Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 13, 2007, at 4 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 531 provides for consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for a single amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative McKeon of California or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, educational opportunity is the backbone of what we are about and everything that makes this Nation great. For this reason, I am very pleased to support the rule and the underlying legislation that will give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give them the vital tools necessary to prepare them to enter the workforce and build a positive future.

The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most important and difficult issues facing our Nation. While access to higher education is more critical than ever for our younger generations, the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income families. This problem is nothing less than a crisis. How many students have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford their tuition? And how much potential has our Nation lost because of the failure to address this issue?

If students cannot afford to get the education and training necessary for them to make a productive and positive impact in our communities, it hurts us all. Investment in our younger generations not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and our retired workers whom they will help to support. It ensures our national security, continued improvements in health outcomes as well as advances in manufacturing and technology. Improving access to higher education is not only about helping America's middle class and our students and families who are in need. It is about strengthening America.

But instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a better future, recent Congresses and the administration chose to cut funding for student loan programs and have allowed this issue to become the crisis it is today. It is time for priorities to change, and this bill is part of making that happen.

Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The typical American student now graduates from college with $17,500 worth of debt. If we do not take action immediately, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade. This Congress has a responsibility to help our students and our working families.

Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed the heartbreak of parents who work hard day in and day out who have to tell their child that they cannot afford to send them to college. I have listened to these struggling parents and heard the ache in their voices. It is a story that is far too common. It is unacceptable and we must take action. And today we do.

H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will provide the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, and it will put college education back within reach of so many families. H.R. 2669 follows on the College Student Relief Act that passed overwhelmingly, 356-71, in this new Congress earlier this year. That bill cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. For the average student in the State of Ohio at institutions like the University of Akron and Lorain Community College, this means a savings of roughly $4,320 once the cuts are phased in. It is estimated that our proposal will help roughly 175,000 students just in Ohio alone and 5.5 million nationwide. Our bill increases the maximum Pell grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years while also expanding eligibility to include and serve more students with financial need. In Ohio, roughly 224,000 students will benefit from these changes to the Pell grant program. And nationwide, over 5.7 million students will benefit and another 600,000 will become eligible for the grants, making the possibility of a college education for them a reality.

Additionally, this legislation recognizes the value of our public servants, and it shows how much we respect what they do. Individuals working jobs that make our world turn, teachers and firefighters, nurses, law enforcement officers, librarians, we provide upfront tuition assistance to qualified undergraduate students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. And we provide loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, early childhood educators, librarians and others. We are investing not only in the potential of individual students, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in the strength of our communities and our country. And the return on our investment as a Nation and our students and people will, without question, provide an enormous return.

But our failure to invest likewise will have incredibly harmful consequences. Our bill makes clear we understand the importance of this investment.

And, Mr. Speaker, to make a good bill even better, the College Cost Reduction Act will benefit all of these students and families at no new cost to taxpayers. We make these important investments in education through government spending cuts. With this bill, we take the billions of access taxpayer subsidies that have gone into the profit margins of private lenders and invest it in direct support for our students. Overall, H.R. 2669 will save almost $20 billion in taxpayer money and reinvest that money in the needs of our students. This is about where the priorities of our Nation and this Congress lie.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the lack of access to higher education is a crisis for our Nation, and it is a burden that no family in this great country should have to bear. The College Cost Reduction Act puts us in a position to help these families and assist our students who simply want to learn and be prepared to enter the workforce and contribute to society. This bill does more than just pay lip service to the virtue of a college education. Today we act to help families, students and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Rules Committee from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a leader in education policy.

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

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

We have heard here today why we must pass this rule and pass the College Cost Reduction Act, and I wanted to commend and thank Chairman Miller for his tremendous leadership in getting this done.

As I said earlier, educational opportunity is the backbone of our Nation, and our students, our families and our country have waited long enough for this to happen.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who seem intent on further delay, 12 years of Republican rule provided ample opportunity to act on this issue and pass a bill, to act on amendments. The American people cannot wait any longer.

This is an issue that many of us here in Congress hear about when we return to our districts because a lot of families are worrying about how they will pay for their children's education, and today, we are going to work with them. Their government is going to work with them and not against them.

I'd like to share today on the floor a letter that I bet mirrors letters that every one of our Members receives. This is a letter that came to me from a constituent, and I will share part of it.

It says: ``Is anything ever going to be done about the exorbitant cost of a college education in this country? How are the middle class supposed to save for retirement and also pay the exorbitant cost of a college education for our children?

``This country seems to be obsessed with debt, because the colleges and the high schools as well, tell you that you should expect to be in a certain amount of debt upon graduation from college. I guess if you're wealthy, it's not an issue. So the middle class are the ones that are left struggling.

``With such an importance put on having a college education to get a decent paying job in this country, how are our children supposed to be able to afford a home and car upon graduation from college when they will be so far in debt with student loans?

``As for the parents, any raises we receive go toward the continually increasing cost of medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, property taxes, et cetera. I know, in my own case, we seem to be going backwards instead of forward, and we by no means live extravagantly or beyond our means.

``I am looking forward to hearing from you.''

Well, today, this constituent hears from me and hears from this Congress, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule.

For my constituent and her daughter, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2669) to

provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the

concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill,

modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be

considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be

considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as

amended, are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the

nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the

Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from

California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order except those

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered

as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; (3) the further amendment printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Delaware,

Mr. Castle, or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order except those arising under

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

At the end of part A of title I of the bill add the

following new section:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today it's my honor to rise to recognize Richard L. Aynes.

On June 30, Richard Aynes concluded his term as dean of the University of Akron School of Law after 12 complete years, the longest tenure of any current law dean in the great State of Ohio and longer than 184 of the 196 deans at ABA accredited schools. His dedicated service is especially gratifying to me, as I earned my juris doctorate from the University of Akron School of Law.

Since 1921, I and more than 6,000 people have selected the University of Akron for law school. With Richard Aynes serving as dean, newspaper headlines acclaimed our law school as ``on the move'' and as having ``raised the bar.'' Today, as Richard ends his service as dean, he leaves the University of Akron School of Law as one of the top 50 law schools in the Nation. That is a great accomplishment.

Under Dean Aynes' leadership, applicants to the School of Law increased from 1,621 in 1995 to 2,230 in 2006, while the student-to- faculty ratio decreased. Those of us fortunate enough to live near Akron have always known and recognized the greatness of our law school, but Dean Aynes successfully spread that appeal throughout the Nation.

The 2006 student body is composed of students from 37 States. He also oversaw the expansion of innovative programs to deal with our changing world. The School of Law now boasts the world-renowned Center for Intellectual Property Law and Technology, and I'm proud that my alma mater is the first school in the State of Ohio to offer a master of law in intellectual property law and one of only 17 such programs across the country.

In a true testament to his devotion to both law and education, I'm pleased to report that Dean Aynes will return to the law faculty in the spring semester of 2008 to teach and publish. In this role, he will continue his tireless efforts towards the progress of the school and will profoundly touch the lives of future lawyers and our community. It is in recognition and gratitude that I rise today to honor this great man.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I want to express my deep personal appreciation for the compassion he extended to me during a challenging time that I faced during my experience at the University of Akron School of Law. You see, Mr. Speaker, during the first year of my legal studies, we received the sad, sad news that my father was suffering from lung cancer, and I shall always appreciate the compassion and the help that Dean Aynes and other caring professional faculty at the law school extended to me. It was that compassion and encouragement that made it possible for me to spend precious time with my dad in those precious final days of his life while continuing on with my legal studies and on a path that would lead me here to the United States House of Representatives, where I have the extraordinary honor to put that education to work in service to the fine people of the 13th District of Ohio.

Thank you, Dean Aynes, and may your commitment and achievements continue to inspire and motivate countless generations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for your work and leadership on this bill and especially for recognizing the important work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and for providing the Commission with funds above the President's request.

Past fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Republicans means that we've all been working with a tough budget situation this year. But even though we've had to make difficult decisions to get our economy back on the right path, we need also to make room for our most important priorities. I commend you on doing that.

Recent articles in The New York Times and USA Today called our attention to some disturbing trends. The number of recalls made by the CPSC reached a record of 467 last year, and 60 percent of those products were produced in China. This year, every single one of the 24 toys that were recalled for safety reasons by the Consumer Product Safety Commission was manufactured in China. Our children have been playing with toys whose hazards range from laceration, to choking, to severe burns. Several toys we've seen were made with lead paint whose hazards are particularly harmful to children. We also have seen them have the direst of consequences with deaths.

Imports from foreign countries have been growing at a staggering rate, Mr. Chairman, and many manufacturers from these countries fail to adhere to even basic safety standards. It is in this environment, and I know you know this, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is absolutely critical. Consumer product safety is not an area we can afford to ignore, and the CPSC is not an agency we can afford to underfund.

We can't make up for the shortfalls, unfortunately, in funding that the agency has had overnight, but the funding in this year's Financial Services appropriations bill is a positive step in the right direction. I just want to thank you for your leadership on these issues and I look forward to working with you in the future to ensure that oversight agencies like the CPSC have the funds to do the important work that they are called to do.

I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with you to take it in that direction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker

Mr. Speaker, trade is a complex issue. But some things are very clear--We need a fair playing field for our workers and businesses and we need a new trade model, with enforceable standards and rules to eliminate unfair trade practices.

So why are we continuing to seek to expand a trade policy that has proven time and time again to be harmful for American workers, businesses, farmers and communities? And why are we seeking to expand the Andean Trade Preference Act or ATPA when there appears no substantive reason to extend the preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), we have a $10 billion and growing trade deficit with the four ATPA nations, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. American farmers and workers have been directly harmed by the ATPA as can be seen with our asparagus and fresh-cut flower industries. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these domestic producers have been affected by lower prices and many growers have gone out of business as a result.

Under the ATPA, flower imports from Colombia and Ecuador receive duty-free treatment, seven though the workers who grow, harvest, and package these flowers routinely experience a number of labor rights and human rights violations. By law, the ATPA is supposed to condition these trade benefits on improvements in worker rights in these countries. However, labor rights violations in the flower industry and other sectors, including violations of the right to freedom of association, continue unchecked.

Where is the enforcement from the Bush Administration? Where is the outrage from this Congress.

Also promised to us when the ATPA was enacted in 1991 was a reduction in coca production in the four ATPA countries. However, in Colombia, according to the CRS, coca crop size estimates remain mostly unchanged since the enactment of the ATPA and in Peru coca crop cultivation has actually grown. Colombia remains the source of roughly 90 percent of the cocaine entering the U.S. In a 2001 report to Congress, the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service said that they ``do not believe that Peruvian asparagus production provides an alternative economic opportunity for coca producers and workers--the stated purpose of the Act.'' And all this is on top of the fact that Colombia has an appalling horrific record on labor and human rights--Leading the world in the number of unionists murdered year after year.

So why are we seeking to give Colombia further trade preferences?

Mr. Speaker, our current trade policies have had devastating consequences for families and communities in northeast Ohio and across this Nation.

The effects of these damaging trade policies are no longer theoretical; they are real. We need a truly new trade model that addresses the concerns raised by the American people in the last election. Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority over trade.

We must have strong and enforceable standards in our trade agreement. We must address the ever-evolving unfair trade practices used by foreign governments to protect their markets, such as currency manipulation, illegal subsidies and product dumping. We must replace policies that reward businesses for outsourcing jobs with incentives and sensible tax policies that will help our businesses and workers.

We need a new trade model now.

Thank you so much, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. Sanchez. Both of you, your leadership is a shining example for all of us. As you point out, this is a moment of supreme importance when it comes to the trade policy of this country.

Last November, the American people cast their votes for new leaders with the hope that we would replace our broken trade system with one that will truly allow for fair competition, because we know that if given a fair playing field, we will excel in the global marketplace.

The first step, as both of you so rightfully point out, has to be that Congress must stop ceding its constitutional authority and responsibility over trade to the President. The lack of oversight and accountability, giving the President what's been called Fast Track authority, the damage that Fast Track authority has wrought on the United States trade policy has led to devastating consequences, some of which you have already heard about throughout this country. It certainly has had a devastating impact on the area that I represent. We have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio since 2000.

That means that people's futures have been seriously put at risk. There are kids out there today who won't be able to go to college because of the jobs that their parents lost due to Fast Track, and the bad trade deals that resulted under Fast Track. There are people out there who won't have health care for their families because of the bad policy that has resulted under Fast Track.

For them and for every American who has been hurt by the Bush administration's harmful trade policies, we must, we must let Fast Track expire permanently at the end of this month. Now, we all know that the United States' Constitution gives responsibility for trade to the Congress, and there was a reason for that.

Our forefathers knew that they needed to keep that issue and control over that issue at a level that is closely connected to the people who are being represented. That's why Congress had that authority.

Unfortunately, with Fast Track, the problem is the administration negotiates the deals, signs them, determines all the terms, and then weighs it before Congress, and you have to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' You have no input on what the constraints are. You have no

say or ability to fix what is wrong with the deals as they come through. That is just not a path we should continue down.

As has been mentioned, Fast Track has enabled the passage of trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA, and of course the WTO, the World Trade Organization, all of that has accelerated as our leader here has pointed out, it's all accelerated a trade in jobs crisis. It's marked by an $800 billion trade deficit, and more and more people are feeling this across the country.

In fact, I actually have a letter here that was sent to our leaders in both the House and the Senate from organizations, organizations like American Medical Students Association, The Change to Win Coalition, Communication Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, hundreds, hundreds of organizations, national, State organizations; a wide variety of people, church organizations, all who oppose us extending Fast Track authority to the administration, because they know that the resulting trade deals are devastating to our communities, our businesses, our workers, our farmers and our country.

So it is with honor that I stand beside my two esteemed colleagues here tonight to talk a little bit about this with them and with all of you at home who care, I know, deeply about us changing the direction on our trade policy.

The good news is there are things that we could be doing, and that we should be doing to stop leaving our companies and our workers at a disadvantage.

And so I'm looking forward to exploring that with you both tonight.

And at this point, Mr. Michaud, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Michaud, again, your leadership is inspiring.

And, Mr. Ellison, thank you for being down here. You have been a tremendous leader on these issues, and your points about immigration and the complexity and the links between these subjects is well taken and important to recognize because, as you point out, Mr. Michaud, with the numbers about the value-added tax, the VAT tax, there is nothing free about that. When they call it ``free trade,'' you kind of think you are going to get something good back in return, and it just hasn't been working.

And the reality is when you read the quote by the former Attorney General, at that point the issue was theoretical. It was hypothetical. We didn't know for a fact actually what would happen. We thought. We had our ideas. We had our suspicions. But it is no longer theoretical. We know how this trade model has failed, and it doesn't make sense for us to continue down that same path.

You know, we had some talk here this evening about some of the trade deals that are still pending under the Fast Track authority that the administration still maintains. And a couple of those were mentioned in passing, including the pending deals with Peru and Panama, and of course Colombia and Korea. And recently, the administration and some congressional leaders actually announced that the labor and environmental standards were going to be included in the Peru and Panama agreements. However, right after that announcement, reports indicated that those standards may be put into side letters, where we've seen them go and not be enforced. And we also heard those who represent the multinational interests who are benefitting under our current broken trade policy boast that the standards will not be enforceable. Those are concerning developments.

And I guess it is also important to note that, even if the standards are ultimately in the core of the FTAs, experience tells us that they will not be enforced. In 2000, Congress passed the Free Trade Agreement with Jordan, and it had those labor and environmental standards in it. As a result, it received broad support. Actually, some of those who believe in fair trade and are committed to it voted for it because of those standards. But you know, alas, despite documented violation upon documented violation, those standards have not been enforced.

So getting back to sort of the points that you have all been making, rather than continuing to pass more free trade agreements that won't be enforced and will result in the consequences we've seen under the broken trade system, which means more lost jobs, a bigger trade deficit, more of the negative consequences, not just in this country, but it's out of whack all over; rather than doing that, it makes sense for us to focus on things like that of Mr. Ryan's bill that will help to fix our broken system.

You know, Congress should focus on replacing policies that reward businesses for outsourcing jobs with incentives and should focus on sensible tax policies and would help businesses and workers make it in America.

Absolutely.

Well, the greatest level of enforcement actually begins and rests most directly with the administration.

The gentleman asks a good question. No. No. The answer is no. And I think that that's an important point. And our colleague, Ms. Sanchez, made a very important point, too, about how this administration feels about human rights and workers' rights because she talked about the fact that they negotiated, this administration, an agreement with Colombia, where the murder of labor organizers and human rights violations are routine. And I think the fact that they are willing to enter into that agreement without being extremely diligent on correcting that tells us all we need to know about what this administration thinks about the need to enforce and deal with labor rights, labor standards and human rights. So I think that is very concerning.

If we deal with things, though, like currency manipulation and we deal with things like making sure that products that are produced elsewhere are safe for consumption here, because again, there are costs associated with safety. We have seen a lot of bad repercussions in recent days about products coming from outside of this country here. In fact, today, just today in USA Today was an article that dealt with lead in children's jewelry and how it

was hurting our kids, and China refusing to agree to changing that practice.

I yield back to the gentleman from Maine.

Well, the gentleman asks a good question. He makes, actually, a great point, because the reality here is that we clearly don't have an enforceable system. First of all, the rules aren't good to start with. They're inadequate, and we have talked a lot about how they're inadequate. But the reality is, this Congress could do a myriad of things, actually, to shape the roles. And they shouldn't be left up to just sort of an, oh, maybe if it's a certain dollar amount, maybe if it affects something I care about. No, it really should be guided by the infraction itself, the infraction of the law, the infraction of the rule.

So, one way would be possibly to go down the path that you're talking about. And there are other avenues that we might pursue also. But the point is, we really need to fix it because you heard our esteemed colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talking about how we are investing in new technologies. And we all agree with that, we are all supporters of innovation. But when you have a company that is subsidizing and giving a 40 percent advantage from the start, all of the new technology, all of the education and workforce training in the world, all the increased productivity will never allow us to overcome that 40 percent head start.

So, again, the points are well taken. Rather than focusing on trade deals that are going to just take us down the same path to lost jobs, why don't we fix those things and then create a system in which trade can flourish? Because I believe in trade.

Absolutely.

Will the gentleman yield?

You know, and to my colleague, Mr. Ellison, your question, I think it bears sort of repeating. It is inexplicable, but the United States seems to be the only nation that does not find it acceptable to help our companies, to protect them, workers and communities, against unfair trade practices. And as a result, we are left at a disadvantage. All we are really asking for is that they have a fair shake. That's all we are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Michaud and Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Hare. You have been leaders in this fight for a new U.S. trade policy for many years to benefit and to help our working men and women, our businesses, and our communities, and we appreciate your efforts. On behalf of the people of the 13th District of Ohio, I appreciate your efforts working to craft a new trade model that won't leave our businesses and our workers at a disadvantage.

And, frankly, last November in the election, the American people cast votes that reflect their desire to put an end to the flawed trade model that has had a devastating impact on our families and businesses and workers and farmers and communities.

And yet we recently heard about a new trade deal, and it has been mentioned here today, revolving around the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreement. And that recent deal between some congressional leaders and the Bush administration seemingly provides that labor and environmental standards will be added to those two free trade agreements. However, shortly after that announcement was made, reports indicated that those standards might be put into side agreements or side letters, and those statements were made by those who represent the multinational interests who have been benefiting under our current failed trade policies. And they have boasted also about how those standards would not be enforced. And based on this administration's abominable record on enforcing free trade agreements, I think we can all agree that that is what will happen under this administration.

It has been mentioned here today that there was a free trade agreement with Jordan that was entered into by this country, and there were many who support fair trade, like Mr. Michaud and Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Hare and me. Of those who support fair trade, some of them saw fit actually to support that free trade agreement with Jordan because it had environmental and labor standards in the agreement.

Well, what we saw is that despite those standards, under this administration, despite records indicating documented cases of child sweatshop labor, among other things, there was no enforcement of the standards. So the fact that they are going to be on paper but not enforced really isn't what I believe the American people had in mind when they voted, and I certainly don't think it is all that we need to be doing in Congress to fix our broken trade system.

Now, in an effort to shut down the debate, oftentimes those who are benefiting under the current trade system characterize those of us who are seeking to fix it as protectionists. They insinuate that we are really against trade and don't understand the realities of globalization. Well, that is incorrect. This isn't about being pro- trade or antitrade. It is about the rules of trade and ensuring that they are fair and enforceable. We need a trade model that truly allows fair competition because we know that if provided that opportunity, we will excel in the global marketplace. And that is the trade model that we are fighting for. We are fighting for a trade model that will not reward companies for moving overseas or outsourcing jobs and will put an enforceable end to illegal foreign subsidies and currency manipulation. We are fighting for a policy that will provide incentives to help our businesses, workers, and communities thrive that will require reciprocity of market access and ensure products produced elsewhere are safe for consumption here.

Now, we agree that we must invest in new technology, innovation, and workforce development, and we have to invest in research and development. But it is not an either/or proposition. Unless we also develop a new trade model, our workers, businesses, and communities will continue to be unfairly undercut, and we see that reflected in our soaring trade deficit.

So why is it that the Bush administration and many Members of Congress find it acceptable that other nations engage in unfair trade practices at the expense of those who toil here, whether it is a lack of meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental standards or currency manipulation, tariff and nontariff barriers, value-added taxes, and we could go on and on about the tactics that are used and keep our businesses and workers at a disadvantage? But for some reason it seems that there are those in Washington here who seem to believe that we can continue our current trade policies and that other countries will change. But why would they? It is working for them. Just look at our trade deficit.

Well, those politicians who think this is a good system that we have going should visit Ohio's 13th District. Come and see the places that I have the honor to represent because a lot of people there are hurting from the failed trade policies that have been thrust upon them. Ohio has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Communities have been hurt and families struggle. Futures have been destroyed. There are kids out there who will not go to college. There are families out there where health care needs are not being met. And it is directly related to our failed trade policies. And unless we make meaningful changes by enacting a truly new trade model, we can't reverse this downward spiral.

So while it is encouraging that these two free trade agreements seemingly provide for the possibility of stronger labor and environmental standards, any enforceability, as I said, relies on the Bush administration, and it appears that it may be a paper victory to have those standards in the agreement even if they find their way into the core part of the agreement, which we are not certain that we will actually see.

One more thing or, I guess, it is the overarching thing: The Constitution of the United States rests responsibility for trade with the United States Congress. I think that we head down a slippery slope as we continue to cede responsibility to the President for trade. It should be understood, as was reflected in our recent elections, that Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority and responsibility and stop ceding its responsibility to the President. It is our job to ensure a vibrant and fair trade policy, and we have to focus our attention on this task before it is too late.

So the inclusion of labor and environmental standards on paper, okay. But, truly, the American people expect more. Our needs are much greater than that. And we must develop a new trade model that is enforceable and comprehensive, not just on paper but in reality. And we have to do it immediately to keep the faith with the American people.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Maine.

The gentlewoman's points are well taken.

I am glad you brought up the issue of how far-reaching the effects of our failed trade policies go. I mean, the reality is that when we lose these jobs due to our broken trade system and the unfair trade policies that others pursue and we don't stop, what happens is our communities sometimes crumble because when those employers pull out and the jobs are gone, the tax base is gone. And then the city can't deliver services, our schools can't fund our education for our children. So it has these multiple ill effects that are set in motion.

You also raise a really important point, and I think it's worth emphasizing. Oftentimes, Congressman Michaud, when we have these discussions about trade, they like to say this is about business versus workers. And as you rightly point out, of course, the U.S. Business and Industry Council has been saying much of the same things that we've been saying here on the floor because they know that the window is closing, that there are many who want to literally ``make it in America,'' but because of the policies that we have in place, it is becoming all but impossible for them to do that. Once that window closes, I don't know how we get it back. So, we cannot allow that to happen.

On that point, I think that while we are sort of focused on this new deal about the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreements, which of course represent a very, very small, minute portion of trade with this country, we are focused on that and the fact that there will be, at least on paper, some environmental and labor standards. Of course we are all very much in support of environmental and labor standards. But when we know that they are not going to be enforced and they are then just going to result in two more trade agreements that will result in more jobs being lost in this country, it doesn't really seem like the right place for us to be focusing when we have such a short window of time.

Again, you point out some very important pieces of legislation that are pending here in the House, including the Currency Manipulation bill that Congressman Ryan and Congressman Hunter have sponsored and I think we are probably cosponsors on. That is an important place that we could be focusing on that could make an important difference in the very near future if we could enact.

The value-added tax, a similar situation. We could be focusing, as Congress is responsible for trade, on these matters that would really make a difference in the way trade plays out for the people who we represent in this country. I think that that would be a much better focus than to continue to cede responsibility to this administration.

It is a critical time. I know that the people back in Ohio are counting on us. And Ohio is going to be in the center of the storm, if past history is any indication, in these upcoming presidential elections. And this is an issue, I can assure you, that will be front and center in the minds of those people in Ohio as it was last year when they cast their vote.

With that, I will yield back to my good friend from Maine.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this rule and on this very, very important issue and for the time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

As the elected representative of diverse constituencies, we face many challenges in this House. We face challenges that affect the lives, finances, work and health of all Americans. As we face these challenges, we are called to do everything in our power to create solutions and find relief for the problems that plague our constituents. We are called to fight. We are called to work creatively. We are called to open doors and explore new avenues. We do everything in our power to relieve suffering, to bring relief, to create opportunity and to enhance lives.

Today, I rise in favor of continuing that mission to do everything that we possibly can to relieve the suffering of the people of Ohio's 13th District and districts across the United States.

During my campaign, I had the good fortune to meet a business owner by the name of Fred Martin. For the past 33 years, Fred has lived with diabetes. Diabetes has no cure. Despite diligent care, a precise diet and insulin, shots that he takes over and over throughout the day, the best that Fred can hope for is that his disease not get any worse. He has worked meticulously over the past 33 years to manage his disease so that he could be there for his children and attend to his business, but he wonders how his life could be different.

Fred endures seven insulin shots every day, two before breakfast, two before lunch, two before dinner and one before bed. He pricks his finger to check his insulin levels 8 to 10 times every day. He says that he's glad that he's still here. He's grateful for all that science has done for him that has allowed for him to be around to raise his children. But he adds, please, don't stop now.

When discussing the potential that stem cells hold, he says, ``To deny our scientists the right to make the people in our society healthier and to help them lead better lives is really a crime! . . . I expected more of my government.''

If we do not change our policies soon, we will continue to drive this cutting-edge research overseas. Just this week, newspapers report that British scientists are embarking on research which could deliver the world's first stem cell treatment for blindness. The 4 million pounds that were donated to the project came from an anonymous American philanthropist. This country cannot afford to be a hostile environment for scientific research and development.

Today, we have a chance to unlock a world of potential. Our researchers will no longer have to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

I believe that we have a duty to our constituents to do everything we can to make their lives better, to relieve their suffering and to use our government and its resources effectively and efficiently to heal, help and explore.

Fred Martin was right. Our constituents expect more. Today, they will get it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her leadership on this issue and for yielding me the time.

Today I rise in favor of the rule and in favor of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. On my first day in office representing Ohio's 13th District, under the leadership of the new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, I stood on the floor of the House in support of a new ethics rules package, a rules package that put an end to the K Street Project, that ended gifts and perks and trips, and that made a historic move towards cleansing the inner workings of government.

This rules package was extraordinary in its scope and its breadth, but it was only the beginning. In our fight against the climate of excess that flourished under recent Republican leadership of this body, it is clear we must take further action. We must continue to eradicate the pay-to-play culture that has pervaded and all too often undermined lawmaking in the Congress.

We must expose and eliminate the strings and the coziness that have resulted in policies by the special interests for the special interests. We must end the culture of corruption so we remain focused and truly tend to the people's business.

When I ran to represent Ohio's 13th District, I made it clear that I wanted to go to Congress to change the way business was being done and to restore the public trust. Safeguarding the public trust is not a part-time job. It must always remain uppermost in our minds. It requires the observation of current rules, and it requires legislative action to cure problems that persist.

Today we take the next step to bring the cleansing light of day to political financial contributions and to reduce the potential for shady lobbying practices.

This bill focuses on sanitizing the relationship that lobbyists have with Congress. It gives the American people the ability to follow the money. It increases the number of times per year that lobbyists must file disclosure reports, and it requires electronic filing of these reports, making it available to the American public on the Internet. To increase public disclosure, we will shed needed light on the money trail from lobbyists to Capitol Hill.

This bill also requires lobbyists to certify that they have not provided elected Members of Congress with gifts or travel forbidden by the rules of the

House. This is another means to ensure that the past practice of special interests using gifts and perks to woo legislators is truly coming to an end.

When lobbying laws and congressional rules are violated, the American people suffer. They suffer in policy, and they suffer in spirit. They are cheated out of their right to proper representation. The action we are taking today provides for greater punishment for the violation of these laws by those who are willing to betray the public trust.

When Americans went to the polls last November, they sent a clear message that they're concerned about the state of government. I have long believed that what people truly want from their Representative is someone who understands their concerns and who will strive to do all that they can on their behalf. The American people want to know that we are here for them, not for lobbyists, not for special interests, not for self-interests. They deserve nothing less.

Today, thanks to an amendment made in order by this rule, we also take action to bring much-needed transparency to the practice of lobbyists' bundling of campaign contributions. The American people deserve to know the source of campaign contributions, as well as the sometimes lengthy and roundabout paths that these campaign contributions travel before they are placed into the hands of candidates.

Our bill gives the American people a window into the lobbying practices and fund-raising activities by requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions collected by lobbyists for candidates.

This Democratic Congress is working to restore and ensure the trust of our constituents. One step was the elimination of soft money, the next step the House rules package. We can't stop there.

In closing I just want to say, as a new member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, how very honored I am to have been given the awesome opportunity and responsibility to represent the people of the thirteenth district of Ohio. Every day, I cherish the trust that they have placed in me to do all that I can on their behalf. I know that others in this body feel just as strongly as I do about their own constituents. We must pass this bill to restore the hope and live up to the promise that those we have been sent to serve have placed in us. Our constituents must know and it must be true, that it is they that are always uppermost in our hearts and minds as we carry out our responsibilities. I am pleased to support this rule, this bill, and the amendment to disclose the bundling of campaign contributions. I respectfully urge my colleagues to join in passing them.

I urge the passage of the rule, the bill and the amendment on bundling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Congressman Hare, your leadership on this issue is unparalleled; and on behalf of not just myself but all those whom I represent in the Thirteenth District of Ohio, we thank you so much.

Thank you for organizing this Special Order hour. It is so important that we communicate the truth about what is going on and hopefully with the intent to influence it in a way that will make a difference in the lives of those we represent.

Last November, the American people and the people back in the Thirteenth District of Ohio cast their vote to put an end to the flawed trade model that has had a devastating impact on our families, our businesses, our workers, our farmers and our communities and the tax base of our communities.

Last week or a week or so ago, an announcement was made that the U.S. will require the inclusion of labor and environmental standards in the pending Peru and Panama free trade agreements. This is welcome news. But while it might appear encouraging that these deals seemingly provide for the possibility of stronger labor and environmental standards, any enforceability of those standards, unfortunately, is dependent upon the Bush administration; and, given its abominable record, you can be certain that enforcement will not happen.

Why do I say that? Well, for example, in 2000, Congress passed a free trade agreement with Jordan. That agreement had the support of many Members in this body who were committed to fair trade. Because it included those labor and environmental standards, they supported and voted for it. However, there has been no enforcement of those labor standards, even though documented violations have been extreme.

So there is really little reason to believe that the same result would not prove true with the pending FTAs, even if they contain similar standards. The language on a written paper is not enough. It has to be enforced.

My constituents and the people across this country voted for a much greater change in direction on trade than simply including labor and environmental standards which won't be enforced into our agreements. The American people cast their votes for a new majority in both the House and the Senate, hoping that we would help strengthen the shrinking middle-class, restore the American dream that has been offshored due to the harmful trade agreements and unfair trade practices that have persisted for more than a decade.

The American people are counting on this new Congress in this moment to finally address the devastation of our failed trade policies and the soaring trade deficit by developing a new trade model that will no longer leave American businesses and workers at a disadvantage. They are counting on us to enact a trade model that will not reward companies who move overseas or encourage them to outsource jobs or our future. They are counting on us to develop a trade model that will put an enforceable end to illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. They are counting on us to develop a trade model that will provide incentives to help our businesses and workers and our communities thrive. They are counting on us to develop a trade model that requires reciprocity of market access and ensures greater safety of products produced elsewhere and consumed here.

The American people are counting on the Democratic majority in this new Congress to provide a trade model that will truly allow for fair competition, because we know that, if given a fair playing field, we will excel in the global marketplace.

This is not about being pro-trade or anti-trade. This is about the rules of trade and making sure that they are fair and enforceable. The American people want nothing more, and they deserve nothing less.

I am committed to continuing the fight to deliver to the American people a truly new trade model that fixes this broken system that is fair and under which we will prosper.

With respect to the pending Panama and Peru FTAs, which represent only a minute portion of trade with the U.S., I have yet to see them in full. However, it should be understood that Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority and responsibility over trade and not continue down the path of ceding our responsibility to the administration. It is our job to assure a vibrant and fair trade policy. We must focus

our attention on that task before it is too late.

My home State of Ohio has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. Sometimes I am dismissed because I come from a State that has been hit hard. People say, oh, well, she is just from a place where it has felt it, but we can just write that off, because it is not affecting that many people.

Well, in the first instance, it is not okay to write off the people of Ohio. A lot of families are suffering, though, beyond my district's borders, and they need a new trade model now. The inclusion of labor standards and environmental standards in trade agreements means little if they won't be enforced.

And it means little if we don't fix the broken system.

When I arrived here as a freshman member of this class I am so honored to be a part of, I listened to my freshmen colleagues, and I heard them talking about how these issues, this issue, this issue of trade was hurting the people they represented. They came from one side of the country to the other, from the top to the bottom, from Florida to New Hampshire, Iowa to Ohio to Pennsylvania. All across this country people are feeling the ill effects of our failed trade model. We must develop a new trade model that is enforceable and comprehensive, and we must do it immediately to keep the faith with the American people.

Thank you, Congressman Hare.

Let me start out by saying I am so honored to be a Representative from Ohio. The people of my district and my great State are the salt of the Earth. All they want is a job where they can work and raise their families and give them an opportunity for a future that we all dream of.

That is the kind of opportunity that my parents had. My dad worked in the boilermaker factory his whole life. Here I am, his daughter, standing in Congress. Every day that I am here, I am going to make sure that I am looking out for the people who have the same dream that probably your parents and my parents shared, and that is just for a good day for themselves and their family and a bright future based on those opportunities.

Now, I, like you, Congressman Hare and Congressman Michaud, I believe trade can benefit American businesses and workers and be a tool to help developing countries looking to access our markets. But this that has been presented is not a new trade model that will get us there.

Our window for creating a new trade model is closing because it is becoming increasingly hard for our businesses to survive here, and that is not the American way, is it? That is not acceptable. I, with you, I know will continue to fight to change that.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 409.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just described, House Resolution 409 provides for consideration of the conference report for S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 concurrent budget resolution.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

The rule also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again: Budgets, more than anything else this government produces are moral documents. For this reason, I am proud to report that this Democratic budget is a victory for our working families and our communities. It is a budget that embodies the highest ideals of our government.

The fiscal path set by past Congresses was unsustainable, and it put the economic future of our children and grandchildren at risk. But we are charting a new path, a path that is fiscally responsible and in line with the needs and the priorities of the American people.

Our budget reverses years of reckless Republican mismanagement, and restores fiscal responsibility to our government. The $5.6 trillion in surpluses projected at the beginning of the Bush administration have disappeared, and have sadly been replaced by a national debt that was swelled to an estimated $9 trillion.

This Democratic budget, in contrast to that reckless spending, reaches balance by 2012 and strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle. And at the same time, it rebalances our priorities to help our communities and those most in need.

Our budget increases funding for jobs and education, essential to my home State of Ohio, which has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001.

Our budget rejects the President's cuts to vital health care programs such as SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, our budget provides for a significant increase in SCHIP funding that, in contrast to the President's proposal, will help cover the 242,000 children in Ohio who remain uninsured. And our budget increases funding for our veterans and our veterans health care programs. These brave men and women who have served our Nation so heroically, deserve only the best services and treatment when they return home.

Our budget increases funding for the Community Development Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant, and it saves the Community Services Block Grant, which the President completely zeroed out.

I'm especially proud to have fought for these increases because almost 100,000 people in my congressional district alone have experienced the benefits of the CDBG funding.

This budget provides a new direction for our Nation, and let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, no matter what may be said by those on the other side of the aisle, this budget does not call for a single cent in tax increases. Let me repeat, no matter what may be said by those on the other side of the aisle, this budget does not call for a single cent in tax increases.

We have also ensured that no additional taxpayers will be ensnared by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2007 and have provided a reserve fund for a permanent fix.

For three of the last 5-years, the Federal Government has had to operate without a budget resolution because the past Congresses failed to pass one, which is why it is critical that we adopt the resolution before us today. It is a budget that reaches balance in 5 years and restores fiscal responsibility through PAYGO rules. We do all this while keeping our priorities in line

with the needs and priorities of the people we have been elected to serve.

As a moral document that reflects the priority of our Nation, I believe we have crafted a strong budget, and I'm proud to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker on this side.

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

Has the gentleman had all of his people speak?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my closing remarks by returning us to the painful reality of what we begin with today.

This administration and these past Congresses took a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $9 trillion debt. This Democratic budget, in contrast, reaches balance by 2012, and strictly adheres to PAYGO rules.

This budget contains not a dollar, not a quarter, not a dime, not a penny of tax increases. And you don't just have to take my word for it. The Concord Coalition says that the budget resolution does not have a tax increase. ``Thus to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase,'' the Concord Coalition said on March 28. The Center on the Budget and Policy Priorities says the budget resolution does not have a tax increase. ``This claim is incorrect. The House plan does not include a tax increase,'' made on March 28, 2007. The Brookings Institution says, ``The Democratic budget would not raise taxes.'' ``The budget would not raise taxes.'' March 28.

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear why passing this rule and passing this budget is so important for our Nation, so let me wrap up this debate by highlighting the facts about our budget.

The Democratic budget puts together the broken pieces left to us by the mismanagement of previous Congresses and this administration. Our budget returns fiscal responsibility to Congress, and allocates funding for some of our most important national priorities. Our children, our veterans, and our working families will be provided with the key resources they need and deserve. Our budget protects tax cuts for middle class families, and it does not raise taxes on anyone.

Mr. Speaker, this is the responsible budget that the American people have been calling for, and it deserves our support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable chairwoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, our troops are brave and capable. They have fought heroically. But, Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to tell our President that he can no longer ignore the American people, this Congress or the reality of the situation we face in Iraq.

We have the responsibility to provide oversight, to ensure that our brave and honorable troops are provided a mission based on a realistic assessment and an achievable goal before we ask them to risk life and limb to implement it. We must end the strain that we have put on our brave military men and women and their families, and we must act today.

Mr. Speaker, we know we must get our troops out of the crossfire and the violence of the raging civil war in Iraq. We know what must be done for our soldiers in Iraq to ensure the protection of them and our families here at home. Our military and our National Guard are stretched thin. We must rebuild and re-equip both. Our National Guard in Ohio is training and working on gear that is obsolete. So not only are our military men and women at risk in Iraq; we have our homeland exposed to national emergencies and other threats that we may face. But our President has refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation that we face as a Nation, and I and many other Members of this Congress will not allow the status quo to continue.

For this reason, I cosponsored and will cast a powerful ``yes'' vote in support of H.R. 2237. This bill, authored by Mr. McGovern, whom I respect tremendously for his courage and leadership, is responsible and will ensure the safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq. Our bill calls for the redeployment of our troops and allows Congress to take back from the President the reckless decisionmaking that we have seen.

Our bill also very importantly ensures a number of things: it protects the ability of our military to go after al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq; it provides for the protection of diplomatic and other related U.S. personnel in Iraq; and, finally, it will truly shift our role in Iraq to training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to end this war; and, unfortunately, the failed policies of this administration and lack of oversight from past Congresses have left us with few options. 3,372 of our troops, including 157 brave military men and women from Ohio, have died in this war. It is time we did the responsible thing for our heroic soldiers, for their families and for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 350 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 350.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 350 provides for consideration of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.

The rule makes in order five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each with 10 minutes of debate. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of House Resolution 350 and H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, a bill which provides essential funding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the next 3 fiscal years.

The United States Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology strives to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness through the advancement of measurement science, standards and technology. Through numerous individual laboratories, the NIST makes important scientific contributions to numerous scientific fields, from building and fire research to computer security to biotechnology.

This bill will enhance the important mission, putting the NIST on a path to double its budget by the year 2017. With this additional funding, the NIST will continue to make important contributions to public safety, industrial competitiveness and economic growth.

This bill also allocates funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, also known as MEP. These MEP programs leverage Federal, State, local and private investments to stimulate new manufacturing processes and technologies. These new processes and technologies are a key component for ensuring that American manufacturers have the tools to compete effectively and efficiently against overseas manufacturers.

The MEP program has proven remarkably effective in my home State of Ohio, where small and midsize manufacturers face limited budgets, in- house expertise and access to the newest technologies. MEP assistance providing training, expertise and services tailored to the critical needs of Ohio's small and midsize manufacturers have made a big difference. Through this assistance, manufacturers in Ohio have increased productivity, achieved higher profits and remained competitive by providing the latest and most efficient technologies, processes and business practices.

In 2006, as a direct result of MEP assistance, my State enjoyed over $150 million of new investment and over $500 million in increased or retained sales. Companies in Ohio participating in the MEP reported cost savings of over $100 million. Through the continued funding of this vital program, we can bring these vast benefits to even more small manufacturers across the country.

Finally, and very importantly, this bill allocates funding for the new Technology Innovation Program, which funds high-risk, high-reward, precompetitive technology development by small and medium-sized companies. The goal of this program is to accelerate the development of technologies that will have a broad economic impact on our technology market.

Harvard Professor Daniel Bell once said that ``Technology, like art, is a soaring exercise of human imagination.'' It is through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Technology Innovation Program that technology is given the wind that it needs to soar. Even more importantly, through this bill, small and midsize manufacturers will be given the support they need to compete with larger competitors in overseas businesses.

This bill will not only provide assistance to American companies, like the 1,773 companies in Ohio that were helped by the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, but it will also create a stronger and more vibrant American technology industry. This is a good bill, and it deserves our support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we put some teeth behind our rhetoric about helping our manufacturers and promoting innovation and industrial competitiveness. While there are many things that must be done on many different fronts to see real improvements, passing the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act today is one very positive action we can take for manufacturers in Ohio and across the Nation.

It also tells those involved in measurement science, standards and technology, and those working to contribute to public safety, industrial competitiveness and economic growth that we are behind their efforts.

As I said earlier, when we support the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the Technology Innovation Program, we are not only talking the talk, we are walking the walk. For this reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.

Head Start is vital for our children in high-need areas, providing them with programming critical to their cognitive development, from math and reading instruction, to nutritional and social services for students' families.

In 2006, over 900,000 children, almost all of them under 5 years old, participated in Head Start.

In my home State of Ohio, Head Start serves more than 38,000 young people, including more than 2,500 children in my congressional district alone. These children come from some of the most high-need families in our Nation, and Head Start does exactly what its name suggests. It gives these children a head start, helping them achieve at or above their age level by the time they leave the program.

Unfortunately, children in families facing difficult economic situations often begin school behind their wealthier peers. Head Start achieves amazing results for these children and is often the only program keeping them from falling behind.

Despite the crucial role Head Start plays in the lives of hundreds of thousands of American children, Congress has neglected them has neglected to reauthorize or adequately fund this program for the past 4 years.

This important legislation authorizes funding for Head Start through fiscal year 2012 and makes a number of long overdue improvements to the program.

Our bill increases funding for teacher and staff salaries and benefits and will improve the classroom environment by lowering the student-to-teacher ratio. These changes will give our hardworking teachers and other educational staff more opportunity to work with their students and improve their academic performance.

This legislation also helps program hire and retain qualified teachers and staff by increasing salary and benefits and supporting professional development plans. And this bill will expand access to 10,000 additional children.

This Congress is making a commitment to our children and the Head Start program, and it is critical that we do so. Research has shown that children attending Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school than other low-income children. Research has also proven that children who attend Head Start are less likely to enter special education, are less likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to end up in the criminal courts in adolescence.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give more of our children the help and assistance they need. With passage of

this legislation, we are not only providing our children with the opportunity for a brighter future, we are building a brighter future for our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill so we can keep our promise to America's children.