Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Lamar Smith for their very important changes for small entities and other Patent and Trademark Office users. I also want to thank their dedicated and excellent staffs, Phil Kiko, Steve Pinkos and Blaine Merritt. I also want to thank the majority leader and his staff led by Brett Loper for crafting a very excellent amendment to this bill that as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business I am satisfied that the small inventor is protected.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: Page 12, insert the following after line

16 and redesignate the succeeding subsections accordingly:

(d) Fees for Small Entities.--Section 41(h) of title 35,

United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

following new paragraph:

``(3)(A) The fees and surcharges in effect on February 10,

2004, under paragraphs (1) and (2) for entities described in

paragraph (1) shall remain in effect after that date, subject

to subparagraph (B).

``(B) A fee or surcharge to which subparagraph (A) applies

may be adjusted on October 1, 2009, and on October 1 of each

5th year thereafter, to reflect any fluctuations during the

preceding 5-year period in the Consumer Price Index, as

determined by the Secretary of Commerce. Changes of less than

1 percent may be ignored.

``(C) No fee or surcharge under this section may be imposed

on any entity described in paragraph (1) after February 10,

2004, for any purpose other than the purposes for which fees

and surcharges under this section are in effect with respect

to such entity on that date.''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to my colleague and friend in Illinois, David A. Wirsing, State Representative from the 70th district. Dave went home to be with the Lord suddenly on Sunday, November 16, 2003. He leaves a loving wife of over 40 years, Nancy, four grown children--Mark, Steven, Angela and Susan--and 11 grandchildren.

Dave Wirsing was a friend in the truest sense of the word. He was a man of deep personal faith, a loving and faithful husband to Nancy and a wonderful father to his four children. He spent the majority of his life in agriculture as a former pork producer and grain

farmer. He and Nancy had the same phone number their entire lives, and their address always ended with ``Sycamore, Illinois''. Then, in 1992, he decided to enter public service and run for State Representative of the 70th district.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Dave today not only for his selfless public service to the people of Illinois, but to Dave as a friend. Before Dave ever ran for public office, he was simply a husband, father and grandfather. He raised his children with a sense of humor, a stern discipline, high moral standards, a deep and abiding faith in God and taught them leadership skills and simple common sense. Mostly, he raised his children and provided his wife, Nancy, with love. Few knew at this point how much he would impact the lives of so many people or that so many would seek his counsel. His children never dreamed that the man they simply called ``Dad'' would become the man many would call ``great.''

Dave Wirsing was a friend to many. His small and large acts of kindness are unfathomable to some. However, to Dave, it was just the way he was meant to live his life. He was a humble man, never quite understanding why people outside of his family would honor him for achievements that to him were just what he was supposed to do. He was a man who dedicated his life--indeed, his heart and soul, to serving others--his family, his neighbors, his friends, his constituents.

Dave led by example--he lived by the Golden Rule, and yet he never expected anything in return for his kindness and compassion. He loved being around people--be it the company of his wife and family or in the presence of colleagues, acquaintances and even strangers. He was able to laugh at himself--a trait seldom seen these days. He dedicated his life to serving others. He helped his children grow, learn and prosper; he helped his neighbors in times of need; he helped his friends to resolve problems; he helped his colleagues see both sides of an issue and then beyond that to a resolution; he helped his constituents obtain the assistance and guidance they had a right to; he helped many young people grow in life through his wisdom, his gentle and jovial encouragement, his love and respect for each person as an individual, and his high regard for bettering oneself.

Mr. Speaker, Dave Wirsing's accomplishments were many, but most importantly, not a day went by that he did not share himself with someone. Solutions and advice came to him from principle and philosophy. He was not out to make a name for himself, he just wanted to make things right in his part of the world. If he did not have the skill necessary to help someone, he sought it out. He lived by the philosophy that if you always tell the truth, you won't have to remember what you said. Dave Wirsing did not live his life to achieve great moments, but instead had a lifelong commitment to a set of values and ideals. As I reflect today on the whole of his life, that is his greatest accomplishment. He leaves behind a legacy of faith, kindness, compassion and love for his family, friends and constituents. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Amendments Act of 2003 (S. 1824), which will reauthorize the vital programs of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) for another four years. As the author of the previous OPIC reauthorization bill in 1999 (P.L. 106-158), I am pleased to strongly endorse S. 1824.

Since 1971, OPIC-supported projects have facilitated $145 billion worth of investments in hundreds of projects that have helped developing countries and emerging economies of the former East Bloc improve their standard of living. In addition, OPIC-supported projects have helped to create or sustain 254,000 American jobs and $65 billion in exports; expanded economic development; encouraged political stability; and promoted free market reforms around the world.

As an additional benefit, OPIC operates at no net cost to taxpayers by charging fees for its services. It has earned a profit in each year of operations--$175 million in 2002--and built its substantial reserves to more than $4 billion. I wish every government agency operated like OPIC by producing a profit for the taxpayer. All of OPIC's guaranty and insurance obligations are backed by OPIC's own substantial reserves and by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particularly pleased that under the current leadership of OPIC President and CEO Peter Watson, OPIC has launched two significant initiatives to encourage greater use of OPIC's programs by small business exporters to fulfill the mandate contained in P.L. 106-158 to expand OPIC's small business efforts. First, in July 2003, OPIC announced the establishment of a new department focusing on small and medium-size businesses. The Small and Medium Enterprise Department will be responsible for OPIC's Direct Loan program, which provides financing to U.S. businesses with annual revenues under $250 million. The Small Business Center will also be part of the new department. Small businesses looking to participate in the global marketplace have unique requirements. Lack of resources to pursue opportunities abroad, concern over political risks, or the inability to find private sector support can prevent U.S. small businesses from expanding overseas. The Small Business Center at OPIC will help meet these needs by providing financing and political risk insurance to small businesses with annual revenues of less than $35 million.

Second, OPIC and a small business lender. WorldBusiness Capital, Inc. (WBC) of Hartford, Connecticut, in July 2003 entered into a historic cooperative agreement that will expand support for U.S. small businesses investing overseas and enhance the activities of OPIC's Small Business Center. Under the agreement, OPIC will provide loan guarantees for WBC projects pursuant to a risk-sharing arrangement. WBC will make loans with its own funds, and will continue to monitor and service each loan. WorldBusiness Capital, Inc. intends to make OPIC- guaranteed loans of between $250,000 and $10 million to U.S. small businesses expanding into overseas markets. Hopefully, this private- public partnership will set an example for other banks to enter into similar arrangements to publicize and maximize the leverage of OPIC's programs to small business exporters. Delegated authority lenders and preferred lenders are quite common programs at the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Small Business Administration. The same should hold true for OPIC.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor for me to support the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Amendments Act of 2003. I commend my good friends, Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois and ranking minority Member Tom Lantos of California of the House International Relations Committee for working so hard on this bill and bringing it to the floor in a timely manner. My only regret is that my duties on the Small Business Committee prevented me from taking a more active role in the OPIC reauthorization process this time around. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1824.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Toomey amendment. The amendment offered by my good friend and Committee on Small Business subcommittee chairman makes perfect sense. The amount of competition that the FPI would bring against small business in set-aside procurements goes against the very intention of having a small business set-aside in the first place. Common sense tells us that the small businesses will have to unfairly lower their prices to match the levels that the FPI can offer.

Also, knowing how Federal procurement works, I can predict that contracting officers will tailor their acquisitions in such a way as to guarantee that FPI will win when that is the outcome the contracting office wants, even though they may still carry it out under a small business set-aside.

With specifications written for products the FPI has experience and economy of scale in making, of course, they will undercut the small businesses and win such an unfair competition. A small business cannot survive by buying in on a contract at a loss, but the FPI could do business indefinitely by using such a strategy.

The final irony of all this is that the administration is valiantly trying to increase opportunities for small businesses by unbundling large procurements and giving them a chance to win a contract of a size they can handle. Turning around and letting the FPI get into the small business-sized contracts would negate whatever progress we would be making on that front, and we would end up right where we started. I would remind my colleagues that the government has not obtained its 23 percent goal for contracting with small businesses for several years.

With a workforce of over 20,000, FPI is a large business, and FPI should be competing with other large contractors. Let us keep them out of the sort of procurements we set aside for mom-and-pop small businesses.

I do not want to be holding hearings investigating why the FPI is winning one small business set-aside after the other. Let us solve this problem once and for all and support the Toomey amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise to introduce this amendment to close a loophole that is allowing Federal funding under this bill to purchase foreign-made steel for bridge construction.

In 1940 Congress established the Alteration of Bridges program that enabled the Coast Guard to ensure open navigation of waterways. Under this program the Coast Guard can require bridge owners to alter bridges that pose an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. The Coast Guard contributes a portion of the bridge alteration costs based on modifications or replacement related to ensuring improved navigation. I cite two recent examples:

Even though 80 to 90 percent of the construction funds to alter a railroad bridge over the Mississippi River in Burlington, Iowa, came from the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard argued that the Buy American Act did not apply because the bridge was owned by a non-Federal entity. This project used 3,400 tons of steel.

The agency made the same argument for a $44 million railroad bridge replacement project in the Port of New Orleans. The Coast Guard's share of the project's cost came to 94 percent; yet they still determined the Buy American Act did not apply.

The Buy American Act was intended to ensure that when the taxpayers' money was spent on Federal projects that the materials and goods used came from American production, to stimulate our production in the jobs- producing aspect of the project. The Coast Guard's refusal to follow the intention of the act because of its legalistic determination circumvents the act's intent.

Let me illustrate the economic impact of this. It takes an average of 25 man-hours of labor to fabricate a ton of steel. The 3,400 tons required for the Burlington bridge equals about 85,000 hours. That is over 40 full-time jobs for 1 year. And these are exactly the kind of high-wage jobs, averaging $17 an hour plus benefits that pay enough for people to buy a home and support a decent standard of living.

The steel bridge industry fabricates on average about 500,000 tons of steel a year. That is over 12 million man-hours of labor. Now we are talking about 6,000 jobs. With an average price of steel at about $2,000 a ton, this means a billion-dollar manufacturing industry. These are the jobs directly related to fabricating the beams and girders.

When the Coast Guard circumvents the Buy American Act, it uses taxpayer dollars to pay the steelworkers of Japan and Korea. The problem here today is not with the Buy American Act, but with the multiple efforts being used to get around it. This amendment closes one of the loopholes and makes it clear that federally funded public works will be expected to adhere to the intent of the act as Congress envisioned.

The Coast Guard is our first line of defense in homeland security, guarding our shores and waterways. We should not allow the Coast Guard to undermine our economic security, the very jobs of our citizens that pay the taxes that allow us to have a Coast Guard in the first place. A similar amendment was adopted by the other body to the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security and passed into law.

I urge the adoption of the amendment to make this permanent law.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, our manufacturing base is slowly evaporating before our very eyes. Just last week, Rockford, Illinois-- the main city I represent--lost 3 facilities. Over 1,200 workers in a town of 150,000 lost their job last week. Over 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since July 2000. Manufacturing now just makes up 14 percent of our

Gross Domestic Product. Yet, few people in Washington, D.C. are truly aware of this problem because this town doesn't produce much except paper.

There are many causes to the problems facing manufacturing: high health care and energy costs; legal liabilities; a staggering tax and regulatory burden; an outdated export control system; a government procurement system that thinks that it is OK to buy abroad; and an unfair global trading system.

I am proud to stand with Representative Phil English today in trying to bring about some relief in the trade area. The United States faces huge challenges with China. We all recognize and appreciate the difficulties the Chinese face as they integrate into the world economy. China is to be commended for going down a path towards more free markets and away from a planned economy. They have over 1.2 billion people and tens of millions of people enter their workforce each year. China must grow about eight percent a year just to keep even as they try to integrate new workers into the economy and also provide real employment for former workers at failed state-owned enterprises.

However, while acknowledging these challenges, we also must not allow the nations of the world to expect the United States to be the only global economic growth engine. It is in China's long-term best interest to address the real problems contained in this resolution. It is time for China to promote economic growth within their country mainly by selling the products made in their nation to their own people--not using the United States as a pressure relief valve.

Plus, China should take a cue from one of our great industrialists-- Henry Ford--and pay their workers sufficient wages so that they can afford the products they are making for U.S. consumers.

Yes, China has honored many of its WTO commitments. But it has also not lived up to all of its commitments to the WTO. We have given China the benefit of the doubt for too long. While we are grateful for China's willingness to buy more U.S. products, this is not enough. Now is the time to ratchet up the pressures and if necessary bring a trade case through the WTO process to force full compliance of China's commitments. Our manufacturers have taken it on the chin for too long now.

For example, having very low taxes imposed on Chinese semi-conductor manufactures but taxing imported semi-conductors at a much higher rate is outrageous. We're struggling to replace our Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income tax regime due to a WTO challenge from Europe; however, this Chinese tax discrimination policy hasn't been challenged in the WTO system yet. Does that make any sense? The National Association of Manufacturers has many more examples, which I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record.

I'm also grateful to Representative English for including a good deal of the language in H. Res. 414 dealing with Chinese currency manipulation from the legislation I authored along with my good friends and colleagues Representatives Mike Rogers, of Michigan, Charlie Stenholm of Texas, and Baron Hill of Indiana. I am especially pleased that the House of Representatives will go on record today in opposition to these policies that place up to a 40 percent tax on U.S. exports to China and up to a 40 percent discount on Chinese imports into the United States. Is it any wonder why our manufacturers are crying out for relief? This resolution is a good first step towards final action on H. Con. Res. 285, which, if diplomacy fails, calls for initiating a Section 301 trade case to impose trade sanctions against nations that manipulate their currencies for a trade advantage.

Let me also remind my colleagues that China is not the only nation that deliberately undervalues its currency. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan also vigorously intervene in currency markets to prevent their currency from strengthening against the U.S. dollar. Passage of this resolution today should not undermine our resolve to combat the problem of unfair foreign currency manipulation of other nations.

Prior to his departure for the Asia Pacific Economic Council conference, President Bush said we must make sure that ``currency policies of a government don't disadvantage America. Fair trade means currency policies [are] fair.'' We should strongly support passage of H. Res. 414 today. But we should also work towards ensuring passage of H. Con. Res. 285 if timely progress is not made towards accomplishing the goals set out in this resolution and if countries including Japan, Korea, and Taiwan do not halt the practice of undermining the value of their currency to boost their export potential.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 414.

National Association

of Manufacturers,

September 10, 2003. Review of China's Compliance With Its WTO Accession Commitments

Areas of Concern

Currency undervaluation;

Subsidized exports;

Counterfeiting and IPR violations;

Discriminatory VAT taxes;

Unjustified product labeling requirements;

Inappropriate standards and concerns about CCC mark

procedures;

Restrictions on trading rights;

Lack of action on auto financing regulations;

Problems with Tariff Rate Quotas; and

Slow progress on transparency.

Overview

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) welcomes

the opportunity to comment on China's compliance with

obligations accepted as a WTO member and commitments made in

conjunction with accession to open its internal market to

foreign products and services. The NAM supported China's

membership on the condition that it would take meaningful

steps to adhere to these obligations and commitments and

become a responsible participant in the international trading

system.

Trade with China is of immense importance to many U.S.

manufacturers. The Chinese market is set to become one of the

largest in the world within the next several years. Chinese

imports are expected to exceed $380 billion in 2003, making

China the world's third largest importer after the United

States and Germany. At the same time, China is rapidly

becoming a major exporter of industrial goods, and the range

of industrial products exported has continued to grow at a

rapid pace. China's expanded participation in the global

marketplace, then, offers both important new commercial

opportunities as well as challenges resulting from increased

competition in the U.S. and foreign markets.

NAM members want the United States to have a positive trade

relationship with China. However, they also want a level

playing field for competition. In that regard, we are hearing

increasing concerns about unfair Chinese trade and currency

practices and China's failure to provide the same kind of

access to U.S. goods and services in the Chinese market that

Chinese goods and services enjoy in the U.S. market.

As China concludes its second year as a WTO member, its

compliance record is decidedly mixed. While U.S. exports to

China continue to increase (by 24 percent in the Jan.-June

2003) and a growing number of U.S. companies are trading and

investing there, the NAM has also received far more

complaints about unfair Chinese practices than in the

previous year.

NAM members recognize that China is still in transition to

a market economy and in the process of phasing in certain WTO

market-opening commitments. However, because China has

quickly becomes such an important global importer and

exporter, it is vital that the United States work to ensure

that China complies as fully as possible with all WTO

obligations and particularly those that have a significant

impact on U.S. economic interests.

NAM member companies and affiliated organizations have

reported the following concerns regarding China's WTO

compliance.

currency manipulation

By far, the NAM has received the greater number of

complaints about China's deliberate policy of undervaluing

its currency to gain unfair competitive advantage over U.S.

producers and those of other WTO member countries. Economists

have estimated that China's currency could be undervalued by

40 percent or more. The Chinese yuan has remained pegged to

the dollar at 8.28 for the past eight years despite an

extended period of robust economic growth, continuing trade

surpluses and a large build-up in foreign exchange reserves,

which exceeded $350 billion in July 2003.

Chinese officials have acknowledged that the pegging of the

yuan to the dollar is part of a deliberate strategy to

support Chinese industry and boost exports. This kind of

currency undervaluation for commercial gain goes against the

intent of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),

which seeks to remove trade barriers and allow markets to

determine trade flows. Article IV, for examples, states that

``Contracting Parties shall not, by exchange action,

frustrate the intent of the provisions of this Agreement . .

.'' China's undervalued currency, in effect, acts as an

additional trade barrier to U.S. exports and an unfair

subsidy for all Chinese exports. We believe that Chinese

exchange rate policies do not comply with WTO obligations.

subsidized exports

We continue to receive reports from different industries

(e.g., tool-and-die, metal forming, steel and chlorinated

isocyanurates) that Chinese products are being sold in the

United States at prices so low that they could not even cover

the cost of raw materials and shipping much less full

production and marketing costs. A tool-and-dye company, for

example, reports that a Chinese competitor was selling a

product similar to one made in the United States for $40,000,

compared to the U.S. producer's price of $100,000. The U.S.

company maintains that the cost of the raw materials alone

would amount to $40,000, not including shipping, duties and

other costs. A U.S. producer of chlorinated isocyanuratrs,

which is used as a cleaning agent in swimming pools,

reports a similar situation. As a result of pricing which

appears to be below cost, Chinese exporters are expected

to increase exports of

this product by 400 percent in 2003 over 2002 levels.

These reports suggest the likelihood of widespread use of

subsidies, either direct or indirect, to help Chinese

exporters gain unfair competitive advantage in the U.S.

market. They merit further investigation by USTR and the

Department of Commerce. One source of indirect subsidy is

continued bank leading to money-losing and insolvent Chinese

manufacturers, often state-owned or state-controlled

enterprises. Since the Chinese banks providing these loans

are either state-owned or state-controlled, the Chinese

government bears responsibility for their lending practices.

U.S. steel producers note that the Chinese steel industry is

the largest-recipient of interest-rate subsidies authorized

by the national government. Since many of the companies that

benefit from either directed bank lending or subsidized

interest rates are engaged in international trade, they have

an unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis U.S. based

companies, which must rely on private financing at market

rates.

counterfeiting and ineffective enforcement of ipr protection

While Chinese laws on intellectual property rights (IPR)

have improved considerably, the lack of effective enforcement

of the IPR protection remains a serious problem. Violations

of trademarks through product counterfeiting is rampant and

on a massive scale. The violations involve a wide range of

products, including consumer hygiene and health care

products, athletic footwear, pharmaceuticals, food and

beverages, motorized vehicles and even entire automobiles.

Pharmaceutical counterfeiting is now, according to U.S.

industry representatives, a serious public health concern in

China. We believe that the lack of criminal penalties for

counterfeiting, including jailing, prevents effective

enforcement of trademark and labeling violations.

We are also concerned about reports that local government

authorities are actually promoting the expansion of local

industry dedicated principally to counterfeiting. At a

minimum, local authorities are knowledgeable of counterfeit

production and taking no action to halt it. There appears to

be no mechanism for the national government to prevent local

governments from aiding and abetting counterfeiting by local

industry. In addition, the Chinese customs service has not

cooperated in blocking exports of counterfeit products even

when solid evidence of counterfeiting was provided. It is

claimed that, since the ``exporting'' of counterfeit products

does not constitute a ``sale'' of the products, the relevant

Chinese law did not apply.

Other IPR violations are also common. They include

unauthorized duplication of computer software, music films;

copying of designs; unauthorized use of patented technology;

and unauthorized use of U.S. product certification logos. The

makers of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment note

that the ARI (Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute)

certification symbol was being used without authorization by

a Chines company. Efforts to have the Chinese government stop

this unauthorized use proved ineffective.

The pharmaceutical industry does, however, also report

improvements in intellectual property protection, notably by

the promulgation of a new regulation on data exclusivity for

clinical trials, as required in TRIPS and committed in

China's accession package.

Manipulation of VAT and Other Taxes

We have reports that China is manipulating the application

of taxes, notably the Value-Added Tax (VAT), to both restrict

imports and indirectly subsidize exports. For example, the

scrap recycling industry has told us that Chinese users of

imported copper and other scrap metals are deliberating

undervaluing their invoices to pay less VAT on the imported

metal. When the finished metal products are exported,

however, Chinese producers claim a rebate of the VAT based on

the metals' real import price. This results in a substantial

subsidy for the exported product that translates into lower

prices in the U.S. market. It also enables Chinese scrap

metal users to pay higher prices for scrap metal than their

U.S. competitors. Chinese customs and tax authorities have

not taken action to investigate these practices.

A major U.S. producer of semiconductors has also expressed

concern about continuing Chinese discrimination in the

application of the VAT on imported and domestically produced

semiconductors. China levies a 17 percent VAT on imported

integrated circuits. Domestically designed and produced

integrated circuits are taxed at VAT rates ranging from 3-6

percent. Integrated circuits produced in China but designed

abroad are taxed at 11 percent. This discriminatory treatment

of domestic and foreign ``like'' products violates Article 3

of the GATT.

Unjustified Labeling Requirements

In 2002 the Chinese Ministry of Health promulgated a new

regulation mandating the labeling of all genetically modified

(GM) food products. While the implementation of the

regulation was subsequently suspended indefinitely, the fact

that it remains on the books is already having significant

adverse economic effects and creating barriers to trade. Some

producers have ceased shipping these products in anticipation

of the regulation going into effect.

U.S. food producers have questioned whether the Health

Ministry's action was in conformity with China's WTO

obligations. The ministry did not provide a justification for

the labeling requirement based on an assessment of health

risks, which is a requirement of the Agreement on Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Measures. The Technical Barriers to Trade

Agreement (TBT) also suggests inadequate attention to the

treatment of ``like products,'' the question of whether the

labeling requirement addresses a ``legitimate objective'' and

the requirement to base technical regulations on

``performance'' rather than ``design'' characteristics.

Inappropriate standards and concerns about CCC mark system

Several NAM members have raised concerns about application

of technical standards and the CCC Mark system. With regard

to standards, China is requiring that certain products (e.g.,

electrical products) be manufactured only to ``international

standards'' as determined in the ISO or IEC. Other

``international standards,'' notably those developed in the

United States and widely used in the global marketplace, are

not allowed. This does not conform with the WTO TBT Committee

interpretation that ``international standards'' need not be

limited to ISO or IEC standards.

A second set of standards concerns relates to the CCC mark

system. China introduced the CCC mark system to comply with

WTO requirements for a single mark for like domestic and

imported products. It is, in that sense, a step forward on

standards and mark requirements. However, the inconsistent,

non-transparent and inflexible application of the CCC Mark on

a variety of products (e.g., electrical products, air

conditioning and refigeration equipment, and tires) has

created market access barriers and needlessly raised the cost

of importing products into China.

Generic problems include: the high cost of having Chinese

inspectors audit factories in the United States and other

foreign countries on compliance with the standards; continued

delays in allowing U.S. testing and certifying bodies to

certify compliance for the CCC mark; and lengthy delays and

relatively high cost of obtaining testing and certification

for the CCC mark in China.

Several other specific problems were noted. A major tire

company reported that several types of its bus tires that are

standard sizes in countries around the world cannot obtain

the required CCC mark because these sizes are not listed in

the Chinese National Standards. Another type of tire widely

on Chinese trucks is also not on the list and thus cannot be

sold by the U.S. company in China. Efforts to resolve this

problem with Chinese standards authorities and Chinese

customs have thus far been unsuccessful. In addition, the

company reports that local inspection offices appear to be

abusing their authority by requiring the re-inspection of the

company's Chinese-produced tires and confiscating tires which

they determine to be ``non-complaint'' with the CCC mark

standards.

Restrictions on Trade Rights of Joint Ventures

China is not fulfilling its commitment to allow foreign

joint ventures to import and sell products (e.g., tires,

automobiles, auto parts and industrial equipment) in China,

which was to have gone into effect on Dec. 10, 2002. A major

tire company, for example, reports that the Chinese

government has imposed additional restrictions on its trading

rights that were not anticipated when this concession was

negotiated. They include allowing only new joint ventures to

have this right and requiring the Chinese and foreign

partners to have separately done U.S. $30 million in trade

with China over each of the three preceding years.

lack of action on auto financing regulations

The Chinese government has committed to publish new

regulations governing the financing of automobile purchases.

Several NAM member companies have expressed concern about

slow progress on the regulations that were explicitly

promised in China's accession agreement. The U.S. government

should press for their prompt issuance to comply with WTO

obligations.

problems with tariff rate quotas and import certificates

Complications in implementing tariff rate quotas (TRQs) are

creating non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. feed products,

notably corn and wheat. Chinese authorities have delayed

issuance of regulations on the administration of the TRQ

system and introduced unreasonable licensing procedures.

There has also been a lack of transparency in the process

which makes it difficult to know which companies are granted

quotas. China has also violated its accession agreement by

redirecting quotas reserved for non-state companies to state-

owned companies.

A related problem that has affected soybean exporters is

the narrow window for using import permits under the AQSIQ

permit system. U.S. exporters have only 90 days to purchase,

transport and unload their products in China. These

restrictions are not only limiting U.S. commodity exports

sales but also restricting the operation of soybean

processing plants in China.

lack of transparency in trade regulatory process

Many companies complain about the lack of transparency in

the trade regulatory process and the difficulty in obtaining

current laws and regulations governing trade and

business operations. This is a continuing problem that should

lend itself to solutions in a relatively short time frame.

The U.S. government should press for concrete steps that

improve transparency at all levels.

William Primosch,

Director, International Business Policy,

National Association of Manufacturers.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

[Omitted from the Record of Oct. 21, 2003]

Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 2802. A

bill to reauthorize the Small Business Act and the Small

Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with

an amendment; referred to the Committee on Government Reform

for a period ending not later than October 31, 2003, for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(h), rule X (Rept. 108-325, Pt. 1).

Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to introduce an amendment. There will be a better time under the rules to do that, but I will just take a couple of minutes to explain what that amendment would have done, if that is okay with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

The amendment that we had been prepared to introduce, and which, actually, we will execute in another way as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business regards the reporting requires of H.R. 3289, and, essentially, what we are trying to do here is two things.

The first thing is to have the reporting requirement so that every 60 days the Federal Government will have to file a written report with the United States Congress stating the nature of these contracts that are being used for the reconstruction of Iraq, the country of origin of incorporation or entity getting the contract and the country of origin of the services or manufactured items. There is a very rich opportunity in this country to help restore the crumbling manufacturing base by taking the $21 billion in money to rebuild Iraq and to target that at United States' manufacturing companies which have lost nearly 3 million workers in the past 2\1/2\ years.

The present reporting requirements of H.R. 3289 are not adequate for Congress to perform the oversight functions. The present bill requires no reporting to Congress where a foreign company wins a contract to assist Iraq in a free and open competition. The bill, however, does require a report to Congress where a contract is awarded on the basis of restricted competition such as a small business set aside awarded to U.S. small business.

The issue here is accountability and, essentially, the issue is under Article I of the Constitution, section 9, where it says, No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

We simply would have asked in the amendment, had it been ruled in order, for the United States Congress to follow the constitutional mandate of reporting. So we will find another time to do that.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, what we have going on in this country is 93,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past 60 days in America. The slide has continued for over 3 years at the rate of about 57- to 60,000 manufacturing jobs per month, and this Congress should step up to the bat and say if we are going to spend $21 billion in taxpayers' dollars, let us at least use it to help keep the jobs of the hard-hit manufacturing sector in this country.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for the opportunity to speak, look forward to working with him. I will be writing to the people in charge of the conference to ask them to consider this extremely important amendment.

Another amendment that we would have introduced, had it been in order, would have been at least to request the people buying supplies in Iraq with American taxpayers' dollars to prefer American manufacturers and American suppliers of services. We need to find a way to help create jobs, to help stop the ebb of service sector jobs and manufacturing jobs in this country. We should be using this process to rebuild Iraq for that opportunity.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 3: At the end of title II, add the following

new section:

Sec. XX. (a) Amounts appropriated by this Act or by Public

Law 108-11 for relief and reconstruction in Iraq shall be

used, to the greatest extent possible, to acquire--

(1) unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies mined

or produced in the United States;

(2) manufactured articles, materials, and supplies that

have been manufactured in the United States substantially all

from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or

manufactured in the United States; and

(3) services performed by United States labor.

(b) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment

of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter until amounts

referred to in subsection (a) are expended, the head of each

department or agency of the Federal Government which expends

such amounts shall prepare and submit to Congress a report

containing the following with respect to the expenditure of

such amounts:

(1) A list of all contracts awarded during the period

covered by the report.

(2) For each such contract, the origin of unmanufactured

articles, materials, and supplies to be used under the

contract.

(3) For each such contract, the origin of articles,

materials, and supplies used in manufactured articles,

materials, and supplies to be used under the contract.

(4) For each such contract, the source of the labor

performing the work under the contract.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Stephanie Flood of McHenry County, Illinois, in the district I am proud to represent. Stephanie is a remarkable 16-year old who suffered from cancer but was fortunate enough to have been cared for by the doctors and staff at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. When Stephanie was nine years old, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Since her initial diagnosis, she has undergone radiation, chemotherapy, and four separate surgeries.

In the spring of 1997, when Stephanie was in fourth grade, she began having flu-like symptoms--headaches and nausea. The symptoms persisted for nearly three weeks. When she visited her pediatrician, he looked through her eyes and could see pressure on her brain. He immediately ordered a CAT scan of her brain, which confirmed that the pressure he saw was in fact a brain tumor. Her pediatrician then referred Stephanie and her family to Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago because he felt the hospital had the best neurosurgeons available.

At Children's Memorial Hospital, Stephanie and her family met with Dr. Tomita and Dr. McClone who immediately planned for her surgery. At the time, her parents were struggling with their small business and had let their health insurance lapse. Dr. Tomita, however, insisted that Stephanie would have the best care available. They said the tumor was at the base of her brain stem. This extremely dangerous tumor could have left her blind, deaf, paralyzed or handicapped due to the tumor's close proximity to her nerve endings. Dr. Tomita carefully removed the tumor. After weeks of struggling with math due to memory loss associated with the brain tumor, Stephanie soon found herself getting straight A's in math class. She then went through six weeks of radiation treatments after the operation. Her radiologist, Dr. Marymount, skillfully administered the radiation, with Stephanie's only hair loss being where her incision was located.

Unfortunately, Stephanie's tumor was an ependymoma, meaning it would eventually grow back. Three years later, when she was 12 years-old, something showed up on her routine MRI again. Dr. Tomita performed another surgery, but he and her Oncologist, Dr. Goldman, decided to try a new type of chemotherapy in an attempt to get rid of the tumor once and for all. The chemotherapy was called Temazolamide, and Stephanie was one of 17 other people ever to use it.

Unfortunately, the tumor returned again, and Dr. Tomita suggested a new type of treatment, Gamma Knife radiation. Stephanie thought she would try this treatment which would be much easier than another brain surgery again. A team of doctors screwed a metal plate into her head with hundreds of little holes. They then sent radiation directly into the area where the tumor was located, hoping to shrink it.

The Gamma Knife procedure was successful in helping shrink the tumor for a short period of time, but another MRI eventually showed its regrowth. Dr. Tomita and Dr. Goldman suggested another new type of treatment called Intrabeam Radiation for Stephanie, who was only the fourth patient in the nation to ever use it. The tumor was again removed by Dr. Tomita, and the remaining cancer cells where the tumor originated were irradiated. Thus far, it has been eight months, and Stephanie is extremely hopeful that this final procedure will rid her of the tumor permanently.

Stephanie is extremely fortunate to be under the care of such wonderful doctors. She is also very proud to be part of a brand new study in hopes that she will help other children who suffer as she did. Cells from her tumor were actually taken from her tumor and are currently being studied at the Children's Research Center in Chicago in order to discover how and why the tumor continued to regrow. Without Children's Hospital, this incredible story would not have been possible.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my support to Stephanie and the many other children who are fighting such difficult battles. I commend Children's Memorial for all of the work they have done for her. I would also ask that we continue to work hard to support children's hospitals in order to save more children just like Stephanie. It is my hope that with continued research into new lifesaving treatments, children all over the country will be given the precious gift of life.

Mr. Speaker, manufacturing is an endangered species that we must work now to protect. Some say manufacturing is no longer vital to our economy, the service industries will compensate.

I agree with Henry Kissinger when he says, ``I think that a country has to have a massive industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. And to that extent, outsourcing of jobs concerns me.'' What made the American economy strong was industrial innovation. America led the world in new production methods and increased efficiency. How can we be innovators if we have no industry left?

With our strong industry, we built the most impressive fighting force the world has ever seen, a military that keeps us safe and the world free, but when our satellites are made in China, bomb parts made in Switzerland, night vision crystals in France and the Pentagon now wanting to buy 30,000 flight jackets with Pakistani goat hair, as opposed to U.S. goat hair, are we defending our economy or supporting the economies of other countries?

In some sectors of defense, we have been forced to recognize foreign technology is now vastly superior to our own. We must, we must stand by U.S. manufacturing to maintain a strong defense base.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 368) honoring the Small Business Administration on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking minority member of the committee, be added as a an original cosponsor of H. Res. 368.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as has been the tradition for the past 40 years, the President of the United States has issued a proclamation calling for the celebration of Small Business Week, which I include for the Record today. We are now in the middle of Small Business Week for 2003, which is being sponsored by the Small Business Administration.

The purpose of this week's celebration is to honor over 25 million businesses that make up the U.S. small business community. It is very appropriate for us, today, to recognize the importance of America's small businesses and the significant role played by the Small Business Administration in our Nation's economic growth.

This year is particularly important in recognizing the 50th anniversary of the SBA. President Eisenhower and Congress established the SBA in 1953 to provide financial and management assistance to startup and growing small businesses.

Over the past 50 years, the SBA has helped countless numbers of small businesses survive and succeed in this economy. It maintains a portfolio of guaranteed small business loans and disaster loans totaling more than $45 billion. The 7(a) program alone accounts for approximately 40 to 50 percent of all long-term capital needs for small businesses. The SBA has also guaranteed another $13 billion in venture capital investments to small businesses. To complement its successful credit programs, the SBA's management assistance programs were delivered to more than 1 million small businesses during the past year.

Some of the great American companies that are now household names were initially started with assistance from the SBA. Allen-Edmonds Shoe, the Panda Restaurant Group, Winnebago Industries with help from the 7(a) program, Callaway Golf, FedEx, Hewlett Packard, Intel Corporation, Jenny Craig, Outback Steakhouse, Staples, Sun Microsystems and the Gymboree Corporation all started with infusions of capital from the Small Business Investment Company program.

U.S. small businesses are the driving forces behind our economy and are poised to lead this Nation out of its economic doldrums. More than 99 percent of all employers in the U.S. are small businesses, providing between 60 and 80 percent of the net new jobs added to our workforce. In fact, the National Federal of Independent Businesses said that in August hiring intentions among small businesses are at the highest level in a year.

Small businesses have proven, year in and year out, that they are a potent force in the economy, accounting for over 50 percent of the private sector output. And their sights are not just set at home. Leading the way towards a global economy, the small business community represents 96 percent of all U.S. exporters.

Over the past 3 years, I have been the chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the previous 6 years as the subcommittee chairman. I have witnessed the enormous potential of America's small businesses at work. As someone who grew up in a small, family-owned business and who ran his own law firm, I know that small businesses are flexible, creative, give us jobs, provide economic growth, and, most importantly, provide hope in a future for millions of families and communities across our Nation.

The resolution now before the House recognizes the critical role played by small businesses and the Small Business Administration in our economy. It is appropriate that we take a moment from our busy schedule to acknowledge the success of small businesses and to encourage our Federal Government to continue to provide it help to ensure future successes.

I urge each of my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 368 as a way to say thank you to the SBA and the small business community for its contributions to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the White House proclamation.

Small Business Week, 2003--by the President of the United States of

America--a Proclamation

The success of small businesses in America reflects the

innovation, determination, and hard work of the American

people. During Small Business Week, we celebrate the

entrepreneurs and business people who create goods, services,

and jobs, and bring opportunity and economic prosperity to

communities throughout our country. We also reaffirm our

commitment to helping more small business owners and their

employees realize the American Dream.

Small businesses create the majority of new jobs in our

Nation and account for more than half of the output of our

economy. They lead the way in generating new ideas and

creating new technologies, goods, and services for our

country and for the world.

Small businesses also reflect the diversity of America.

Nearly 40 percent of small companies in the United States are

owned by women. There are also more than 3 million minority-

owned small businesses across the country.

Because small businesses are vital to our Nation's

prosperity and reflect the hard work of the American people,

my Administration has taken important steps to assist small

businesses and the people they employ. We have reduced taxes,

encouraged investment, and removed obstacles to growth. The

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 I

signed into law will provide 23 million small business owners

with tax cuts averaging more than $2,200 each. The Act also

quadrupled the amount that small businesses can expense for

new capital investments, encouraging new investment in

technology, machinery, and other equipment. This new

technology and equipment will increase productivity and

create new jobs, thereby contributing to the overall strength

of our economy.

We are also seeking to permanently eliminate the death tax.

With the repeal of this tax, small business men and women

will be able to pass their life's work to the next generation

without having to pay a punitive tax that in many cases

forces the sale of the business or many of its assets. And I

support legislation that would make it easier for small

businesses to offer health coverage options to their

employees. Through Association Health Plans, small businesses

could pool together to offer group plans to all of their

employees, like those available to large businesses. In

addition, we are working to streamline small business

regulations and paperwork. To this end, I issued an Executive

Order that requires all Federal regulatory agencies to

minimize these burdens on our Nation's small businesses.

The Small Business Administration (SBA), which helps

American innovators and risk-takers launch and build their

businesses, celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. By

helping small businesses succeed, the SBA continues to

strengthen America.

Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United

States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by

the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby

proclaim September 14 through September 20, 2003, as Small

Business Week. I call upon all the people of the United

States to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies,

activities, and programs that celebrate the achievements of

small business owners and their employees and encourage and

foster the development of new small businesses.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this

twelfth day of September, in the year of our Lord two

thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States

of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

George W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in a couple of minutes when I finish speaking, I will move to withdraw my amendment from the floor and acknowledge the propriety of the point of order and the circumstances.

This amendment would increase the American-made content of the equipment purchased under the bill from 50 to 65 percent. This modest increase will strengthen the job-creation benefits of the bill. I am all for having a strong construction industry in America, and the infrastructure funded by this bill will provide many jobs in that industry. At the same time, I want to give our manufacturing industry the same boost. Our Nation's industrial workers deserve no less, and their need for help is great.

The Washington Post said on September 3, 2003, ``In his Labor Day address, the President signaled that the loss of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs during his administration had moved to the top of his list of domestic policy concerns.''

In 1981 Rockford, Illinois, which I have the privilege to represent, had an unemployment rate of 25 percent, the highest in the Nation. Today it is around 11 percent, and I do not want to see a recurrence of 1981. This summer we lost two more factories. We are in danger of seeing our industrial base irreparably harmed. Many of these well- paying jobs are leaving forever. How do we get back the jobs once they are moved to a foreign-producing country?

In August, manufacturing employment declined again for the 37th consecutive month. That is a record. That is another 44,000 manufacturing jobs erased from the payroll.

For the first time in our Nation's history, we have fewer than 10 percent of our jobs in the manufacturing sector of the labor force. That means fewer employees at any time since 1961 when the U.S. population was 100 million smaller. Manufacturing & Technology News said on May 16, 2003, ``The U.S. manufacturing sector is now producing 1 billion per day less than its own domestic markets demand as a flood of cutthroat-priced imports displaces output and jobs at an unprecedented rate. U.S. industry now produces $10 billion less auto parts each month than our own

markets demand, $3 billion less in computer and computer parts, and so on throughout the sector.''

Are not our manufacturers deserving of this modest help that we can give them here today? Mr. Chairman, we need help in the manufacturing sector.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment because of the rules.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we can help our struggling manufacturing sector today by increasing the American content of the equipment purchased under this bill from 50 to 65 percent.

This modest increase will cause no real hardship for the District of Columbia. It will be greatly appreciated by our Nation's desperate manufacturers.

Today's Washington Post reported that the vast majority of the 2.7 million jobs lost since 2001 are not coming back unless new jobs are created in novel and dynamic ways.

We need to be proactive on this bill and make it an engine for job growth by buying from our own producers and getting them hiring again.

The people are looking to Congress for action.

From the Washington Post September 3, 2003, it quoted, ``In his Labor Day address (The President) signaled that the loss of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs during his administration had moved to the top of his list of domestic policy concerns.''

Our domestic manufacturing base is being hollowed out right before our own eyes. In 1981 Rockford, Illinois, the largest city of the congressional district that I have the pleasure to represent, had an unemployment rate of 25 percent, the highest in the Nation. Today it is 11.3 percent. I do not want to see a recurrence of what happened in 1981. This summer, two more factories closed down, and we are in danger of seeing our industrial base irreparably harmed.

The Department of Labor employment report for August is out this morning. Manufacturing employment declined again for the 37th consecutive month. That is a record. In 30 days, our Nation lost 44,000 manufacturing jobs, and for the first time in our Nation's history, we have fewer than 10 percent of our jobs in the manufacturing sector of the labor force. That means fewer employees than at any time since 1961, when the U.S. population was 100 million or smaller.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is simply to state that, if anything, taxpayers' dollars should be used to buy things that are made in America. The present law today says only 50 percent. This increases it to 65 percent. Why not save our manufacturing jobs with the taxpayers' dollars that are being paid in?

There are other forums where this issue may be raised. We have been advised by the Parliamentarian that this particular amendment is not proper to raise at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment from consideration.