusion. In fact, the banks of this country can own appraisal management companies, which are supposed to be third-party, independent agents to find an independent appraiser in order to make sure that the property is valued correctly. And I asked that that agreement be put on hold for a year so that the collusion and the opportunity to stop the collusion could be studied and better safeguards put into effect. I was denied that opportunity. The American people were denied the opportunity to be heard on the floor because of the constrictive nature that the majority has placed upon us. Most Americans think that if a Member of Congress has an amendment, that amendment could easily come to the floor and be heard. That did not happen in this case. And because of that, it could cost the taxpayers an extra $3 billion a year because of this fatally flawed bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 520, which would name the new federal courthouse currently under construction in Rockford, Illinois after Stanley J. Roszkowski, former Federal Judge in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Roszkowski played an integral role in bringing a new federal courthouse to Rockford. Stanley Roszkowski was raised in Royalton, Illinois, one of 15 children. As a testimony to his courage and love of country, he volunteered during World War II to serve in the U.S. Army Air Corps and was assigned the role of a nose gunner on a B-26 bomber, flying over 35 missions in Italy and Germany between 1943 and 1945. Service in the Army Air Corps was an extremely hazardous occupation, with one of the highest casualty rates out of all the branches of the service. Many Allied bombers were blown out of the sky by German fighters or by flak. For those who survived being shot down, a dismal stay at a German Prisoner of War (POW) camp awaited them where many did not live to see the end of the war. The fact that Staff Sergeant Stanley Roszkowski survived the daunting odds of completing 35 separate missions is a reflection of his skill and courage and those of his fellow crewmembers. After the war, Stanley Roszkowski earned his Bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois in 1949 and subsequently earned his law degree from the College of Law at the University of Illinois in 1954. He paid for school by working as an appliance salesman and is where he met his lovely wife, Catherine. Stanley Roszkowski decided to locate his new law practice in Rockford, Illinois and become active in the local community. He was the founder and eventually became Chairman of the Board of the First State Bank and Trust of Rockford. He also was a member and Chairman of the Rockford Fire and Police Commission. Judge Roszkowski was also honored with the General Pulaski Heritage Award for Outstanding Service to the Polish-American Community in 1982. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed and the U.S. Senate confirmed Stanley Roszkowski to the federal bench where he served for the next 20 years as a Federal Judge in the Northern District of Illinois. After his retirement from the bench in 1997, Judge Roszkowski now serves as a mediator/arbitrator for the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). The aim of JAMS is to resolve some of the nations largest and most complex and contentious disputes. Given the depth of experience, knowledge, and professionalism of Judge Roszkowski, JAMS is well served to have him as a resource to help with alternative dispute resolutions. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to name the new federal courthouse in Rockford after Judge Roszkowski because of his role in the community and his driving force in making this project a reality today. I urge my colleagues to support S. 520.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding the nine earmarks I secured as part of H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 1105 is a compilation of nine regular non-security related Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bills that are each separated into their own divisions. In Division B, covering the Department of Justice, the Office of the Sheriff in Stephenson County, Illinois will receive $225,000 under the Community Oriented Policing Services Law Enforcement Technology account to place forward-looking infrared (FLIR) equipment on their Bell OH58 police helicopter for use throughout northern Illinois. The Office of the Sheriff of Stephenson County is located at 15 North Galena Avenue in Freeport, Illinois, 61032. Mr. David Snyders is the Sheriff of Stephenson County. The purpose of this funding is to assist Stephenson County with their search capabilities. The FLIR mounts under the helicopter and combines a highly sensitive digital thermal imaging camera with a color video camera inside a single housing. With this unit, the Sheriff's Office of Stephenson County will be able to locate missing persons or felons attempting to hide by their heat signature, regardless of time of day or weather conditions. The helicopter is available at no cost to any local, state, or federal law enforcement agency in northern Illinois, in addition to local fire departments. The Stephenson County Sheriff's Office is a member of the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS) in Region 2, which is comprised of 18 counties making it the largest ILEAS region in the state covering a widely dispersed population in rural Illinois. In Division C, covering the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Rockford, Illinois will receive $526,000 under the Corps' Investigations account, to continue to conduct the Keith Creek Flood Control feasibility study for the Alpine Dam in the City of Rockford, Illinois in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers. The Office of the City of Rockford, Illinois is located at 425 East State Street in Rockford, Illinois, 61104. Mr. James Ryan is the City Administrator of Rockford, Illinois. Currently, the Alpine Dam does not provide reliable flood protection and is at risk of failure, threatening 11,000 residents and businesses along Keith Creek in Rockford, Illinois. The study is necessary for the Army Corps of Engineers of Rock Island District to determine the cost and environmental impact of remedying the threat posed by the Alpine Dam. This was a joint request with Senator Richard Durbin. In Division D, covering the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Chicago/Rockford International Airport will receive $300,000 from the SBA account to support the operations of a Manufacturing Research and Development/Education Center in partnership with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Northern Illinois University (NIU), Rock Valley College (RVC), and other small business incubator programs in the community. The Greater Rockford Airport Authority is located at 60 Airport Drive in Rockford, Illinois, 61109. Mr. Bob O'Brien is the Executive Director of the Rockford Airport. The center will house classrooms as well as R&D facilities for local small businesses. The new center will support the development of new aerospace small business in the region and host a number of new aerospace related manufacturing companies at a small business incubator. The center will also provide training for the workforce required in these new endeavors. In Division E, covering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Village of Mt. Morris will receive $500,000 from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project account. The Village of Mt. Morris is located at 105 West Lincoln Street in Mt. Morris, Illinois, 60154. The Honorable Gregory Unger is the Village President of Mt. Morris. The Village of Mt. Morris is planning to design and build a new wastewater treatment plant that will replace the current facility, which is approximately 125 years old. The Illinois EPA has also imposed new operating requirements that will not be met by the current physical condition of the present system. The total estimated cost of the new system to meet 50 year growth projections is approximately $7.5 million. Federal funding is a critical component of the funding package needed to help get this project designed, and moving forward to construction. In Division F, covering the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS), I secured three separate earmarks. First, under the Higher Education account, Rockford College will receive $238,000 to equip classrooms and science laboratories with technology to significantly enhance student learning. Rockford College is located at 5050 East State Street in Rockford, Illinois, 61108. Mr. John McNamara is the Vice President of College Development. Federal funding is critical to help upgrade nine antiquated classrooms and two laboratories at Rockford College and convert them to modern smart learning centers. This is a joint request with Senator Richard Durbin. Second, under the Health Resources and Services Administration account, the Crusader Clinic in Rockford, Illinois, will receive $238,000 to help fund a new electronic health records (EHR) system. The Crusader Clinic is located at 1200 West State Street in Rockford, Illinois 61102. Mr. Gordon Eggers, Jr., is the President and CEO. The Crusader Clinic is a community health center that serves multiple counties in northern Illinois and provides care to over 40,000 low- income, uninsured, and underinsured patients annually in the region. Because of the growing patient caseload and new federal requirements, this community health clinic now has a great need to implement an EHR system throughout their clinics at an estimated cost of $1 million. This funding will help improve the delivery of medical care to those who would otherwise use the emergency room at local hospitals. This is also a joint request with Senator Richard Durbin. Third, also under the Health Resources and Services Administration account, the University of Illinois' College of Medicine in Rockford, Illinois will receive $238,000 to help build the National Center for Rural Health Professions. The Rockford campus is located at 1601 Parkview Avenue in Rockford, Illinois, 61107. Dr. Martin Lipsky is the Dean of the Rockford campus of the U of I College of Medicine. The Center will conduct research, develop curricula, implement and evaluate rural medical and health care education models, provide consultation to other medical colleges, and study trends in rural health related to health professional training needs. Medical colleges throughout the U.S. can use the research findings and curriculum models to implement training for rural health professionals to practice in medically under- served rural areas in their respective states. The College of Medicine has raised $4 million in private funds toward this $32 million expansion project. Another $14 million has been committed by the University of Illinois, and the university is also seeking state funding to complete the project. In Division I, covering the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation, I secured two separate earmarks. First, under the Economic Development Initiatives account at HUD, the City of Freeport, Illinois will receive $237,500 for various public infrastructure improvements. The City of Freeport is located at 230 West Stephenson Street in Freeport, Illinois, 61032. The Honorable George Gaulrapp is the Mayor of Freeport. Freeport wants to make improvements to public infrastructure in the downtown area to promote and support expansion of manufacturing facilities. The funds would be used for a variety of infrastructure improvements, including replacing a water main, upgrading and ``undergrounding'' above-ground power lines, and various roadway and streetscape upgrades in downtown Freeport to make it a more attractive place to live and work. Second, McHenry County, Illinois will receive $570,000 under the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation account to widen Rakow Road. The County of McHenry is located at 2200 Seminary Avenue in Woodstock, Illinois. Mr. Peter Austin is the County Administrator of McHenry County. This road project will help relieve traffic congestion and improve safety by increasing capacity to Rakow Road from Ackman Road to Illinois Route 31 by adding two or three through lanes in each direction and adequate turn lanes at the intersections. In 2004 and 2005, there were 566 accidents (71 percent were rear-end collisions) and 171 injuries at this three mile stretch of highway that desperately needs improvement. This request also begins to implement the $5.72 million authorization for this project that I secured as part of the 2005 Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-59). Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative David Obey, and the Ranking Minority Member, Representative Jerry Lewis, and the respective leadership of the six Appropriations subcommittees for working with me in a bipartisan manner to include these nine requests in this spending bill. I also want to thank Senator Richard Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, for joining with me on three of these requests.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. The Republicans have been offering an alternative to this $800 billion stimulus. The Republican plan includes, among other things, decreasing the lowest two income tax brackets by 5 percent, which results in a $3,300 income tax cut for married couples, money that you can use for any purpose that you want. And it includes a 20 percent tax deduction for small business income and a home buyers tax credit of $7,500. A real stimulus means that the country needs to be able to present something to the American people and say, look, here is what you can do in order to restart the lines of production to get the economy going again. Mostly what we see is a trickle-down economy. And people from the other side of the aisle don't like me to mention it because that was associated with Reagan. But the trickle-down stimulus means you pour money in from the top, and you use it as a bandage in hoping that sometime the economy will recover and people will start buying again. It doesn't work that way. Let me give you an example of a trickle-up economy, an economic stimulus, that is so simple. Two years ago, this Nation sold 17 million new cars. Then that dropped to 10 million new automobiles. And at an average price of $25,000 per vehicle, that means that there was $175 billion in direct sales of motor vehicles that simply vanished. If you take that by any economic factor, three or seven, whatever it is, that is $1 trillion that was deleted from our economy. And that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people not only directly involved in manufacturing automobiles becoming unemployed, but the OEMs and the people on supply lines, and in fact people such as Ron Bullard, who has a place called Bison Gear in St. Charles, Illinois, just over the congressional line from the district that I'm pleased to represent. And Ron Bullard makes electrical motors. And a couple of years ago, he put in two lines of equipment, Hoss equipment, proudly made in America. And with those two lines, he is going head to head with the Chinese and the Mexicans making a better and cheaper electric motor and serviced locally. And many of those motors go into the manufacturing process. And so when we look at the impact of the loss of orders in the manufacturing cycle, we can't even begin to realize how big this is. Take this example: If we gave a $5,000 voucher to every person who wants to buy a brand new automobile, and we brought automobiles up to the 15 million sold as opposed to the 17 million that were sold, the total cost to the taxpayer is $75 billion. Well, that is a lot of money. It is 15 times 25, 15 times $5,000 for the voucher. So somebody could go into a Chrysler dealer, for example, and buy a brand new Jeep Patriot proudly made in the 16th Congressional District, which I serve, and instead of paying $20,000 for it, you pay $15,000, a little under $300 for 5 years. There are enough people working in America today that would love to buy a brand new automobile at 20 to 25 to 15 percent off. It is a quick turn-around. You exchange the VIN numbers on the cars for a $5,000 check coming directly from Treasury to the automobile dealer. And what does that do? It gets rid of the cars that are on the floors of the automobile dealers. It gets rid of the cars that are sitting on the lots of the manufacturers. People go back to work making more automobiles. People come off unemployment compensation and start paying income tax. And when people start buying automobiles, State and local sales tax coffers start up again. OEMs put their people back to work. We need to restart the entire supply chain of manufacturing in America for us to have the opportunity to come out of this economic doldrums, or whatever word we want to find for this recession. That is trickle-up economics. The voucher goes directly for the intended purpose. People go back to work. The economy gets restarted. This is what we need as part of the Republican stimulus. This is what America needs. What is the cost to restart manufacturing to sell 15 million cars in America? Seventy-five billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but it is a long, long way from the $800 billion in spending, very little of which is related to stimulating the economy.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The problem today is nobody is talking about restarting manufacturing. That's what we need to do in order to re-stimulate the economy. We need to help businesses create orders and make sales, and the place to start is by offering a voucher, so that if you buy a brand-new automobile you get a $5,000 voucher. This is the way to jump-start the economy without continuing to spend trillions of dollars. In 2007, 17 million new cars were sold, a year later, only 10 million. That sucked $175 billion out of the economy. If we can get back to selling 15 million cars, we can add $125 billion to the economy, and if you multiplied that times three or seven, which is economic growth, easily over $1 trillion. When cars and trucks start selling, people go back to work. It refurbishes local and State tax funds. It restarts the manufacturing and supply chains. People, instead of receiving unemployment compensation, start paying Federal and State income tax. This is so easy. Get the people back to work to manufacture the automobiles, have a $5,000 voucher. The total cost is only $75 billion for 15 million new automobiles. This is what it takes. This is called trickle-up economy. You aim the focus of the stimulus at the problem, and that's the lack of sales of automobiles and trucks in this country.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this issue can be boiled down to orders. We need to help businesses create orders and make sales. Currently all sectors of our society in the economy face oversupply. The place to start moving products is by offering substantial tax credits or vouchers for part of the purchase of automobiles and homes. That is one simple consumer-driven trickle-up theory that, if deep enough, can jump-start the economy without continuing to spend trillions of dollars on blank-check solutions. Unfortunately, most of the plans submitted deal with bailing out people's mistakes and using taxpayers' dollars to buy up bad loans. That's called trickle-down economics. People also talk about creating new jobs but don't understand there are plenty of jobs already in existence, that people just need orders in order to go back to work. Here's something that at $75 billion is considerably less expensive for the taxpayer than current proposals and will begin to restore our economy immediately. First, in 2007, 17 million new cars were sold in America; a year later, 10 million. A net loss of 7 million cars means $175 billion was directly eliminated from the economy. If we can get back to 15 million new cars sold, that would add $125 billion directly into the economy. Economic multipliers could bring that to $1 trillion. When cars and trucks start selling, it moves inventory from dealers and factory lots. It restores sales tax coffers for State and local governments, it increases State and Federal tax revenue and restarts the manufacturing chain which is absolutely necessary to get this country moving economically again. By offering a tax credit or, better than that, a voucher for $5,000, the dealer cashes that in directly with the government and somebody can then buy a brand new car, such as a Patriot, probably made in the 16th Congressional District, for not $20,000, but $15,000, which is only $200 a month for 5 years.

Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. All I'm saying is why have a bunch of bureaucrats trying to oversee where the money is going? The problem with housing foreclosures is that the people are losing their jobs. So we can have all the remedies that we want for foreclosures, but unless people get back to work, they will fall behind again. What we are saying is restart the economy through priming the manufacturing process, get the people back to work, get the money coming in, then the other problems will be easier to solve. I agree there is a communication. We are agreed on a lot of things.

Mr. MANZULLO. If the gentleman would further yield. The car dealers need orders now. Once the orders come in, the cars move off their showroom floors, they can pay their debt. And the lines of debt for car dealers doing floor financing have really reopened again, not entirely, but enough that they can get enough credit to sell their automobiles. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, today I am privileged to be joined by my good friend and co-chair of the Congressional Automotive Caucus, Representative Fred Upton, in introducing the Get America Moving Again Act of 2009. This bill is simple. It provides a tax credit of $5,000 for any new vehicle purchased from January 1, 2009, until December 31, 2009. In order to prevent a large drop off in new car sales next year, the tax credit would be cut in half to $2,500 starting on January 1, 2010. The tax incentive would then expire on December 31, 2010. In addition, the bill provides a tax credit of $2,000 for any late model used vehicle purchase, as defined as 3 years old or less, from January 1, 2009, until December 31, 2009 so that automobile dealers are not saddled with unsellable used cars. This tax credit would also be cut in half to $1,000 starting on January 1, 2010 and would also end on December 31, 2010. The tax credit would be limited for vehicles that cost under $50,000 and would only be allowed for households with an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or less. I am also working on a second alternative bill that will move this tax credit concept to a voucher system so that consumers can see the immediate benefit of this incentive at the point of sale of a vehicle. Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill today because we need to get people thinking now about ways to re-ignite consumer demand for vehicles. Our economy is in crisis today because of insufficient consumer demand for goods and services due to the fear in this country of making a significant purchase. All the economic stimulus plans that are being discussed deal with bailing out people's mistakes or using taxpayers' dollars for public works projects and more government programs. Some also talk about the government creating ``new jobs'' but they don't understand that there are still jobs in existence and all they lack is orders from consumers. We need something easy to understand that is considerably less expensive for the taxpayer than current proposals. We need a proposal that will begin to restore our economy immediately by providing a significant incentive to purchase the second largest purchase a typical consumer will make in their lifetime (after housing) in order to help jump-start the economy. First, in 2007, about 17 million new vehicles were sold in America. A year later, only 10 million cars were sold. This represents a net loss of 7 million cars. At an average price of $25,000, this loss of new car sales translated into $175 billion that was directly removed from the economy in 2008. If we can get back to selling 15 million cars, that would add about $125 billion directly into the economy. Multiplier effects of between 3 to 7 percent could increase the U.S. economic benefit of selling 5 million more cars up to $900 billion. Second, when cars and trucks start selling, it moves inventory from factory lots and dealers showrooms. It pays salaries of all the vehicle assembly workers, dealers, and employees. It replenishes local and state sales tax receipts. It restarts manufacturing and supply chains and the economy begins to boom again because vehicles are the second biggest consumer item (after housing). Third, by offering a tax credit of $5,000 for the purchase of a new car or truck, an individual could buy, for example, a new Chrysler Jeep Patriot (assembled in Belvidere, Illinois, which I am proud to represent) for less than $15,000 or around $200 a month for 5 years. This incentive is large enough to encourage consumers on the fence to make the decision this year to buy a car. Fourth, we need to implement this tax incentive immediately while people who still have jobs are able to buy a new car. We will continue to lose jobs until items are again purchased. Common sense and sound economics have given way to ``I want my fair share of the stimulus'' mentality. No one is thinking about the massive inflation and the higher taxes that will eventually be necessary to pay for the current stimulus and bailout proposals. Many are unfortunately focused on the pre-eminence of ``the government is the only answer'' doctrine. There is little regard for restarting our economy from the bottom up. While government cannot be the answer, it can be part of the solution. We can do things now that will drastically alter the negative course we are on. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join Rep. Upton and me in co-sponsoring the Get America Moving Again Act of 2009.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a family emergency required me to miss the last series of votes held today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 17 (H. Res. 53) and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 18 (H. Res. 40).

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite interesting because, if you take a look at the Surface Transportation Board's weighing an application for a merger, one would think that items such as the safety of the people, the backup of traffic, incremental delays at crossings, and hundreds of school bus crossings per day on impacted tracks would have some type of a consideration. The problem is that under the present law, in an oversight made in 1995, whenever the Surface Transportation Board tries to weigh the impacts on local communities, the only criteria that is used is whether or not it violates antitrust laws. And ironically, issues of safety are not taken into consideration. And that's shocking. It's apparent that there is a big problem in this bill. The bill has application across the country. It has particular application to northern Illinois to tens of thousands of my constituents that have to travel through the town of Barrington, which is in Congresswoman Bean's district. To these folks, the backup of traffic is significant. The inability to get to work on time; the fact that, from what we understand, Canadian National plans on putting in trains that are 2 miles long clogging all three intersections in the village of Barrington at the same time. And it's through that village that there are 800 school bus crossings each day. And it's amazing that this bill tries to correct something so elementary as to say whenever there is a request to merge railroad companies, that safety should be a consideration. I'm here today to offer my unqualified support for the Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act (H.R. 6707). This bill, which I'm proud to co-sponsor, will help solve a left-over problem from when Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1995. The Surface Transportation Board, STB, took over the functions of the ICC with the missions of resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. Current law gives the STB considerable discretion to disapprove transactions involving at least two Class I rail carriers but allows much less flexibility to disapprove transactions like CN's proposed acquisition of the EJ&E. In fact, the law states that the STB ``shall'' approve the transaction ``unless'' the Board determines it will hurt competitiveness, restrain trade, or fail to meet significant transportation needs. In plain English, this means that the STB will not stop a transaction because of local community concerns unrelated to anti-trust issues. This may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction that has long tipped the scale toward privately owned rail carriers and away from the communities who have to live with them. In northern Illinois, the community of Barrington is unalterably opposed to the proposed sale of the EJ&E line to the Canadian National, CN, Railway, as evidenced by the thousands of people that showed up to the STB scoping session last January and their formal hearing last August. This is not because of a NIMBY syndrome--everyone understands the need to improve the national rail transportation network and would be willing to compromise. But having additional freight train traffic traverse on the existing aging EJ&E track will not be just a simple minor inconvenience--it will fundamentally alter the entire nature of this picturesque town. While I do not directly represent Barrington, Illinois, I am honored to serve the thousands of commuters who live in southern McHenry County who must travel through Barrington, either by car or rail, to get to work or to perform daily errands. While I've been concerned about this deal since day one, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement recently relesed by the STB confirmed many of my worst fears about increased accident risks, increased air pollution, increased exposure to hazardous material, and increased traffic. The report also acknowledged that railroads traditionally only contribute 5 to 10 percent of the costs to mitigate these problems. That would leave taxpayers paying the tab for a transaction that solely benefits a private company's bottom line. I say it's not about what's traditional. It's about what's fair. And the people from the 16th District of Illinois, who I've had a plenty of chances to talk with over the past few weeks, agree with me. H.R. 6707 corrects an oversight made in 1995 and requires the STB to weigh impacts on local communities more heavily when considering any railroad transaction. In fact, the STB would have to reject a proposed acquisition if it finds that transaction's impacts on the affected communities outweigh the transportation benefits. Congress should learn from this experience with this particular transaction and make sure that no community in the Nation will ever have to go through what Barrington is experiencing now. In this particular case, I understand that this transaction could have some macrobenefits, but CN accomplishes that goal primarily by exporting the train congestion problems in downtown Chicago to outlying suburban areas such as Barrington. Tens of thousands of motorists in northern Illinois--especially those in McHenry County--travel through Barrington on their way to work each day, crossing the EJ&E line at Route 14, Route 59, and Lake-Cook Road. Approximately another 4,000 commuters from McHenry County ride Metra rail to work in the Chicago- land area each day, crossing the EJ&E line in Barrington. All of these people will be affected by additional CN freight traffic. At the very least, they are going to encounter inconvenient delays and increases in air pollution. At the worst, it could become a matter of life and death. Not only could emergency responder vehicles become trapped on all sides by a train, but school buses in the Barrington school district cross the EJ&E lines about 800 times a day. Additional freight trains could quadruple the safety risk of students who traverse the crossings each day. In closing, l'd like to express my appreciation to my friend Jim Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, for introducing this piece of legislation and for working with me and others in the suburban Chicago delegation in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6707 today.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding the two earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 is a compilation of several regular appropriations bills, including the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Appropriations bill, which is now Division C: The Integrated Power for Aircraft Technologies II, otherwise known as the INPACT II program, will receive $3.5 million in this bill through the Aerospace Propulsion account under the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) program at the U.S. Air Force located at the Wright-Paterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. This program will help meet the needs of the Air Force to address the demands on aircraft secondary power systems that continue to limit air vehicle improvements. The INPACT II initiative is a means to develop and mature innovative power technologies and system energy optimization methods. The initiative is comprised of discrete technology, system optimization, and integration elements that provide the enabling foundation for future air vehicles and capabilities. The program received $5.3 million in the FY '08 Defense Appropriations Act, and is a ``plus-up'' of an existing competitively won contract. In addition, the Illinois Center for Defense Manufacturing will receive $2 million in this bill through the Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology account under the RDT&E program at the U.S. Army. This program will be performed by Northern Illinois University (NIU), located at 1120 East Diehl Road in Naperville, Illinois, and is a joint request with Representative Phil Hare of the 17th District of Illinois. This program will help meet the needs of the Army to develop and produce new innovative equipment at a reduced cost. The Illinois Center for Defense Manufacturing, working with its partner at the EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois, continues to develop new applications of advanced manufacturing technology by working with small companies and bringing them into the defense supply chain. Many innovations in new technologies such as micro-machining and laser cladding are being achieved in Rockford, and this initiative will broaden the scope statewide extending to the Quad Cities located in Rep. Hare's district. Research and development efforts will also be directed to developing applications for titanium and enhancing the ability of the Rock Island Arsenal to make titanium components. The program received $3.2 million in the FY '08 Defense Appropriations Act. Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Representative John Murtha, and the Ranking Minority Member, Representative Bill Young, for working with me in a bipartisan manner to include these two requests in the defense portion of this spending bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, tonight we recognize the retirement of two great Members of Congress from the State of Illinois, Jerry Weller and Ray LaHood. Both of these gentlemen came with the great Republican class of 1994. It's indicative because these are two guys that are rebels with a cause, always believed in a continuous fight, never would miss a fight that would take place on the floor of the House. And in particular, Ray LaHood, who represents Abraham Lincoln's old district in Illinois, probably one of the greatest institutionalists. A person who has been with this Chamber for a considerable period of time serving as chief of staff to minority leader Bob Michel. And what's interesting that he puts in his own biography is the fact that he says, ``Leading the efforts to establish a higher level of civility, decorum, and bipartisanship in the House of Representatives.'' I don't know how you can pay a higher tribute to somebody than that. Recognizes that he had the--call it the honor, whatever it is, of being the person to hold on to the gavel during the impeachment hearings or impeachment proceedings taking place in this body of President Clinton. And the reason he was chosen is because of somebody who loves this institution, understands the meaning of order, and wanted to bring the highest level of civility to a place that has been torn up by things other than civility, especially during that period of time involving the impeachment. And Jerry Weller. Yes, Jerry. What an interesting person he has always been. What a great American. What an interesting start to politics. When he ran for the general assembly and then he lost, but he thought that he had won in a very interesting election that was taken away from him just before he was sworn in to be a member of the general assembly. But Jerry came back with a great class, and every married couple in this country has Jerry Weller to thank for the fact that he's the one who's the leading champion of the 2001 marriage tax penalty. Every couple in the country has him to thank for saving at least $1,700 on their joint tax return. Always an interesting individual. I was in Chicago with him one time attending a hearing, and we went to a restaurant on the north side. I lived way out in the country, and actually Jerry's background is a hog farmer. And we went to this restaurant, presumed that nobody knew who we were, and somebody came over and said, ``Aren't you Congressman Jerry Weller?'' And I turned to him and I said, ``I bet you paid that person to say that, to come over here and recognize you in Chicago way out of your territory.'' But I have known him as a confidante, as a friend. I had the opportunity when I chaired the Small Business Committee to travel with him around his district. And a small town mayor came up to me and said, ``You know, Congressman, I have been mayor here for a long time, but when Jerry got elected, he called me. And no one has ever called me and taken an interest in the small town that I represent. And it wasn't for the purpose of trying to get projects, because we know that those are very difficult when you have a lot of cities. But Jerry Weller cares about the little people in this country so much so that he contacted all of the small town mayors and all the mayors just to say that he's our new Congressman and he's there to help us.'' I can't find a better tribute to an individual who does stuff like that, anybody who takes the time to travel the area and get to know the people. I also noticed that when I was with him, people would call me ``Congressman Manzullo'' but they would call him ``Jerry.'' I said, You know what? What a title of honor to feel comfortable enough around this man, and even with the dignified title of ``Congressman,'' they called him ``Jerry.'' And why? Because Jerry has always been Jerry. Just your average young man working on a hog farm with a desirous heart to serve America elected to the United States House of Representatives. And Jerry, we're going to miss you. We're going to miss your humor, your unfunny jokes. We laughed at them just to be polite. And, Ray, we're going to miss you also because of the dignity that you always would bring to the House of Representatives. You had the heaviest mallet in the House. When you hit that mallet, people would sort of stand to attention.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor today the oldest, continuous social organization in Rockford, Illinois--the Rockford Burns Club--which will celebrate its 150th anniversary on November 5, 2008. The Rockford Burns Club is one of the oldest Burns Clubs in the United States that was established to honor Scottish heritage and, specifically, the great poet, Robert Burns. Not only are his works historically important but Robert Burns is the quintessential symbol of Scotland and the Scottish people, many of who emigrated to the United States for greater opportunities. There are approximately 4.8 million Americans of Scottish descent-- nearly as many as live in Scotland today. Their independent spirit continues to contribute enormously to the growth and well-being of the United States. Many Scottish-Americans played a formative role in the political and economic development of this Nation, including several of our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas McKean of Pennsylvania, the Reverend John Witherspoon of New Jersey, and Alexander Hamilton of New York; and the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell. The Rockford Burns Club fosters this creative spirit by reminding us what is best about Scottish culture, including the literary contributions of Robert Burns. I salute the current leadership of the Rockford Burns Club for their efforts to keep this tradition alive, and I wish them every continued success for at least another 150 years.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Department of Justice for recently proposed regulations relating to the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. The program provides death benefits for the survivors of public safety officers who die in the line of duty; and disability benefits to those officers who have been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and thereby prevented from performing any gainful work; and also educational assistance benefits for surviving family members. Among other things, these proposed regulations will help to shore up the program against fraud and abuse by clarifying the requirements for certifications and their effect. I strongly support the mission of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, and I commend the Department of Justice for keeping the regulations up to date and for taking action to ensure that the funds available go to those public safety officers (and their survivors) that deserve them. I would like to take a moment to comment on the statutory predicate for some of these regulations. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized,\1\ Public Law 94-430 creates a ``limited program,'' whose principal purpose is to help ensure that the families of ``public'' officers be protected from financial calamity that is likely to result from the death or permanent and total disability, in the line of duty, of the primary money-maker. The statute (including the two parallel 2001 benefits statutes, which do not, strictly speaking, amend the Public Law or directly affect the precise program it creates) enshrines various and competing policy considerations and purposes that it proposes to achieve by particular means that have been worked out, over the last 30 years and more, in the legislative process. Because no law pursues its ends at all costs, the limitations expressly or implicitly contained in its text and structure are no less an articulation of its purposes (and the intent, goals, and policies that inform it), than its substantive grants of authority are. Benefits under these statutes--charges on the public fisc--are to be granted fairly, but not speculatively, or beyond what the statutory language unequivocally requires and unequivocally expresses, or beyond the letter of the difficult judgments reached in the legislative process and clearly reflected in the statutory text. It is precisely to enable the Department to balance and harmonize these various considerations into a single workable and coherent program that the law confers extraordinary administrative and interpretive authority on the Department. For example, at least seven distinct statutory provisions--42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3796c(a) (twice), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d- 3(a) & (b), 3782(a)--expressly authorize the Department to issue program regulations and policies here, and the law expressly provides that those regulations and policies are determinative of conflict of law issues relating to the program, and that responsibility for making final determinations shall rest with the Department. Under the Public Law (as under the parallel 2001 statutes), the very right to a death or disability benefit, which the Supreme Court correctly has recognized as a legal ``gratuity'' \2\ (and thus not ``remedial'' in nature), is not freestanding, but contingent, rather, upon a determination by the Department. When Public Law 94-430 was enacted in 1976, only the Circuit Courts or the old Court of Claims (of similar rank) heard appeals from final rulings of the Department of Justice thereunder, which meant that only one level of judicial review ordinarily was available to claimants and the Department, alike. In 1982 (when the appellate functions of the Court of Claims generally were merged into the newly-created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), jurisdiction over these appeals-- apparently as a result of an oversight--was not transferred to the Federal Circuit, and thus (unlike the case with other administrative appeals, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1295, 1296), by default, lay in what is now the Court of Federal Claims, established under Article I of the Constitution, rather than Article III, with an additional level of appeals available in the Federal Circuit. Although there are notable and distinguished exceptions,\3\ over the past decade or so, many of the Federal Claims Court's rulings on these appeals applied the law incorrectly,\4\ sometimes disregarding the express terms of the relevant statute \5\ or implementing regulations,\6\ or binding and applicable Federal Circuit/Court of Claims precedent,\7\ and even Supreme Court precedent.\8\ To order the administering agency to pay on a claim when payment is not clearly warranted by the programmatic statutes and their implementing regulations and administrative interpretive superstructure is as much an affront to the law as for the agency not to pay when payment is clearly required by those statutes and regulations. Overall, the sixteen opinions issued to date by the Federal Circuit (and its predecessor) under the statute \9\ indicate a proper understanding of the law and the application of the Chevron doctrine to the Department's determinations. (All but two of these opinions were affirmances of the administering agency; in Demutiis, the agency was affirmed on all points but a very minor one (relating to application of a (now-repealed) regulation),\10\ and the 1980 holding in Harold, which reversed the Department's determination, itself soon thereafter was rendered moot, as a practical matter, by a statutory amendment consonant with the Department's position.) For these reasons, the corrective proviso in the consolidated appropriations legislation, entrusting judicial appeals under Public Law 94-430 (and the two 2001 statutes) exclusively to the Federal Circuit \11\ (and returning to a single level of judicial review, as originally intended) should further the purposes of the program, reduce litigation costs for claimants and the taxpayers, and serve the interests of justice.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Department of Justice for recently proposed regulations relating to the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. The program provides death benefits for the survivors of public safety officers who die in the line of duty; and disability benefits to those officers who have been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and thereby prevented from performing any gainful work; and also educational assistance benefits for surviving family members. Among other things, these proposed regulations will help to shore up the program against fraud and abuse by clarifying the requirements for certifications and their effect. I strongly support the mission of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, and I commend the Department of Justice for keeping the regulations up to date and for taking action to ensure that the funds available go to those public safety officers (and their survivors) that deserve them. I would like to take a moment to comment on the statutory predicate for some of these regulations. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, Public Law 94-430 creates a ``limited program,'' whose principal purpose is to help ensure that the families of ``public'' officers be protected from financial calamity that is likely to result from the death or permanent and total disability, in the line of duty, of the primary money-maker. The statute (including the two parallel 2001 benefits statutes, which do not, strictly speaking, amend the Public Law or directly affect the precise program it creates) enshrines various and competing policy considerations and purposes that it proposes to achieve by particular means that have been worked out, over the last 30 years and more, in the legislative process. Because no law pursues its ends at all costs, the limitations expressly or implicitly contained in its text and structure are no less an articulation of its purposes (and the intent, goals, and policies that inform it), than its substantive grants of authority are. Benefits under these statutes--charges on the public fisc--are to be granted fairly, but not speculatively, or beyond what the statutory language unequivocally requires and unequivocally expresses, or beyond the letter of the difficult judgments reached in the legislative process and clearly reflected in the statutory text. It is precisely to enable the Department to balance and harmonize these various considerations into a single workable and coherent program that the law confers extraordinary administrative and interpretive authority on the Department. For example, at least seven distinct statutory provisions--42 U.S.C. 3796c(a) (twice), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d-3(a) & (b), 3782(a)--expressly authorize the Department to issue program regulations and policies here, and the law expressly provides that those regulations and policies are determinative of conflict of law issues relating to the program, and that responsibility for making final determinations shall rest with the Department. Under the Public Law (as under the parallel 2001 statutes), the very right to a death or disability benefit, which the Supreme Court correctly has recognized as a legal ``gratuity'' (and thus not ``remedial'' in nature), is not freestanding, but contingent, rather, upon a determination by the Department. When Public Law 94-430 was enacted in 1976, only the Circuit Courts or the old Court of Claims (of similar rank) heard appeals from final rulings of the Department of Justice thereunder, which meant that only one level of judicial review ordinarily was available to claimants and the Department, alike. In 1982 (when the appellate functions of the Court of Claims generally were merged into the newly-created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), jurisdiction over these appeals-- apparently as a result of an oversight--was not transferred to the Federal Circuit, and thus (unlike the case with other administrative appeals, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. 1295, 1296), by default, lay in what is now the Court of Federal Claims, established under Article I of the Constitution, rather than Article III, with an additional level of appeals available in the Federal Circuit. Although there are notable and distinguished exceptions, over the past decade or so, many of the Federal Claims Court's rulings on these appeals applied the law incorrectly, sometimes disregarding the express terms of the relevant statute or implementing regulations, or binding and applicable Federal Circuit/Court of Claims precedent, and even Supreme Court precedent. To order the administering agency to pay on a claim when payment is not clearly warranted by the programmatic statutes and their implementing regulations and administrative interpretive superstructure is as much an affront to the law as for the agency not to pay when payment is clearly required by those statutes and regulations. Overall, the 16 opinions issued to date by the Federal Circuit (and its predecessor) under the statute indicate a proper understanding of the law and the application of the Chevron doctrine to the Department's determinations. (All but two of these opinions were affirmances of the administering agency; in Demutiis, the agency was affirmed on all points but a very minor one (relating to application of a (now- repealed) regulation), and the 1980 holding in Harold, which reversed the Department's determination, itself soon thereafter was rendered moot, as a practical matter, by a statutory amendment consonant with the Department's position.) For these reasons, the corrective proviso in the consolidated appropriations legislation, entrusting judicial appeals under Public Law 94-430 (and the two 2001 statutes) exclusively to the Federal Circuit (and returning to a single level of judicial review, as originally intended) should further the purposes of the program, reduce litigation costs for claimants and the taxpayers, and serve the interests of justice.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, America faces an energy crisis that threatens the livelihood of the people we represent. Every day they get up to go to work, many people wonder whether or not they can afford the gas for their tanks. And to compound it, the high cost of energy is destroying manufacturing jobs in our country. My largest city is at 11 percent unemployment. Many manufacturing facilities have been hit because of the high cost of energy; they simply cannot compete. Today, we debate an energy bill that further compounds the problem. Last night, the Democrats filed a bill that gives the illusion of opening up our coast to drilling, but really continues to keep those areas closed, with no opportunity to debate it. Last May, I authored a 12-point gas relief plan that incorporates more domestic production of oil, conservation, and new fuel and vehicle technologies. Until these technologies come online, we have to increase our supply of oil to give us the relief that we need, to give us the time that we need. We have enough oil now in order to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. Does that mean that we use it all up? Of course we don't. We simply need this as an opportunity for breathing time until we can develop these new technologies. The time had come to put partisanship aside and solve this issue on behalf of the American people.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the adage that one reaps what he sows. As we seek to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac today, Congress is reaping what it has sown for so many years. These organizations were supposed to help Americans buy their homes by making the mortgage market work better. But in pursuit of this goal, Congress and the regulators allowed these two organizations to shun good governance in pursuit of high profits. What was supposed to be a boost to the taxpayers, has turned into a raw deal characterized by privatized profits for socialized risk. And now, Congress is in a bind: allow Fannie and Freddie to realize the results of their risky behavior and deal a catastrophic blow to an already troubled economy; or fulfill the implicit promise made to shareholders and bail out these two organizations. Congress created its own trap by allowing Fannie and Freddie to become too big to fail, and given their huge market exposure, it has become obvious that a bailout of some sort is necessary. But this is a bailout of the worst kind, one that does not even seek to mimic the actions of the private market in punishing those who take too many risks. Unlike other bills we have passed that required government intervention into the private market, there is no mandate that the taxpayer be repaid. Fannie's and Freddie's CEOs don't get paid any less; the board of directors remains the same; and Fannie and Freddie are specifically allowed to continue the risky practices that got us into this mess in the first place. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. If we are going to put billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the line, we need to make sure that something like this never, ever happens again. We need the reforms that are necessary in order to make sure that these two government-sponsored enterprises act more like an enterprise than they do like somebody that is putting the tab on the taxpayers' pocketbook.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend to the attention of this Congress the following speech by one of my constituents, 16- year-old Heidi Erbsen, of Stephenson County, Illinois. Heidi participated in an oratory contest hosted by the American Legion. Her speech won first place at the local, division and state levels, and she then moved on and completed as a quarter finalist at the national level of competition. As we face the difficult decisions of today, I hope Heidi's words will stir us to cling to our heritage as we seek to create a brighter tomorrow. Creating a Brighter Tomorrow (By Heidi Erbsen) As many of you know, Abraham Lincoln is notorious for the Gettysburg Address, which states, ``Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.'' When he spoke these words in 1863, it must have been hard for him to imagine our country's future. With all of the struggles facing our nation, how could he have ever known for sure that we would continue to prosper? The Civil War had split the nation, torn families apart, and claimed thousands of American lives, yet President Lincoln still believed in a brighter tomorrow for his country and his people. This mentality has carried our country through every single struggle it has faced. It is the belief that the people of our nation can give it a brighter tomorrow. And now, for over 200 years our country has prospered because of this belief, and it will continue to do so as long as we uphold this legacy. When the monarchy in Europe began to mandate religion and other personal affairs in the 1600s, many people began to seek refuge from their oppression. The rule in Europe made it so hard for people to live without persecution that many sought to leave their homes in search of a New Life. Thousands of these people found their new life in what was then known as the New World. Since the pilgrims sailed to America, this country has been a monument of hope. This New Land represented a chance for men and women to start over new. It gave them a chance to create their own fortune and futures. It was a land not yet at the grip of a stifling ruler or government. Most of these colonists arrived here with nothing in their pockets, and a dream in their hearts. It was the dream of freedom and prosperity, and it would not by any means come easy. The first men and women to colonize America suffered more than any of us can imagine. They endured brutal wars, strife, famine, and much more, but they never gave up their dream, and slowly they began to see this dream come alive. When the same ill leadership the pilgrims had escaped in the 1600s began to take hold of the New World in the 1700s the colonists finally fought back. After the Revolutionary War plagued them with years of death and despair, a new horizon dawned on America. The Declaration of Independence was signed and what was formerly known as The New World became The United States of America. Becoming a free nation of our own may have seemed like the end of struggle for the people of America at the time, but it was really only the beginning. After being ruled by a single monarch for so long the people in our country had no idea how to govern themselves. When they were finally declared a free nation there was a long period of struggle for guidance and rule. Many feared that any form of government would tarnish the freedom they had struggled so hard to achieve. The very men who wrote our Constitution harvested the fear that they would become their own dictator. They knew that it was entirely up to them to see that the future of their country was a bright one, free from persecution and oppression in any form. That is why they did everything in their power to dispose of any form of ultimate rule. They knew they had only one chance to set the land of their dreams into motion. They wanted a balance between the power and the people. This way the people could have a say in what was just in everyday life rather than abiding by the rules of a leader focused only on what would make things easier for him or her. As a solution, they developed a three-part system, each containing officials elected either indirectly or directly by the people, each branch having one main duty: To see that one particular person or even section of the government never gained too much power. Not only did this three-part system give them the balance they were striving for, but our writers of our constitution hoped to ensure that every man, woman, and child living in America benefited from the natural freedoms to which we are all entitled. And to this day, it does just that. As citizens of America today, we are still reaping the benefits of the sturdy foundation that was built up by our ancestors. The men and women who came together to put a stop to persecution did so not in vain. Look around. We are still living without it today. We have preserved their efforts, but in doing so some of us have lost sight of the sacrifices that have been made. Today many Americans take the freedoms we have for granted. I've lived in the United States all my life, and I'm sure many of you have. I understand completely how hard it is to walk out that front door every morning and not take what we have for granted. When you live in a country as free and prosperous as ours how could you not? But if we don't continue to appreciate the sacrifices that have been made, neither will the generations following us. And the more we take what we have for granted, the more we lose those values the first colonists in the new world built our country upon. Now is our time to ensure that the foundation of our nation does not crumble. I know I said previously that the United States becoming a free nation was only the beginning, but if we as a nation continue to strive for freedom and justice for all, we do not have to be the end. Our country has succeeded all these years for one reason and one reason only, and that is the effort that has been put forth by citizens just like every one of us in this room. We have the power to ensure that our country's walls do not crumble, all we have to do is remember its roots, and continue to live by its foundation. In times like these, when there are huge obstacles facing us we need to keep our faith in our country and its foundation. The first settlers in the New World never gave up on their hopes and dreams, despite the famine and hardships they faced. Abraham Lincoln never lost sight of the bigger picture, regardless of the alarming death tolls brought about by the Civil War. He knew that our founders had structured a government sturdy enough to withstand the hardships of war and strife. All he had to do was encourage the people of our nation to create a brighter tomorrow. In the United States there is always a brighter tomorrow awaiting us, all we have to do is build it.