Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1868) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but in opposition to this rule.

I would first like to talk a little bit about some of the unique history of Head Start that I think is important as we move into the discussions of the amendments and the bill itself.

Head Start is a moderately successful program. Because it's a moderately successful program, often it's oversold. It's only moderately successful, but it's very difficult to get any program to succeed in the highest-risk populations of America, as we learned in No Child Left Behind and other programs trying to reach those who have been left behind by the economic growth of America, by the opportunities in America, in the low-income urban communities and the low-income suburban communities.

To have modest success is actually a tremendous accomplishment in Head Start. So how did Head Start perform differently, and what was the concept behind it that made it unique?

On the left and on the right, there would be, for lack of a better word, a populist empowerment faction in both parties. In the sixties, the community action movement said we need to stop the top-down approach and do a more bottom-up approach and involve the communities in poverty themselves in making their own decisions.

That entails certain risks, because they may not, when you let people vote their own decisions and make their own decisions, do what government exactly wants them to do, or what college-educated Ph.D.s come into that community and think is best for that community.

One of the key debates last year when this came to the floor was whether the Head Start policy councils should allow the parents to have a vote. The bill was altered to take that vote away from parents and basically make the parents hood ornaments; say we have parental involvement, but take the breathing lifeblood of those Head Start programs away.

I am very pleased that in this Congress, after seeing the probable defeat on the House floor, had it not been blocked by the leaders of both sides, it is now in this year's bill. Parents will continue to have a vote and continue to make this a grassroots program.

But there is another part of this bill that I oppose, and there is an amendment made in order under this rule that makes it even worse, and that is to require 50 percent of the teachers to have a college degree. That sounds like a great goal, but if you understand that this is preschool, and part of the goal here was to get the parents involved, unlike what's happening in the elementary schools and the high schools in many of these urban and rural areas, the parents don't get involved.

Partly what happens in Head Start councils is parents get involved. Often they get hired as teachers and teachers' aides. They are from the community. There is research suggesting, and no research to the contrary, that the net impact of moving to this 50 percent requirement in 2013 is going to result in less teachers of color in the urban areas. That's the practical net result.

Fewer parents will go to literacy courses and evolve then into getting a GED and helping to teach their own kids. You will miss the magic of this program, which is empowerment and getting the parents involved, which is what we should be looking for in elementary schools. There is an amendment to take the 2013 goal down to 2011, I believe. That makes a bad clause worse. I hope that amendment gets defeated on the floor.

There is one other amendment in this bill that is a bad amendment. There is nothing wrong with the amendment, it's existing law. It's what I would call a fake faith-based amendment. If an organization follows all the secular rules in hiring and in principles, they have always been, always been, eligible for government grants. The dispute that has arisen in faith-based is not whether, if you have a secular board and don't impose any religious principles on your organization, you can't proselytize. That has already been ruled by the courts. You can't pray if you get government funds during the time that any program is funded by government. You can't refuse to cover somebody.

The question is can a faith-based organization that may have church rules, for example, can only males be preachers or priests? Can you have somebody who is homosexual in a church position in your church? Can you fire somebody for adultery, things that many, if not most, major Christian denominations, Orthodox Jews, Muslim organizations have as rules in their denominations? They are not eligible under the Democrat faith-based rule.

This is a legitimate debate. I grant that it's a legitimate debate, and we have had it on the House floor. But we should not pretend that we are protecting faith-based organizations, when we are, in fact, taking away the historic civil rights protection that has always been granted under, quote, faith-based. A religion is exempt from

normal rules in how they hire, because they believe they reflect their faith.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an article by Ron Sider, who has written a book that was much ballyhooed in the last election cycle about the faith-based movement not just being conservative right-wingers.

[From First Things]

The Case for ``Discrimination''

(by Ronald J. Sider)

I'm a long-time Democrat. In 1972, I organized a group

called ``Evangelicals for McGovern/Shriver'' and helped

McGovern sweep--well, the great state of Massachusetts.

As a Democrat, I have been deeply dismayed by how out of

touch with the American mainstream the party has proven to be

on the issue of faith-based initiatives, particularly on the

issue of the so-called hiring exemption. (For a discussion of

other aspects of the initiative, see Joseph Loconte,

``Keeping the Faith,'' FT, May.)

A vast majority of Americans believe that as a society we

have lost our moral moorings and that we must reaffirm the

role of religious faith in nurturing persons of integrity and

fostering a just, stable society. It is in that context that

we must evaluate the Democratic leadership's opposition to

allowing faith-based organizations that accept government

funds to show preference in hiring to those who embrace the

organization's basic religious beliefs and practices.

Democratic President Bill Clinton signed three Charitable

Choice bills that explicitly included this hiring exemption.

Presidential candidate Al Gore embraced Charitable Choice.

But when the Bush Administration's legislation expanding

Charitable Choice moved to the Senate in mid-2001, the

Democratic leadership blocked even the consideration of such

legislation--largely on the charge that the hiring exemption

amounted to employment discrimination.

In other words, the Democratic leadership has come to

believe that religious organizations must give up their long-

recognized right to hire staff who share their faith

commitments in order to receive federal money that provides

needed services to the public. In this, the Democrats are

wrong.

To begin with, a religious organization's decision to hire

staff who share its religious beliefs and practices is not an

example of intolerant discrimination, but rather a positive

act of freedom. In a free society, a wide variety of

organizations--environmental organizations, feminist groups,

unions--are left free to select staff who share their core

commitments and who agree with their agenda. This right does

not disappear if governments choose to request these private

organizations to perform some desired tasks. Planned

Parenthood, for example, does not lose its right not to hire

pro-life staff simply because it has a government contract.

It is precisely the denial of this right to religious

organizations that would amount to intolerant discrimination

instead of the promotion of a free and open society.

To equate this positive good with the evil of

discrimination on the basis of things like race or disability

is pure confusion. Whether we think that religion is a

medieval superstition or a true and good contributor to

social well-being, all who believe in religious freedom

should insist that religious organizations be permitted to

hire staff who share their religious beliefs.

The obvious fact is that the ability to choose staff who

share a religious organization's core beliefs is essential if

that organization wishes to retain its basic identity. As

Justice William Brennan wrote in Corporation of the Presiding

Bishop v. Amos (1987): ``Determining that certain activities

are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission and

that only those committed to that mission should conduct them

is . . . a means by which a religious community defines

itself.'' A Jewish organization forced to hire substantial

numbers of Baptist staffers, for example, will not long

remain a significantly Jewish organization.

Having staff who share a religious organization's essential

religious beliefs shapes the group's identity in a variety of

ways. Shared motivation, common values, a sense of community

and unity of purpose, shared experiences of prayer and

worship (even if they are outside work time in the

organization) all contribute to an esprit de corps and shared

organizational vision. As law professor Ira C. Lupu said in

testimony before a House subcommittee (June 7, 2001), ``The

sense of religious community and spirit on which [the]

success of the group's efforts depend'' may be hampered if it

is forced to hire those who do not share its beliefs.

This is important even when, for example, a faith-centered

organization chooses to separate by location or time (and

fund with private money) sectarian worship, instruction, and

proselytization in a program in order to receive direct

government grants. This is true for several reasons.

First of all, religious activities may be important to the

social service program, even though they are voluntary,

privately funded, and segregated from ``secular'' government-

funded activities. In such programs, holding certain

religious beliefs and practices is a legitimate qualification

for a staff position, equally as valid as having the right

skills and experience.

Second, enforced religious diversity can have the effect of

stifling religious expression of staff within the agency,

creating a climate of fear of offending other staff members

with religious speech or actions. Since personal faith is

very important to many who choose to work in a religious

organization, such a climate can diminish staff motivation

and effectiveness. Forced religious diversity can sap a

program's spiritual vitality and lead to its secularization.

Third, staff often play multiple roles in small

organizations. For example, an agency might seek someone to

work part-time as a youth minister and part-time as a social

worker for its youth mentoring program. Implementing a policy

in which religion could be considered as a factor in hiring

for some job duties but not others would lead to

unnecessarily complicated and impermissibly entangling

regulations.

But even leaving aside the effects of such regulation on

religious organizations themselves, the rationale behind it

makes little sense. The fact that a religious organization

accepts some federal funds does not mean that it ceases to be

an independent, autonomous entity and becomes an arm or agent

of the state. Law, precedent, and common sense all argue that

a private organization that accepts some government funds

still retains its separate identity. This is clearly the case

with colleges and universities that receive government

funding, scholars engaged in federally subsidized research,

and artists and artistic organizations funded by the National

Endowment for the Arts. All of these receive government

funding, and all maintain their autonomy from the government.

Similarly, a religious organization that receives government

funds to provide a public service that serves a public good

would maintain its autonomy and not be co-opted by

government.

Moreover, not only does allowing hiring preferences based

on religious belief within religious organizations pose no

social danger, it is the only way to avoid discrimination and

governmental preference of one religious view over another.

Using the typology of different types of faith-based

organizations recently published by the Working Group on

Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives chaired

by former Democratic Senator Harris Wofford helps explain

this point.

``Faith-saturated'' and ``faith-centered'' programs both

include substantial religious content in their programs and

hire (primarily or exclusively) employees who share their

beliefs precisely because their religious beliefs tell them

that persons are spiritual as well as material beings and

therefore the best results follow when spiritual and

material transformation are combined. ``Faith-related,''

``faith-background,'' and ``secular'' providers do not

include significant religious content in their program or

consider religious belief in their staffing because their

worldview tells them that all that is needed to correct

dysfunctional social behavior and social problems is

socio-economic, material transformation. All these

providers, not just the first two, are grounded in an

explicit or implicit religious perspective. Secular

providers work at least implicitly within a naturalistic

worldview (nothing exists except the natural world) that

functions in effect as a religious perspective.

Functionally, faith-related and faith-background providers

operate with deistic religious beliefs (God exists but

never intervenes in the natural world of cause and

effect). Naturalism and deism, however, are just as much

particular religious worldviews as the historic theism

that undergirds most faith-saturated and faith-centered

programs.

Obviously, if government only funds some private providers

of services (i.e., the naturalistic and deistic ones that do

not explicitly use religious criteria for staff), government

clearly discriminates among religions.

Thus far, I have argued that as a matter of principle

religious freedom is such a fundamental right that it ought

to prevail even if on occasion embracing that overriding

principle has the secondary effect of, for example, reducing

the number of job opportunities for a particular group. For

example, the Catholic Church must, as a matter of principle,

be free to live out its religious belief (which I do not

share) that only men should be priests, even if the practice

has the effect of reducing the number of job possibilities

for women.

My last point offers an argument, not about principle, but

about practical effect. The recent suggestion that extending

the hiring exemption to faith-based organizations (FBOs)

would in practice mean that African-Americans or gay

Americans would suffer a loss of job opportunities is simply

wrong.

There is a certain tension between two treasured values: on

the one hand, protecting the religious freedom and identity

of FBOs as they expand their effective services to the most

needy; on the other, our society's conviction that except in

the case of a narrow range of specific situations, employers

should not discriminate on the basis of religion.

But do such hiring preferences really result in job

deprivation? Hardly at all.

First, we are talking about a small percentage of the total

jobs in the society. Second, many FBOs pay almost no

attention to the religious beliefs of staff. Third, in the

case of those evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and

Muslim FBOs that do, virtually all the different religious

groups have their own FBOs offering a hiring preference to

people who share their own beliefs.

For very understandable historical reasons, African-

Americans have been concerned that racial discrimination

might find

cover under the hiring exemption based on religious belief.

This is extremely unlikely to happen. FBOs working in

minority communities are run either by people of the same

racial group or by whites who have been at the forefront of

fighting racial prejudice.

What about sexual orientation? Few FBOs ask about or select

staff on the basis of sexual orientation. It is true that a

number of FBOs do say that staff should not be sexually

active outside marriage. But is that really so terrible--

especially for FBOs working to overcome poverty in a society

where a child growing up in a single-parent household is

eleven times more likely to be persistently poor than a

child growing up in a two-parent family?

Even if the hiring exemption in Charitable Choice were

expanded to a lot more government funding streams, sexually

(and openly) active gay Americans would face extremely little

job deprivation. The number in that group is very small and

the number of jobs affected is a minuscule fraction of the

total number of jobs. Gay FBOs exist and others can be formed

that give a hiring preference to those who share that

ethical/religious belief. Surely the well-educated gay

community does not want to block an enormously promising way

to overcome poverty and social decay for millions of

desperate Americans to avoid what in practice would at worst

mean only the loss of a handful of possible jobs.

Constitutionally, Charitable Choice strikes the right

balance between the no-establishment and free exercise

clauses of the First Amendment. Morally, it offers promise

for major progress in overcoming some of our most intractable

social problems. Politically, Charitable Choice and the

broader Faith-Based Initiatives have rightly become

identified with the widespread sense that we have lost our

way morally as a society. By remaining steadfastly opposed to

allowing religious organizations to contribute to solving

social problems, the Democrats harm our country as well as

their future electoral prospects. Only at great peril dare

Democrats be on the wrong side of today's widespread embrace

of religious faith's crucial contribution to social

wholeness. If that happens, they will deserve a repetition of

1972.

The fact is whether you are left or right in the faith-based movement, you have to agree that you have to keep the principles of religion if you are going to keep your spiritual vitality. Particularly in urban America and in rural America, the churches and the vitality is what needs to be brought into poverty and reaching out.

We can have a legitimate debate over whether government funds should go in there. I believe it would help the programs. It has been an historic right. But the amendment that is in front of us is not a faith-based amendment. It's only allowing faith-based groups to participate if they secularize and drop their unique faith.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a statement on the policy councils from Congressman Danny Davis and me.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2007.

Hon. George Miller,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and Labor,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: For more

than forty years, one of the most unique and important

aspects of the Head Start program has been its emphasis on

parental involvement Head Start has enabled parents, as

representatives on Head Start policy councils, to participate

in making important decisions regarding budget, programming,

and personnel. As the Committee plans to mark up its Head

Start reauthorization bill this coming week, we believe that

preserving this structure of governance is fundamental to the

continued success of the program.

Under current law, Head Start boards of directors and

policy councils share the responsibility of managing a Head

Start program. This partnership helps to ensure that there is

a system of checks and balances in place and that the

important voices of experts in accounting, finance, and early

education are balanced with the equally important voices of

parents who have children in the program. Many of our

constituents who are involved with Head Start have told us

that policy council members, especially parents, often have a

much greater day-to-day knowledge of the program than the

board of directors and are thus better able to provide

accountability. Indeed, a 2005 GAO report found that calls

from parents are often the first signal to Head Start

regional offices that a program is struggling with

mismanagement.

As the Education and Labor Committee prepares for its

markup, we want to ensure that it does not diminish the role

of parent policy councils. We believe this would undermine

the future success of the Head Start program and, in turn,

the success of thousands of at-risk children and their

parents. Like both of you, we believe there should be

stronger accountability within Head Start programs. The 2005

GAO report, for example, cited a lack of oversight from the

HHS regional offices and Head Start boards of directors as

sizable obstacles to improved accountability. However, these

reforms need not come at the expense of parental involvement

in the program. Any Head Start reauthorization bill must

preserve the current oversight role of the policy councils

with regard to board actions in key areas such as budget,

programming, and personnel, if they are to maintain their

current vital role within the program.

Again, we ask that the chairman's mark of the Head Start

reauthorization bill retain the current shared governance

structure of the policy councils and board of directors. The

current structure has helped to successful1y prepare hundreds

of thousands of low-income children to enter kindergarten and

empowered thousands of parents to take greater roles in the

lives of their children and communities. Thank you for your

attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please

contact Jill Hunter-Williams with Rep. Davis at 225-5006 or

Brett Swearingen with Rep. Souder at 225-4436.

Sincerely,

Danny K. Davis; Donald M. Payne; Robert C. Scott; Linda

T. Sanchez; John F. Terney; David Wu; John A. Yarmuth.

Mark Souder; Ric Keller; Todd Russell Platts; Rob Bishop;

Timothy Walberg; Raul M. Grijalva; Virginia Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of promoting technological innovation, bolstering the strength of our manufacturing industry and contributing to the overall global competitiveness of American business. However, I simply cannot support the closed rule process brought forward today by the Democrat majority that prevents all but one Republican amendment from being considered by the House.

This rule represents a substantial break with recent precedent because the last time that a comprehensive reauthorization of the National Institute of Standards and Technology was brought to the Rules Committee, the Republican majority provided the House with a completely open rule for its consideration. I know this, Mr. Speaker, because I had the privilege of managing that rule for our majority, and the Democrat minority position was then ably handled by the current chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend Chairman Louise Slaughter.

Unfortunately, Chairwoman Slaughter seems to have forgotten the merits of providing the House with an open rules process because today the committee that she chairs has provided the House with a closed process, through a restrictive rule, not an open rule, even using the more lenient definition of an open rule currently being employed by the Democrat majority, which under Republican leadership was reserved for modified open rules.

I include for the Record a copy of this rule, H. Res. 474, which provided for the consideration of H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002, to remind the majority that NIST reauthorization is, in fact, possible to do under an open process.

H. Res. 474

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2733) to authorize the National Institute of

Standards and Technology to work with major manufacturing

industries on an initiative of standards development and

implementation for electronic enterprise integration. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of substitute

recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the

bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be considered as read. During

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on

the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Despite my objection to the rule, I do want to support the underlying legislation which makes a number of positive changes to an institution with a long history of helping to keep America globally competitive.

Since its inception in 1901, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has worked diligently to achieve its mission of promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement, science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life.

By focusing on its core mission of stimulating innovation, fostering industrial competition and competitiveness and improving quality of life, the NIST has become a valuable component in the ongoing struggle that the United States faces to remain globally competitive.

This legislation authorizes appropriations for NIST for the next 3 years, most notably doubling the Federal Government's investment in physical

science research, as proposed by President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. And this increased investment will yield real-world benefits across a number of diverse sectors, including developing performance standards for bullet-proof vests for our military and law enforcement, chemical and biological protection equipment for first responders, and measurement standards vital to leading-edge industries like nanotechnology and next-generation solar cells that will help America increase its energy independence.

This legislation strengthens oversight by requiring the NIST director to submit annual programmatic planning documents to Congress, ensuring that the NIST budget is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry, and that the increased funds which the NIST is being entrusted with are spent wisely.

This legislation also takes steps to ensure the continued viability of the workhorses of the American economy, small and medium-size manufacturers.

By reauthorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, Congress will help countless domestic manufacturers to improve their manufacturing processes, reduce waste and to train workers to use new equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the work of Chairman Bart Gordon and my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, for all of their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1868--Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of

2007, May 1, 2007

The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 1868 in

its current form. The bill conflicts with the

administration's Research and Development Criteria by

diverting funds from critical, high-return basic research to

support subsidized management consulting activities and a

Technology Innovation Program (TIP) modeled on the Advanced

Technology Program that was proceeding toward termination

last Congress, as the Administration has proposed for the

past five years. These external commercial support programs

would be authorized at a total of $223 million in Fiscal Year

2008, and would increase by more than 18 percent in FY 2009.

The Administration does not support the level of funding or

the focus and structure of the programs as currently

reflected in the bill. The Administration recognizes that a

Manager's Amendment may be offered that is intended to

improve the bill by refocusing TIP awards on areas of

national need. However, the bill still permits grants to

large corporations, limits the role of universities and

national laboratories, and does not target major societal

challenges.

The Administration continues to believe that investing in

basic research is a higher priority. Last year the President

proposed doubling support for high-payoff physical science

research in the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation, and the

Department of Energy's Office of Science over the coming

decade as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative

(ACI). Compared with the amounts required to double NIST's

core research and facilities funding, H.R. 1868 provides $22

million less in FY 2008 than the President requested and

authorizes less funding than the Administration recommends in

FYs 2009 and 2010. Such investment in NIST's core measurement

and standards capabilities has demonstrated a significant,

and often exceptional, return to the economy. Studies

commissioned by NIST to evaluate the economic impacts of its

core standards activities generally show benefits far greater

than costs--the benefit-cost ratio across 19 of these studies

averaged 44:1, indicative of the great leveraging of NIST's

work in the economy. The research funding increases for NIST

proposed in the ACI have been broadly endorsed by the science

community, most recently in the ``American Innovation

Proc1amation''--a package of targeted recommendations by

America's business and higher education leaders.

The House bill would divert NIST resources from core basic

research activities toward less meritorious industrial

policy. The Administration urges the House to amend the bill

to address these concerns.

But despite my support for the legislation's goals, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, so that this legislation can be considered under an open rule process that gives every single Member of this body with a germane amendment an opportunity to come down to the floor and to make their case.

Mr. Speaker, the essence of what we are here to do today is to help America to become more competitive in the global process. By doing this, what we are saying is that by working with the NIST, it is a collaboration that the government has on behalf of and in particular for technology.

Technology is what ultimately will drive America well into this new century to make sure that we solve problems, problems that have existed. Maybe they are mathematical problems, perhaps they are problems of trying to get people to work with new equipment that they may have. But the technology angle and the ability that the Federal Government has to take a proactive stand on behalf of American competitiveness is the essence of this bill.

For a long time, we have spoken on this floor, Member-to-Member and as a body, about how important it is for America to understand the global competition that faces America. Today is an opportunity for us to come together here in this Congress to make sure that we are talking not only about that which will help America, but to continue something that we have been doing since 1901, and that is a government program that works well with the private sector to make sure that America is poised in its future to be prepared for what lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see by the last two speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), they have approached this subject not only in a bipartisan way, but with a genuine friendship to each other in trying to promote NIST as well as American competitiveness. I think this flows all the way to the top, where Chairman Bart Gordon and ranking member Ralph Hall have worked very diligently on this. I think it is a good thing when we are able to work in the Congress on behalf of the American people, in this case for the NIST laboratories.

I would like to talk for just a minute, if I can, about more of what they do, because I think it is an interesting exercise to go through.

Between 3 and 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic products is attributed to measurements and measurement-related operations that rely on the NIST for accuracy, reliability and for international recognition. The NIST X-ray standards and proficiency tests ensure proper radiation exposure levels in

more than 9,000 facilities that perform more than 30 million mammograms yearly.

The NIST Internet time services are being used by NASDAQ, a key component of our wonderful American system of financial integrity, for NASDAQ members to time stamp hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stock trades and other financial transactions that are conducted in business every single day.

The United States, for the last 35 years, has helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. During part of that time my father, for eight of those years, served as Director of the FBI.

The NIST helps improve the process of matching fingerprints found at crime scenes or collected from suspects with those that are on file. In cooperation with the American National Standards Institute, the NIST also developed a uniform way for fingerprint identification data to be exchanged between different jurisdictions and between scanning machines made by different manufacturers.

The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, the Nation's highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to U.S. organizations for their performance excellence in quality achievement, is managed by the NIST, and the award criteria are used by thousands of companies, hospitals, and schools to improve their products and services all across the United States.

The total economic benefit of the NIST Baldridge National Quality Program, which receives only a small amount of Federal funding, is estimated at almost $25 billion for a stunning benefit-cost ratio of 207 to 1.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something that is a laboratory that all Americans can be proud of. I came from a research organization years ago in New Jersey where I had a chance to also work in a lab. This lab is an asset to America. But, Mr. Speaker, it is part of an overall comprehensive and complex way that the United States chooses to do business not only in this country, but also to lead the world.

I found it interesting that just a few weeks ago there was a report issued by the Financial Times, which is a newspaper that reports on international monetary circumstances, and it reported that now the 25- member EU countries have a combined GDP that equals that of the United States of America, 25 member countries from the EU. But if you read on, you see that they now have a combined GDP that equals the United States where we were in 1985.

America truly is the world leader. We are the world leader in commerce and activities that create better lives for people. The EU is struggling. They are struggling because of high taxes, rules and regulations, and a single-payer system in health care, those things that we here in the United States Congress also debate and talk about.

And because we have a chance to have something like the NIST as well as a free-enterprise system that is vibrant here in America, because we shut off the heavy rules and regulations, the heavy taxation, and those things that would be related to a single-payer system for health care, we have been able to move America economically in the world marketplace.

So Republicans today come to the floor in full appreciation and respect with our colleagues to say we want to continue what this lab does, but we are also asking for them at the same time to recognize that growing medium and small business, ensuring that America stays competitive, and, most importantly, that we are prepared for the future where our competitors might be is what really this Congress should be doing.

Today is a small piece, part, a component of that competitiveness model that will keep America going, and I am proud to be a part of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 provides for consideration of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rules waive all points of order against the bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for 12 amendments, all contained in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 40 years Head Start has served as the premier educational and developmental program for more than 20 million American children and families. Head Start works. It works because it is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative that combines children's educational needs with health care and parent outreach.

This comprehensive approach to child health, nutrition and learning is one of our best tools to tackle the achievement gap in education for children living in poverty across our Nation.

The achievement gap begins far before children enter elementary school. Head Start tackles the achievement gap through cognitive, social and emotional child development, each of which is a key contributor to entering elementary school prepared to succeed.

Today 20 percent of America's 12 million children under age 6 live in poverty. We know that a family's income level greatly affects their children's access to educational opportunities. The reality of poverty for so many children, unfortunately, is tied to low success rates in our classrooms. This is true in my home State of Florida. In my community in the Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children currently are served by Head Start, but many thousands more are on waiting lists and are eligible.

They are on waiting lists because for so many years previous Congresses have failed to reenact Head Start, and the White House has proposed flat-line budgets, so our kids merely have been treading water. With no improvements or increases in funding since 2003, and inflation going up, it has become more difficult to maintain the well- known, high-quality elements in Head Start.

The good news is that this new Congress will change that today and make the smartest investment for our country's future workforce. We are going to put more kids on the path to success when we pass this bill and rule today.

This bill will improve teacher and classroom quality, strengthen the focus on school readiness, expand access to thousands more children across America, strengthen comprehensive services, increase the number of children in early Head Start, because we are a lot smarter these days based upon the research that has been done on early child development and the development of the brain. We are going to allow homeless children to enroll, and we are going to do a better job, my colleague from Florida, for children who are just learning English.

On Monday, I paid a visit to the West Tampa Head Start Center and delivered books to the kids and teachers to mark the four decades of smashing success of this holistic, wraparound initiative that empowers all of us. These children are eager and ready to learn if we give them the tools.

We need to raise strong and healthy children. Head Start prepares children to succeed in school and in life. The administration's slow- motion cuts of Head Start over past years will now be reversed. The American people stood up in November and asked for change, and today we are going to stand up for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate on the floor of the House today we will hear some debate over the role of faith-based organizations in Head Start. Republicans would like language that would repeal existing civil rights protections in this Head Start law that ensure the program's Federal funds discriminate, and we are opposed to that.

No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a publicly

funded job. That is exactly what some on the other side of the aisle will attempt to do today.

Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking for this change. They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's religion.

This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue.

Democrats strongly support faith-based organizations running Head Start programs, and H.R. 1429 on the floor today specifically reaffirms that faith-based organizations may run Head Start programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

Our side has no remaining speakers, except for my closing.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do have one final speaker before my closing remarks.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 and this rule so that we infuse Head Start with the necessary investments and program enhancements that will sustain Head Start for years to come. We will chart a new course in the right direction by ensuring family incomes do not impede a child's access to educational opportunities.

The fact that the administration and the past few Congresses did not keep the promise to America's children is unfortunate. We have lost ground. But the good news is that this new Democratic Congress is charting a new direction. This includes wise investments in the education and health of our kids, which are certain to pay dividends for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for America. The Congress is going to keep the promise made 4 decades ago to children who are born with the same potential but, because of their life circumstances, are in need of a little extra attention, health care, nutrition, the guiding hand of a knowledgeable, talented, devoted teacher, and a true head start.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. RES. 348

Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in

order as though printed as the last amendment in the report

of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Price

of Georgia or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable

for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Page 36, after line 12, insert the following (and make such

technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

``(3) Emergency exit doors.--

``(A) Effective date.--Section 1310.12(a) of title 45, Code

of Federal Regulations, shall become effective on the

effective date of this paragraph.

``(B) Covered vehicles.--Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, any vehicle used

to transport children for a Head Start program after

effective date of this paragraph, shall be subject to a

requirement under such section (including a requirement based

on the definitions set forth or referenced in section 1310.3

or any other provision set forth or referenced in part 1310

of such title, or any corresponding similar regulation or

ruling) concerning rear exit doors.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me just thank my former colleague on the Committee on Rules, Mr. Pete Sessions, the gentleman from Texas. I realize as we get busy running from pillar to post around here, that he was in the process of wrapping up, and it is awfully kind of him to go kind of out of regular order and give me the opportunity, knowing how committed I am to this program, to take a few minutes. I appreciate so much that opportunity.

I do rise to support the underlying rule and the bill, H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I want to take the opportunity to thank my chairman on the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, David Wu from the great State of Oregon, for incorporating into this bill the many suggestions and additions from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration. The final legislation is a better product because of that, and, David Wu, I thank you so much.

Last year, with his American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush provided a vision to maintain America's position in the global marketplace by actually doubling the investment in physical science research over the next 10 years. H.R. 1868 helps fulfill that mission.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST we know it as. It is an agency in the Department of Commerce and one of the three agencies highlighted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.

NIST has an annual operating budget of about $843 million. It operates in two locations. The headquarters, of course, are in Gaithersburg, Maryland, I have had a great visit there with Dr. Jeffrey, the Director. There is also the facility at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

NIST employs 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians and administrative. These employees all play a critical role in this research, which enables cutting-edge technologies to make the leap from basic research into successful commercial products. NIST labs accomplish this goal by conducting research that supports United States technology infrastructure by developing tools to measure, evaluate and standardize processes and products in almost all industrial sectors.

For example, NIST labs develops performance standards for bulletproof vests, chemical and biological protection equipment guides for first responders, measurement standards vital to sustaining cutting-edge industries like nanotechnology, we are doing some great work at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, on nanotechnology, and, of course, next generation solar cells.

The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act codifies

the American Competitiveness Initiative by authorizing 3 years of the proposed 10-year doubling for NIST laboratories and construction budget. That indeed is exactly what the administration asked us to do. That is exactly what Chairman Wu has done and the Science Committee has done.

H.R. 1868 also strengthens oversight of NIST programs by requiring the director to submit to Congress annual programmatic planning documents and requiring NIST's Technical Advisory Board to comment on those plans. This will ensure that the budget of NIST is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry and that Congress is kept abreast of how NIST plans to use its increased funding.

Manufacturing is so fundamental, Mr. Speaker, to our Nation's economic vitality. Manufacturing jobs continue to pay more than the average U.S. salaries and they provide better benefits.

Mr. Speaker, a strong manufacturing base is so critical to U.S. economic competitiveness. H.R. 1868 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers by reauthorizing the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I know every Member is enthusiastic about Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. We refer to them as MEPs. They are wonderful. They are great programs. They help businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste, they train workers to use new equipment.

The MEP program receives one-third of its funding from the Federal Government, one-third from the States, and, yes, one-third from fees charged to the participating small businesses, these potential small business manufacturers. This MEP program has over 350 offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. In my great State of Georgia, and again, I mention my alma mater, Georgia Tech, plays a critical role in successfully coordinating the efforts across the State for these MEP programs.

H.R. 1868 improves the MEP program by incorporating changes that have passed the House in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. These changes include the codification of an MEP advisory board, the establishment of grant programs to research and identify innovative manufacturing technologies and the formation of research fellowships.

I know my colleagues and I can all agree that small and medium-sized manufacturers are the workhorses of our economy. Their future depends on our ability to foster an innovative environment which will enable them to continue developing and adopting advanced technologies that allow them to remain competitive in the ever-increasing global marketplace.

Our country's current system of collaboration with university and national lab-based basic research is the best in the world. However, many experts agree that in the phase between science-based ``inventions'' and commercially viable ``innovation,'' inefficiencies exist in our capital markets that contribute to the funding gap for early stage technology development.

Currently, the Advanced Technology Program at NIST provides cost- shared funding to bridge the technology development gap for research with potential to deliver widespread economic benefits that would likely not be developed because private sector capital is unavailable.

H.R. 1868 repeals the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, and establishes the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, which will award cost-shared grants to small and medium-sized businesses and joint ventures including universities to pursue high-risk technologies with potential significant broad benefits to the Nation.

The new Technology Innovation Program incorporates recommendations made by the Bush administration to improve and update the former ATP program to make it more effective in promoting technology transfer that will benefit our entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, past ATP funding advanced technologies for the next- generation auto equipment and techniques including: robotic welding, ceramic coatings, and reinforced plastics as strong as steel. One project dramatically improved the fit of a car body's 300 stamped parts. This advancement may save consumers and automakers up to $650 million in annual maintenance costs.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are doing here today in regard to the NIST program is so important to our economy. We worry about jobs. We worry on both sides of the aisle. We talk about that. Every month we look at the number of jobs that were created. It is a barometer that is watched so closely by the Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, and by the people back home.

This is really what this is all about, these kinds of programs. We can fight about a lot of things, but we shouldn't fight about funding the National Science Foundation and the NIST program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and anything like that, like last week when we passed those two bills to improve math and science education in this country.

We have to compete globally. Yes, we are in a shooting war in the Middle East and we want to give our soldiers an opportunity to win, but we need to give ourselves an opportunity to win this economic battle of the global economy, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues, as I know they will, to support it.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation Manufacturing and Stimulation Act of 2007.

I certainly want to thank the Chair of the subcommittee for working very, very closely with us in producing this fine bill.

This bill provides a 3-year authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, familiarly called NIST. Since 1901, NIST scientists and engineers have worked directly with American industries to address their needs for measurement methods, tools, data and technology, the building blocks that allow industry to grow and prosper.

NIST is one of three agencies targeted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double the Federal investment in physical science and research over the next 10 years to ensure that America remains technologically competitive in the global context marketplace. Yesterday this body passed an authorization bill for one of the other ACI agencies, the National Science Foundation. I am very pleased that today we are supporting a second ACI agency by authorizing NIST labs at a rate that would double the budget over the next 10 years.

H.R. 1868 is a bipartisan bill that incorporates recommendations from the administration for some of NIST's programs. However, earlier this week, the administration sent up a critical statement about H.R. 1868, and I want to clarify some misunderstanding that may have arisen from that statement.

H.R. 1868 does not underfund the NIST labs, contrary to the statement and the administration's comments. H.R. 1868 provides a 10 percent increase above fiscal year 2007 for the NIST labs and sets the NIST lab budget on a path to double over the next 10 years. This is entirely consistent with the President's overall stated goal for the American Competitiveness Initiative.

H.R. 1868 does not fund or subsidize management consulting services. H.R. 1868 fully funds the highly successful manufacturing extension partnership, better known as the MEP program.

MEP helps businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste and train workers to use new equipment, which keeps high-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States. This House has already twice passed this MEP authorization in both the 108th and 109th Congress.

Another comment, MEP receives one-third of its funding from the Federal Government, one-third from the States, one-third from fees charged to participating small manufacturers. MEP has over 350 manufacturing extension offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico.

H.R. 1868 creates the Technology Innovation Program based on recommendations from the administration. This bill is very clear that only small and medium-size companies can apply for Federal funding.

Universities partnering with this small company can apply for funding, actually expanding the role of university participation, not limiting it as the administration's letter suggests.

The program's sole goal is to accelerate the development and application of challenging high-risk, high-reward technologies in areas of critical national needs, thus, targeting major societal needs that the administration's letter asserts are not part of the bill.

H.R. 1868 authorizes an important investment in our Nation's future economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Wu for working with us on this important piece of legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) to improve this legislation.

I also want to make an additional point. At times, some have considered this as being improper legislation. In particular, the President's statement indicates that is the beginning of an industrial policy.

That is simply not true. For those who are critical of this particular proposal, I want to ask them, first of all, do they oppose the current agricultural extension program, which has been in effect for nearly a century, which has been of inestimable value to our farming communities and to our farmers.

No one would think of ending the cooperative extension service in the agriculture department. It has been extremely valuable to this country. I have been in this body for 14 years. I have never heard anyone offer an amendment to defund the cooperative extension program, even though it costs $400 million a year and benefits less than 2 percent of the workforce in this country.

At the same time, I have met a number of people, and apparently including some in the administration, who want to kill the MEP program, which is only $100 million a year and benefits industries that employ 14 percent of the workers in this Nation.

Now, how can it make sense to want to keep a $400 million program that maintains a workforce of less than 2 million, and kill a program that costs one-fourth as much and helps about eight times as many workers? It doesn't make sense. So that argument is simply out the window.

If we do like the Cooperative Extension Service, we should approve the manufacturing extension partnership, which is of exactly the same nature and is designed to help small- to medium-sized manufacturers develop more jobs in our economy.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I reiterate my strong support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act.

This bill is a key part of the President's American competitive initiative, and I am pleased it moved through the Science and Technology Committee in a bipartisan manner, and also moved through speedily.

I thank the staff for their hard work on this bill, including Jenny Healy from Dr. Gingrey's office and Julia Jester from my office. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

This is a good amendment and I support it. In response to concerns from the administration, as explained earlier, it clarifies that the Technology Innovation Program will only support projects that address critical national needs.

It also expands the definition of high-risk research to ensure that the TIP program will only support projects that are too novel or diverse to fare well in the traditional peer review or venture capital process.

I urge my colleagues to support the Wu-Gingrey amendment. And I also want to just comment, Mr. Gingrey certainly wished to be here. I am filling in his role only because he had to travel home for a funeral, and he may reappear yet before the end of this particular bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, there's no need to repeat the contents of the amendment. I believe it is a good amendment. I believe it is a needed amendment, and I particularly like that it will be self-funding, although there is a small amount of money needed to start it off, but from that point it should be self-funded, should NIST decide to do that. So I urge support for the amendment.