Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.

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 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 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 to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 473 provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution also waives points of order against the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding legislating in an appropriations bill and appropriating for unauthorized programs.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may provide priority in recognition based on whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I am pleased to bring to the floor the first appropriations bill of the 110th Congress under a traditional open rule process. The security of our Nation concerns every American in every State, and it is a priority of every Member of this body. But while the effort to secure our homeland is a bipartisan one, there are clear differences between how the two parties approach it, and the bill demonstrates them.

We have before us legislation that provides more than $36 billion in critical funding needed to address security vulnerabilities identified by the Homeland Security experts. It is a fulfillment of commitments made by Democrats in implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which passed the House with a bipartisan majority.

With this bill Democrats are increasing funding for homeland security by 7 percent, or $2.5 billion, over the amount appropriated for it last year. In fact, we are providing close to $2 billion more than what the President asked for in his request to Congress. These increases aren't excessive. They are, instead, the result of the Democrats' commitment to adequately fund security programs which in past years have been talked about, but not sufficiently supported.

These funding increases stand in stark contrast to past Republican decisions to cut money for vital security efforts and to impose unfunded mandates on State governments. My fellow Democrats and I have rejected the Republican proposals for across-the-board cuts in these areas. We feel that they would indiscriminately and unnecessarily sacrifice billions in needed funding for rail, transit, and port security, as well as for first responder grants. And, indeed, the sad truth is that these grant programs have suffered funding cuts every year since 2004. Compare that to the fact that this bill provides over $4.5 billion, nearly double the requested amount, for these critical areas.

More specifically, we have provided $400 million for port security, doubling the requested amount. Similarly, $400 million will go towards rail and transit security grants, more than the administration requested. And we will increase spending for firefighter grants by $138 million. The administration had wanted to cut these funds significantly, but we are increasing them.

At a time of heightened concern about our border security, the legislation will help to secure our borders by paying the salaries of 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and it also improves the benefits package for Customs and Border Patrol officers to ensure higher recruitment and retention rates. After years of a lack of accountability and questionable government contracts, this bill promotes both accountability and oversight through reforms of the contracting process, and this is amazingly important.

I mentioned our borders a moment ago and I want to return to that subject very briefly. As a representative from western New York, the security of our borders is an issue of great concern to me.

Both our northern and southern borders face unique and separate challenges, and the bill addresses each in turn.

The 3,000 new agents funded by the bill will mean over 17,800 brave men and women will patrol our borders by the end of 2008. And at the same time, we will increase northern border funding by 33 percent, and 500 new agents will be placed there. As important as this is, border security efforts must never blind us to the deep connection we share with our neighbor to the north. Ours is a 200-year-old relationship that has benefited both of our nations immensely. In fact, I often say

that people of northern border communities don't see Canadian towns and cities as being in another country; instead, we see it as one nation with a river running through it.

The travel and trade which cross the northern border every single day between America and Canada are critical to our economy and to the northern economic security. We must never sacrifice our relationship with Canada in a misguided attempt to increase border security.

I have long said that economic security and physical security are not mutually exclusive; we can and we must have both. Unfortunately, the approach to northern border security currently advocated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State is flawed. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, of WHTI, will choke off legitimate travel and trade and sacrifice local economies unnecessarily by imposing onerous border-crossing requirements. WHTI, while well- intentioned, is simply unacceptable in its current form.

For 2 years, I have been working with fellow border members and concerned local groups and Canada and their government to fix WHTI, and I am proud to say today represents a major step forward in that battle. With Chairman Price's help, I inserted language into this bill that will withhold $100 million from the funds required to implement WHTI until a series of our demands have been met, demands that will push both DHS and State in the direction that they need to go, that is, away from requiring expensive crossing documents and towards commonsense, low-cost alternatives, and will keep our border closed to criminals, but open to the families and the businesses which make it so vibrant.

Additionally, the language will require the completion of a pilot project, which DHS is paying for and has not yet started, involving the State of Washington and British Columbia before WHTI can go forward. We see no point in paying for a project only to ignore it. The project will reveal the feasibility of the passport requirements in WHTI. With the 2008 winter Olympics being held in Vancouver, there will soon be an even greater number of Americans traveling across the border there. And this is a perfect way for us to test the requirements of WHTI before it is put in place nationwide, and we are going to make sure the results of that test are known.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It demonstrates the Democratic commitment to smart security, as well as to ensuring that the money spent by this government goes where it is needed most and is spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. These are our priorities. Our constituents deserve no less, and our security can afford no less.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled myself over the earmark process as the Republicans had it last year.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute more to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage Mr. Flake for a moment.

The chairman of the committee made it really clear that you are going to have 30 days to look at the earmarks, whose earmarks they are, and contact them if they are in the bill. The Rules Committee will decide whether you have the ability to strike them or not.

I yield to Mr. Flake.

I wouldn't want you to believe this is going to be the permanent way this is going to run. Given the vast number, the 32,000 that you mentioned, and the fact that we had no budget last year, no Federal budget last year, there was an extra strain on Mr. Obey; and I am confident that the next year will be different.

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

A lot of time has been spent today on the open rule and the open amendment process, and I'd like to give you and anybody else who may be watching some idea of what we can expect.

Some 94 Republican amendments were filed, 16 Democrats. One Republican is responsible for more than 50 percent of that side.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what they are. None of the funds can be used for supporting yoga classes.

None can be used to support art classes. None can be used to support dance classes. None can be used under other programs, any program that offers to support a dance class. And my personal favorite, none of the funds can be used for supporting puppet shows.

There isn't anything in the world in any part of this bill having anything to do with these amendments, but nonetheless here we are. We'll be debating this into the night, but I would ask everybody to listen to those amendments and decide which is serious on homeland security.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as

follows:

``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph

(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with

respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report,

or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of

consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member

initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an

opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening

motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

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. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct privilege to bring forth the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has grown and begun to mature under the bipartisan oversight of the Appropriations Committee and of the Committee on Homeland Security. In fact, Ms. Slaughter and I worked together, when I was the chairman and she the ranking member of the select Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Rules, to make certain that the committee became the permanent standing committee that it is today.

As we know, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the Federal Government to the best of our ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist attacks.

Thanks to our new concerted approach to security, and I think it is important to recognize, to the 180,000 hardworking employees of the Department of Homeland Security, we have not suffered further attacks. But we must not let our guard down. Within the last month alone, Mr. Speaker, we have seen several plans thwarted to attack both Fort Dix and a major airport in New York City. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to protect the United States from yet another deadly attack.

There is an item in this legislation that helps fulfill a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and that will provide additional security to districts that many of us represent throughout the country, including the one that I am honored to represent, districts with large airports. In its report, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the Transportation Security Agency expedite the installation of advanced in-line baggage screening equipment.

Miami International Airport, which is in the district that I am honored to represent, is a high-security, category 10 airport on the front line of homeland security defense. Miami International Airport has approximately 1,160 international flights each week, more than any other airport in the United States. Miami International Airport has over 900 flights a week from Latin America, more than all other U.S. airports combined. Miami International ranks third in overall international passenger traffic.

The Miami-Dade Aviation Department, which operates Miami International Airport, is currently building two new terminals at MIA and is incurring over $100 million in in-line Explosive Detection System, EDS, terminal modification costs. In 2005, TSA committed $20 million in Other Transaction Agreement funds which will almost cover the 75 percent Federal share for the south terminal project.

As Miami International Airport begins the installation process of EDS in its north terminal, the airport still requires an additional funding agreement to cover the Federal share of the $79 million modification project. For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Miami-Dade Aviation Department is projected to spend $28.8 million on the north terminal modifications, $21.6 million of which falls under the Federal Government's cost share.

I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee for allocating $560 million for Explosive Detection System, EDS, procurement and installations. These funds will help reimburse Miami International Airport in its efforts to complete its EDS installations.

Mr. Speaker, there are still some concerns with this bill, as Ranking Member Rogers has stated publicly. There is concern about the rapid growth of funding represented by the bill, for example. And although the Appropriations Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill, there is concern from many Members of this House about the process. As we know, the Appropriations Committee has announced that earmarks were not included in this bill and will only be added during the conference process with the Senate. It is not until that point that Members and the public will be able to see the earmarks. By adding earmarking during the conference process, Members will not have the opportunity to make amendments to remove or adjust earmarks approved by the majority on the Appropriations Committee.

The announced procedure protects earmarks from what during the opening of the 110th Congress some refer to as the ``disinfectant of sunshine.'' This procedure for earmarks is in effect reversing a traditionally more open appropriations process. I urge our colleagues in the majority to reconsider this procedure and allow for an open appropriations process.

I would like to commend the majority for bringing this important appropriations bill to the floor under an open rule. The House, as Ms. Slaughter mentioned, has historically considered appropriations bills under open rules in order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or receive approval from the Rules Committee.

I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of running a transparent House and continue our tradition of open rules with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank all of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule, in effect, is nothing more than a fig leaf.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 474. As we approach Father's Day weekend, it is appropriate for us to recognize the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. Children who live with their fathers do better in school, are less likely to use drugs or engage in other criminal behavior, and are less likely to experience health, emotional, or behavioral problems. In so many ways, involved fathers provide needed support for their children and serve as role models as they develop.

Unfortunately, too many children today do not live with or even frequently see their fathers. This has forced millions of young mothers across the Nation to single-handedly raise their children, struggling to provide them with the love and support needed to succeed in today's world. It is a sad reality that for millions of children, their mother has to play the role of both mom and dad, a task that is not only difficult for the mother but which despite her efforts far too often results in that child living in poverty, among other challenges.

To help address this situation, the 1996 welfare reform law included promoting marriage and family formation and the maintenance of two- parent families as key purposes of welfare programs.

Under the direction of the Ways and Means Committee on which I serve, legislation reauthorizing the 1996 welfare reform law in the last Congress included specific funding for healthy marriage and fatherhood grant programs to improve the well-being of children. These fatherhood grants were designed to promote responsible fatherhood by funding projects developed by public, private, and often faith-based groups to help fathers establish positive relationships with their children and the children's mothers, improve job skills, increase child support payments, and promote marriage among parents. Activities can include counseling, mentoring, providing information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement for children and the prevention of domestic violence and child abuse, financial planning seminars, and education on good parenting practices.

Last October, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced $119 million in awards to 225 grantees for promotion of healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood. These grants are designed to make a difference in the lives of children, fathers, and families by supporting groups already at work trying to help men become better fathers.

As we honor our own fathers this week, we should also thank those who are working every day to help more men become better fathers. The last Congress took concrete steps to support them. In the congressional district I represent, a recent fatherhood event took place that is described in the June 11 Catholic News Service article, provided below. As efforts such as this and those supported by the recent Federal grants take hold, we will be watching for evidence that more children are

spending every day, and not just Father's Day, with an involved and supportive father.

[From the Catholic News Service, June 11, 2007]

Fathers' Involvement Key in Lives of Children, Says Catholic Charities

Conference

(By Paul Storer)

Joliet, IL. (CNS).--A convicted drug dealer, 28-year-old

Exulam Holman knows his actions have caused pain to those

closest to him. The father of three young children, former

gang member and ex-addict was released three months ago from

prison. Today, he is desperately trying to put his life in

order.

Holman's painstaking quest to reclaim his life spurred him

to take part in a fatherhood conference sponsored by Catholic

Charities of the Diocese of Joliet. ``I want to make things

right for my kids,'' he told the Catholic Explorer, Joliet

diocesan newspaper, during the June 2 event.

``I've messed up,'' he said. ``But I've asked God to help

me. I have to get myself right with God.''

About 100 people attended the third annual conference,

aimed at getting fathers more involved in the lives of their

children, said Ronald Roseboro, site supervisor of early

childhood services for Catholic Charities and coordinator of

the event.

Fathers of children in the agency's early childhood

programs were encouraged to attend the gathering, said

Roseboro. Other fathers from Joliet and surrounding

communities were also invited to attend.

The presence of two nurturing parents minimizes the

possibility their children will abuse drugs or alcohol, join

gangs or involve themselves in other dangerous situations,

said Roseboro. A father's leadership and guidance has a

definite impact on his children's lives, he continued. ``It's

like dropping a pebble into a pond and watching the ripples

it makes.''

Guest speakers from diverse backgrounds led various

workshops during the conference.

A father of five, Rev. Eugene Fears, pastor of Joliet's

Redeem Church of God in Christ, spoke of healthy

relationships. The no-nonsense preacher relied on his own

experiences to build a case for sound communication and

devotion between spouses.

``A commitment pushes through adversity,'' he told

conference participants. He urged the men to ``learn to make

adjustments'' and to avoid ``self-centered'' attitudes. ``We

need to learn to give of ourselves,'' Rev. Fears said.

Fathers who leave and don't compensate their families are

often called ``deadbeat dads,'' but the reality is they are

often simply ``dead broke,'' Warren Cottrell, director of the

Joliet branch of the Illinois Child Support Enforcement

program, said in an interview with the Explorer. He was on

hand to field questions from participants during the

conference.

Most fathers understand their responsibilities. They choose

to turn their backs on their families, however, when they

realize they cannot adequately provide for them. ``It's the

male ego,'' said Cottrell.

Applauding Catholic Charities for broaching the topic with

the conference, the administrator noted that fathers must be

encouraged to do the right thing.

Cottrell said the welfare system in Illinois has many

cracks. Jobless fathers are leaving their families so mothers

can qualify for government aid. There are countless programs

for single mothers in need of assistance. At the. same time,

government programs need to be created to educate fathers and

provide them with skills to remain with their families, he

said.

Darnell Terrell's children participate in the Catholic

Charities Head Start program at St. John's Head Start Center

in Joliet. The owner of a disc-jockey business and father of

six praised the other men who attended the conference. ``It

takes a real man to listen to others about fatherhood

responsibilities.''

Kenneth White and Donald Waddell, human services

consultants and family counselors, shared startling

statistics compiled by the National Fatherhood Initiative

during their workshop. The findings highlight the fact that

the absence of fathers has a serious effect on families.

More than 70 percent of teens who have committed homicide

grew up without fathers. Approximately 60 percent of rapists

were raised in fatherless homes. Three out of four teen

suicides occur in single-parent families. And the list goes

on and on, they said.

Substance abuse fuels domestic problems that work to break

families apart, according to the two experts in the field.

Presenting a workshop on the effects of addiction on

fatherhood, White and Waddell described the impact that

narcotics and alcohol have on the family unit and discussed

some proven methods for combating the problem.

Addiction among parents needs to be addressed and curbed,

Waddell told the Explorer, because children of parents who

abuse drugs often become addicted themselves during

adolescence and later in life. ``We want to break that

cycle,'' he said.

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