Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mercy Health System for receiving the highly prestigious Malcolm Baldrige Award yesterday at a special White House ceremony with the President. This award was created by Congress in 1987 in honor of former Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige who had a passion for instilling quality and excellence in U.S. products and services. The award recognizes those in the private sector that help improve quality and productivity. It honors U.S. companies and non-profits for organizational innovation and performance excellence.

Mercy Health System started 18 years ago as a stand-alone hospital and transformed into a vertically integrated health system with 63 facilities serving 24 communities throughout southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. Mercy now sees over 1 million patients annually, and employs 3,856 partners, 285 of whom are employed physicians. Mercy has added nearly $1.1 billion in industry economic sales, which has created an additional indirect 1,200 jobs in their service area. In the 16th District of Illinois, Mercy has a 77-bed acute-care hospital in Harvard, Illinois, along with 17 health care clinics in McHenry County, Illinois.

It is obvious that Mercy Health System did not reach these achievements by resting on its laurels. They have met the challenge of growth by developing a holistic approach to quality and a commitment to organizational excellence. Their actions back up their Four Pillars of Excellence: Quality, Service, Partnering, and Cost. I am impressed by their servant-leadership model as exemplified by Javon Bea, President and CEO of Mercy Health System.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the employees and the patients of the Mercy Health System. They richly deserve to share in the high honor of the Malcolm Baldrige Award.

Madam Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act (H.R. 5819). I am a long-time supporter of the Small Business Innovative

Research, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, program because it requires federal agencies with at least a $100 million research and development, R&D, budget to set aside a certain percentage of awards for small firms. The SBIR program was created in 1982 because small businesses--the most innovative sector of our economy--received very few R&D awards. Almost the entire federal R&D budget back then went to large firms and academic institutions.

There are many good provisions in H.R. 5819. Section 102 increases the small business set-aside in the SBIR program from 2.5 percent to 3 percent. The SBIR awards come in three phases--Phase 1 is for start- ups; Phase II is for follow-on work; and Phase III is for commercialization of the product either in the form of government procurement or for sale in the marketplace. Section 103 increases the maximum award in Phase I from $100,000 to $750,000. For Phase II awards, the maximum award goes up from $300,000 to $2.2 million. There are no grant dollars for the Phase III or commercialization phase. In the past, few federal agencies had any interest in Phase III. However, H.R. 5819 contains several provisions, most particularly in Title IV, to encourage commercialization of products developed with SBIR awards.

However, Section 201 of H.R. 5819 opens up more of the SBIR program to small firms that have significant investments from venture capital (VC) companies. For the purposes of the SBIR program, a small firm would be considered to be independently owned and operated even with a majority share owned by VC firms. VC investments, unlike a bank loan, make the ``owner'' of the company no longer the true leader of the firm if venture capitalists own more than 50 percent of the firm. In other words, he or she doesn't control the ultimate destiny or direction of the company--the ``owner'' has to take ultimate direction from the VC firms. The small business is no longer independently owned and operated. Thus, if a small company receives venture capital even from multiple sources to pursue Vaccine A but then sees the research going in a different direction to develop Vaccine B, the ``owner'' of the company will be compelled to complete the research on Vaccine A for which he or she received funding unless the ``owner'' receives permission from the venture capitalists to pursue Vaccine B.

The only limitations on VC investments in Section 201 for SBIR firms are that (1) no one single VC firm can own a majority of the tech company applying for a SBIR grant; (2) the VC firm does not control a majority of the seats on the tech company's board of directors; (3) only ``small'' VCs, as defined in the bill as those VC firms employing 500 employees or less, can participate; and (4) a ``corporate-owned'' VC firm can only own up to 10 percent of a SBIR tech company and that a SBIR tech company can only have one investment from a corporate VC. My concerns are that the first two limitations can be easily evadable by creative VCs that set up multiple firms. The third limitation dealing with a small business definition of a VC encompasses almost every VC in the nation. The Small Business Administration (SBA) currently defines small venture capital firms as those with less than $6.5 million in annual receipts. There is no need to change the small business definition of a VC.

In Section 110, H.R. 5819 also allows firms to apply directly for Phase II awards, bypassing the Phase I process. In my opinion, combining three key elements of H.R. 5819--dramatically higher awards (Section 103), allowing almost every VC in the nation to own more than a majority of a SBIR firm (Section 201), and bypassing Phase I (Section 110)--sets up a stage where VC-owned ``small'' firms will gobble up most of the money in the SBIR program. Then, there would be a dramatic drop-off in the number of truly very small and independently-owned companies in the SBIR program, particularly those looking for Phase 1 start-up funding.

During my tenure as Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I spent a lot of time and effort trying to solve the specific problem of the eligibility of some small businesses with venture capital investments to participate in the SBIR program at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). After the Defense Department, the NIH is the second- largest spender of R&D funding in the federal government. This issue of the role of VC investment in SBIR companies seems primarily confined to NIH.

Section 201 in H.R. 5819 tries to solve a problem that is grossly exaggerated. It is a myth that small businesses with VC investments are unable to participate in the SBIR program at NIH because of a misinterpretation of the law by the SBA. In an impartial Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that was released in 2006, the GAO discovered that 17 percent of NIH SBIR awards, accounting for 18 percent of the dollar value, went to small businesses with VC investments in Fiscal Year 2004. These small firms had no problem in complying with SBA guidelines. Nevertheless, I tried to proffer a compromise to establish a two-year pilot SBIR-like program to set-aside 0.5 percent of NIH R&D funding for smaller firms that receive a preponderance of their funding from VCs and do not own or control their company. Unfortunately, my compromise was rejected by NIH and by the biotech and VC industries. However, the solution contained in Section 201 is a dramatic overreach in the effort to solve this specific problem with NIH.

Finally, the Bush Administration shares my concern on this issue. According to the Statement of Administration Policy issued on April 22, 2008, ``the Administration believes that H.R. 5819 goes too far in relaxing constraints on venture capital ownership of firms receiving SBIR and STTR funds, which could lead to inappropriate subsidization of well-capitalized businesses that do not warrant funding through a set- aside program. The Administration is reviewing whether venture capital funding of businesses receiving SBIR and STTR funds could be expanded through reforms of SBA regulations without inappropriately providing Federal commercialization subsidies to well-capitalized businesses.''

Thus, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5819.

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

I rise today in support of H. Res. 854 on the opening of Bad Arolsen Holocaust archives. I would like to thank the author of this resolution, Congressman Hastings, as well as Ranking Member Ros- Lehtinen, Congressman Wexler, and Congressman Kirk, who have fought for opening access to the Holocaust archives in Bad Arolsen, Germany.

The archives there have been the largest closed Holocaust-era collection of documents in the world, containing millions of records about the fates of over 17 million victims of Nazi Germany. The archive became open to the public in November of last year after 11 countries of its governing body ratified the agreement that allowed the collection to become open and for those documents to be transferred to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem in Israel.

Open access to these records will provide many Holocaust survivors and their families with the information about their loved ones. Additionally, it will present researchers and scholars with materials necessary to enhance the public knowledge about the Holocaust.

Now that the archive is open and the U.S. Holocaust Museum is able to answer requests, it is very important that the survivors and their family members are aware of these services and are able to immediately submit requests for information about their loved ones.

In conclusion, I urge Members from both sides of the aisle to support H. Res. 854.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.

I would ask unanimous consent to add the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) as a cosponsor to this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today to recognize the 175th anniversary of the strong and enduring relationship between the people of the United States and the people of Thailand. The United States has no older ally in the Asia- Pacific region than the Kingdom of Thailand.

It was in the early days of our Republic, during the administration of Andrew Jackson, that the Treaty of Amity and Commerce was signed with King Rama III. Thailand has been a staunch friend of the United States ever since.

Remarkably, during the dark days of our Civil War, the King of Thailand offered to send President Lincoln a herd of elephants to help lead the Union to victory. While Lincoln did not take up the offer, the gesture was greatly appreciated.

More recently, Thailand provided support for our military forces during the Vietnam War. It has also served for more than a quarter century as the host for our Pacific Command's annual multinational military training exercise known as ``Cobra Gold.''

Our two nations have worked closely together on humanitarian issues as well. Thailand was of great assistance as the host nation for many of the refugees who came out of Indochina after the war there. More recently, Thailand has provided a safe haven for Burmese and North Korean refugees. Thailand also came together with the United States in launching joint relief operations following the tragic tsunami which caused its devastation in 2004.

Thailand is America's 20th largest trading partner. A half million Americans are of Thai descent, including the remarkable Tiger Woods. These are indeed the ties that bind.

It is my strong hope that the Government of Thailand with build on last year's successful parliamentary elections by ensuring that all parties in Thailand are brought into the political process.

Thailand's rebirth of diplomacy is something which all Americans welcome. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this resolution which recognizes our oldest and one of our most loyal Asian allies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 1024. The Republic of Greece is an important friend and ally of the United States. The links between Greece and the United States involve political philosophy, values, a concrete alliance, and important actions. Greece is the birthplace of Western Civilization and modern democracy, and it is from Greece that our Founding Fathers drew so many important principles of government, law, and freedom. Today, our two nations continue to share the values that we hold dear: liberty, freedom, and democracy.

Greece and the United States have also stood together resolutely throughout difficult times during the last century, particularly during the Second World War. Greece, in fact, is one of the few nations that has supported America in every major conflict over the past century.

After the end of World War II, Greece joined in a formal alliance with the United States, through NATO, and went on to broaden its commitment to

democracy, freedom, and human rights through its notable contributions to international peacekeeping and stability missions.

Today, as America faces a complex array of threats posed by extremism around the world, Greece indeed remains a valuable strategic partner. Most notably, Greece provided access to its airspace for American military aircraft en route to Iraq and allowed our U.S. Navy ships to refuel in its ports.

Through its substantial economic investment and aid to the Balkans, Greece has also sought to play an important role as an agent of stability in that important region, supplementing the efforts by the United States and the European Union to end the conflicts in that region. Recent efforts on the part of the Government of Greece to deal constructively with its neighbor Turkey on outstanding issues where they have differences show hope for ensuring future stability throughout the Aegean Sea region, an outcome the United States seeks as well.

Madam Speaker, this resolution notes that this year marks the 187th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution that led to the independence of Greece. There are approximately 1.3 million Americans of Greek descent living in the United States. A large number of Greek Americans live in northern Illinois, particularly the Chicago area. Greek Americans contribute significantly as community leaders, entrepreneurs, and mentors for young children. The Greek Orthodox Church in the United States and important Greek community organizations are positive forces and should be recognized also.

So I welcome the opportunity afforded by our consideration of this resolution to point out the friendship and shared interests of our two countries. I congratulate the country and people of Greece for the progress they have made over the past 187 years, and I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I am really just distressed over the manner in which this bill has come to the floor. When the Republicans were in the majority, any bill that was in excess of $100 million had to go through the regular process, was subject to amendments on the floor, et cetera; and now we are bringing on the Suspension Calendar, which is for naming post offices and minor things like that, a bill that would spend $6.2 billion over the next 5 years.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the estimated current outlay in fiscal year 2008 for existing Federal community service and volunteer programs is already $607 million a year. Spending under this bill would go up $884 million in fiscal year 2008, $942 million in 2009, $1.058 billion in fiscal year 2010, $1.154 billion in fiscal year 2011, and $1.235 billion in fiscal year 2012 for a total new spending for volunteers of $4.1 billion over 5 years.

That's outrageous to pay for volunteer programs to have the bill not subject to any amendment on the floor such as an amendment to pare down the size of the spending.

And I think in a time when we have a fiscal crisis on our hands, where the stock market is tanking and people are losing their homes and people are not sure of having a job, for this Congress to come in and use this extraordinary procedure to waive all the rules, including a way to amend the bill and spend an additional $4.1 billion over 5 years, that really cracks the back of fiscal responsibility.

The majority has shown unequivocally here that it is not the party of fiscal responsibility, and I would therefore encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, as the dean of the Illinois Republican delegation, I want to take this opportunity to extend to our newest colleague from Illinois, with whom I share two counties, welcome to the big city. I look forward to working with you. I have always wanted a scientific mind, and maybe I can learn from yours. Thank you and welcome to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my deepest sympathies to the victims and their families who suffered the horrific shooting tragedy at Northern Illinois University.

I would like to offer my deep thanks and gratitude to Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member Buck McKeon of the Education and Labor Committee for allowing this resolution to come to the floor for expedited consideration.

Northern Illinois University is one of the largest schools in Illinois. It's over 25,000 students, and it's centered in the corn fields in the beautiful city of DeKalb, Illinois. And it reaches throughout the entire State and indeed around the country and in many cases around the world with the diversity of the foreign students. My colleagues and I represent thousands of Northern Illinois University faculty, staff and graduates. The tragedy has shaken all of us.

Schools are supposed to be a sanctuary of safety, which is why the news that came out of NIU on the afternoon of February 14 was particularly tragic. A lone gunman, a former NIU student, opened fire on an oceanography class, killing five students and wounding 17 more in a matter of seconds. The NIU police were in the auditorium within 30 seconds of the shots being fired. Shortly afterwards he killed himself, but all of the shooting took place prior to the police arriving, even in that short period of time. Many of us remember the shock we felt almost a year ago when 33 members of the Virginia Tech community were lost in a similar senseless act of violence.

As a father of three children in college, I cannot even imagine the sorrow and hurt the families are experiencing. I shared that a bit this past week when I, along with Senators Durbin and Obama and Representatives Emanuel, Roskam and Bean stood with a crowd of more than 10,000 mourners on the NIU campus to memorialize this tragedy.

But still the sorrow and the shock remain. We cannot bring back these young men and women to the classroom, to the sidewalks of DeKalb, or to the arms of their families. We cannot explain why, but we continue to search for answers. But as we did last week at NIU, we can pause to remember the spirit, energy and life of each of the five students lost in this tragedy.

Gayle Dubowski, was a 25-year-old anthropology major from Carol Stream. She loved the arts, and was committed to her Christian faith. Her friends remembered her as a sweet and genuine person, someone who shined brightly for her Lord on the campus of NIU.

Catalina Garcia, 20 years old of Cicero, Illinois, a first-generation American who hoped to be a teacher. An honor student, an athlete and a dancer in high school, her teachers remember her as a quiet girl but with big ideas. Jamie Garcia, her older brother, says he'll always remember her as the family princess.

Julianna Gehant, age 32 of Mendota, Illinois, had served our Nation for 12 years in the Army and Army Reserves. She enrolled at NIU to major in elementary education, a childhood friend remembered, because she loved the innocence and creativity of children.

Ryanne Mace, age 19 of Carpentersville, was an only child whose friends remember her rarely being without a smile. She majored in psychology to pursue her dream of helping others. Her roommate remembers her as a vibrant person, full of life, never wanting to miss a beat.

Daniel Parmenter, age 20 of Westchester, Illinois, is remembered as a 6-foot-5 rugby player with a gentle spirit and a bright future. His family has memories of his touching gestures, phone calls and small acts of love and courage. His last act of love was to throw himself in front of his girlfriend and he took the fire and was killed. And she was injured.

It is an honor to have these students remembered in this body and to remember the courage of those who responded that day. The purpose of this resolution is to express the condolences of the House to those affected by this devastating tragedy.

The Bible tells us to mourn with those who mourn, to pray for one another that we may be healed. We pray the healing continue for the families and the victims of Northern Illinois University.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to ask the House to observe a moment of silence for the tragedy that beset Northern Illinois 11 days ago. On the afternoon of February 14, five bright, energetic young people, Gayle Dubowski, Juliana Gehant, Catalina Garcia, Ryanne Mace, and Daniel Parmenter, were killed and 16 others injured as a deranged gunman opened fire on students at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, before committing suicide himself.

Today, we grieve with our friends at NIU and millions around the world as we try to make sense of this unfathomable tragedy. Let us stand with and pray for the families of the victims and the 25,000 students who will have to deal with the aftermath of this senseless violence for years to come.

I know others in the Illinois delegation join me in this House in extending our condolences to all concerned and commend the brave and noble actions of our first responders.

We respectfully ask for a moment of silence to be observed in this body.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great honor and a sense of humility as the senior Republican from the Land of Lincoln that I offer this resolution to celebrate the birthday of our Nation's 16th President. I want to first offer my deep thanks and gratitude to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman of California and Mr. Davis of Virginia, respectively, for allowing this resolution to come up on the floor to coincide with President Lincoln's birthday. I recognize that this was an unusual procedure and that normal committee protocol was waived to expedite consideration of this resolution to time with Lincoln's birthday today. I also want to offer my profound appreciation to my good friend and fellow Illinoisan, Representative Danny Davis of Chicago, who made all of this possible to happen today.

Abraham Lincoln was born 199 years ago today to Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks at Knob Creek Farm near Hodgenville, Kentucky, in Hardin County. Today starts a series of celebrations over the next 2 years to commemorate the life of Abraham Lincoln based on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000. These commemorations include a special kick-off ceremony at Lincoln's boyhood home, the redesign of the Lincoln penny, a special bicentennial postage stamp, a rededication of the Lincoln Memorial, and a special joint session or meeting of Congress for ceremonies and activities related to Abraham Lincoln. I am absolutely delighted that the House will join in this kick-off celebration in Kentucky, albeit delayed because of an ice storm, with the debate over this resolution. This resolution will continue honoring Lincoln's legacy beyond the next 2 years by requesting the President to issue a proclamation every year in his honor as he does for many other great figures of American history.

In the fall of 1816, Thomas and Nancy Lincoln packed their belongings and their two children--Sarah, 9, and Abraham, 7--and left Kentucky bound for the new frontier of Spencer County in southern Indiana. Abraham Lincoln lived in Indiana for the next 14 years until he was 21 years old. However, in October 1818, when Abraham was 9 years old, his mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, died. His feelings for her were still strong some 40 years later when he said, ``All that I am or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.''

In 1830, Thomas Lincoln, then re-married, decided to move the family to another new frontier--this time to the tiny village of Decatur, Illinois, located in Macon County. Hard working and intellectually inquisitive, Abraham Lincoln's first foray into public service came in 1832 when he was elected and served as a captain of an Illinois militia company during the Black Hawk War. Following his military service, Lincoln was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1834 from Sangamon County and was successively reelected until 1840. In 1846, Abraham Lincoln was elected to serve in this great House, where he ably represented central Illinois in the seat now held by my good friend and colleague, Representative Ray LaHood.

Lincoln grew to prominence as an attorney and a legislator with a reputation for fairness, honesty, and a belief that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. He founded these beliefs in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence--a document which, as President, he would cite frequently as his inspiration for saving the Union and as the basis for his opposition to slavery. During a speech at Independence Hall in 1861, Lincoln stated, ``I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence . . . [it is these sentiments] which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.'' Lincoln's belief in the principles espoused by the Declaration formed the motivating moral and natural law principle for his opposition to the spread of slavery and his belief in slavery's ultimate demise.

Lincoln found his belief in the equality of men to be directly at odds with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1856. This legislation promulgated the concept of ``popular sovereignty''--the idea that State citizens should be able to determine the presence of slavery in their State by popular referendum. Lincoln's strong feelings against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act propelled Lincoln to return to politics, and he began a bid for the U.S. Senate.

During his campaign for the Senate, Lincoln engaged in a series of seven debates with his opponent, Stephen Douglas. Now known as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's eloquence and studied opposition to the spread of slavery brought him into national prominence.

The second of these debates was held in Freeport, Illinois, a city in the district that I am privileged to represent, and was the origin of what is now known as the ``Freeport Doctrine.'' Cornered by Lincoln into choosing between the notion of popular sovereignty or the prohibition against outlawing slavery put forth by the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, Stephen Douglas responded that slavery could be prevented from any territory by the refusal of the people living in that territory to pass laws favorable to slavery. Likewise, if the people of the territory supported slavery, legislation would provide for its continued existence. While this doctrine would see Douglas reelected to the Senate over Lincoln, it would be a key factor in his loss in the 1860 Presidential election.

Lincoln's performance in the debates won him national prominence and a reputation for courage, character, and patriotism. These factors played heavily into his election to office as the 16th President of the United States on November 6, 1860.

Upon taking office, Lincoln was thrust into the throes of the Civil War. Leading a partitioned Union, Lincoln relied heavily on his political ideals born of the Declaration of Independence. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued what would become the most iconic document of his Presidency--the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all the slaves in southern States that seceded from the Union. His commitment to the promises of the Declaration of Independence were further evidenced in the opening lines of his greatest speech at Gettysburg: ``Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.''

On November 8, 1864, Abraham Lincoln was reelected to the Presidency by 55 percent of the popular vote. He continued to act as a courageous and principled leader until he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865. Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865.

Abraham Lincoln's profound and courageous belief in the equality of men and the sacredness of the American Union propelled him forward as one of the greatest Presidents our Nation has known. Last Sunday, at a White House ceremony honoring Abraham Lincoln, President George W. Bush said, ``he, of all the successors to George Washington, none had greater impact on the presidency and on the country . . . He was a fabulous man, a great President. His life was one of humble beginnings, and steadfast convictions. And so we celebrate his deeds, we lift up his ideals, and we honor this good man.''

Lincoln is a hero to so many of us here in this House on both sides of the aisle, as he is to me. The prominence of President Abraham Lincoln is an undisputed fact of American history. The man best known for freeing the slaves and saving an imperiled Union has attained iconic status among historians and citizens alike as evidenced by best selling books such as Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin that documented the political genius of Lincoln in winning the Presidency and governing the Nation.

And yet, this man of great genius, compassion and acumen lacks official Federal recognition for the day of his birth, February 12, because what is popularly known as President's Day is legally Washington's Birthday. While I do not wish to diminish the contributions George Washington made to the establishment of this great country, this resolution will finally give Lincoln his due without the cost of a separate Federal holiday by simply requesting the President each year to issue a proclamation honoring this great man and encouraging the people of the United States to observe his birthday with appropriate ceremonies and activities. The resolution also encourages State and local governments and local educational agencies to study and appreciate the reverence and respect Abraham Lincoln had for the Declaration of Independence in the development of American history, jurisprudence, and the spread of freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Abraham Lincoln today and in recognizing the profound influence the Declaration of Independence had upon Lincoln's political philosophy as a model for us to emulate.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, February 6, 2008, I was unable to return to Washington in time to vote because of the large snowstorm that hit the Chicago-land area yesterday and delayed my arrival until mid-afternoon today. If I was here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 29, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 30, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 31, ``no'' on rollcall No. 32, ``no'' on rollcall No. 33, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 34, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 35.

Madam Speaker, last week, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, released its report outlining options for responding to the Nation's short-term economic weakness. One key finding of the report contains a warning: Any stimulus that a short-term economic package ``can provide to the economy depends on how much of the resultant spending goes to purchase domestically produced goods. The degree of stimulus that a policy can provide to the economy also depends on how much of the resultant spending goes to purchase domestically produced goods. If the additional consumption, or investment, demand is satisfied by imported goods, the income of foreign producers will rise, and the stimulus essentially will be exported.''

Simply put, the benefits of the proposed $145 billion U.S. economic stimulus package should not go abroad. The benefits of this package should help Americans as much as possible. That's why I, along with Representatives Bill Lipinski, Eric Cantor, Wally Herger, and Jeff Fortenberry, am proud to introduce today the American Jobs Creation and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. This bill will provide a quick power boost to the economy that does not cost too much and rewards companies for keeping and adding jobs in America. This proposal simply accelerates the phase-in of the domestic manufacturing tax benefit by 2 years. Any economic stimulus package that is crafted by Congress should include this provision.

The domestic manufacturing tax deduction, now section 199 of the U.S. Tax Code, started in 2005 at 3 percent as part of the 2004 law that replaced the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income, FSC/ETI tax structure, which was ruled as an illegal export subsidy by the World Trade Organization, WTO. Last year, the domestic manufacturing tax deduction increased to 6 percent. The final phase--raising the domestic manufacturing deduction to 9 percent--is scheduled to start in 2010. The American Jobs Creations and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 simply changes the start date of the 9 percent domestic manufacturing tax deduction from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2008, thus providing an additional 3 percent tax incentive for all domestic manufacturers right now.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, 378,627 small and large manufacturers, as broadly defined by the U.S. Treasury, were helped by this benefit in 2005. One year later, that number grew to over 400,000. The domestic manufacturing benefit applies to firms of all types--C Corporations, S Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, LLCs, and sole proprietorships.

This tax deduction is ideal because it only applies to revenue generated by operations based in the United States and discourages the ``off-shoring'' of American production. No other economic stimulus idea ties tax relief to requiring companies to keep production and jobs in the United States. The American Jobs Creation and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 is a simple bipartisan low-cost idea that will make a real difference right now. It also fits within the parameters, as outlined by the President on Friday, of what could be included in an economic stimulus package.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully urge the inclusion of accelerating the phase-in of the domestic manufacturing tax deduction in any economic stimulus legislation that will be voted on by the House this year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hour to speak for the millions of innocent voices that have been silenced due to the passage of Roe v. Wade on this day, 35 years ago.

Since the passage of Roe v. Wade, the National Right to Life estimates that nearly. 50 million lives have been lost. This number is staggering.

What do the deaths of 50 million children, say about the state of our Nation? It says that the Declaration of Independence is no longer absolute, as its ``unalienable'' right to life only applies when it is convenient. It says that Congress can make a Federal crime out of roosters crossing State lines, but when a defenseless child is taken across state lines to have an abortion, it is merely a ``right''--a choice being exercised. It says that seven unelected Supreme Court justices ignored the separation of powers, and appointed themselves as a superior legislature in order to decide the abortion issue.

But what is the good news? The good news is that citizens who believe that the Constitution protects life in all its seasons have worked to educate the public about abortion and the biological development of the unborn child, as well as to provide support and options for women when they need it the most. As a result, abortion numbers continue to drop from a high of over 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005--proving that when given the right options and the whole truth about abortion, many women will choose life.

However, even as the pro-life movement continues to have an impact all over the United States, science has opened other doors that threaten the sanctity of life in the United States. Mass production of cloned embryos to be destroyed in research promotes the same principle as abortion--that human life only matters when it is chosen to matter. We must continue to be vigilant in protecting human life at its creation--whether in the womb or in the lab.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my anger and sadness regarding the assassination of former Prime

Minister Benazir Bhutto. The horrific murder of Prime Minister Bhutto is a chilling reminder that extremist forces are continually trying to undermine democracy and freedom. Today, we stand with the democrats in Pakistan and throughout the world to oppose tyranny and terrorism.

Benazir Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state and served twice as Prime Minister of Pakistan. I had the distinct honor and privilege to meet her when she spoke to members of the House International Relations Committee during the mid-1990's in an ornate ceremonial room just one floor below this rostrum. Her accomplishment paved the way for other women leaders to seek and win top offices throughout the developing world. Bhutto's dedication to democracy in Pakistan is closely tied to the time she spent as a student in the United States. In fact, she credits her exposure to America as a driving force behind her push for a free Pakistan.

Former Prime Minister Bhutto was also no stranger to the good people of Illinois' 16th Congressional District. In 2002, she spoke to an overflow audience at Rockford College about the link between promoting democracy and defeating extremist terrorists. I know I speak for the people of northern Illinois in expressing our heartfelt gratitude that she visited Rockford. Bhutto's speech was inspirational and enlightening. I enclose for the Record the article titled, ``Ex-Premier Pushes U.S. to Aid Democracy Fight'' from the Rockford Register Star, published on September 20, 2002, discussing Bhutto's historic remarks at Rockford College.

Pakistan must continue its journey to political reform and democracy. The United States must stand with those who advocate for the fundamental freedoms that were bestowed onto all of us by our creator. Let's not forget Bhutto's legacy and stand with the people of Pakistan in this dark hour.

[From the Rockford Register Star, Sept. 20, 2002]

Ex-Premier Pushes U.S. To Aid Democracy Fight

Rockford.--Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

said Thursday that people of her country support her battle

to bring democracy to Pakistan. She wants President Bush to

help.

The deposed leader--who at age 35 became the first female

prime minister in the Muslim world--continues her efforts,

made more important in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001,

terrorist attacks.

Bhutto remains critical of the regime of Gen. Pervez

Musharraf, who has controlled the country since 1999. She is

an author and active in the Pakistan People's Party, the

country's largest, pro-democracy party.

``I support democracy in Pakistan and, with the war on

terrorism, there is a new commitment to bringing democracy to

the Muslim world and the empowering of the Muslim people

based on fundamental human rights,'' she said.

Bhutto planned to share this message later Thursday night

with a sold-out crowd at Maddox Theatre at Rockford College.

Additional crowds were seated in the Cheek Theatre and dance

studio to watch a live television feed of Bhutto's

presentation.

Bhutto's visit kicked off the 2002-03 Rockford College

Forum Series, a program of speakers and workshops focused on

the politics and culture of Islam.

Bhutto acknowledged that she hasn't met with Bush about

bringing democracy to her home country but ``other U.S.

officials'' assured her that the United States remains

committed to fostering democracy in Pakistan.

``I want President Bush to say `Look, you've been our ally,

and we want to help bring democracy because democracy doesn't

promote terrorism,' '' she said.

Her determination to see Pakistan become a democracy began

after she completed her education at Radcliffe College and

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, in the late 1970s.

Bhutto was born June 21, 1953, in Karachi, Pakistan. In

1977, at age 24, she returned home and took up the struggle

to restore democracy and human rights in the country as a

leader of the Pakistan People's Party.

Bhutto faced imprisonment and exile while guiding the

resistance to Pakistan's military regime.

Her government was replaced by opposing political forces in

1990, but Bhutto was again elected prime minister in 1993 and

served until 1996, when the government was overthrown by a

military coup.

``My leadership was of different vision than the

conservatives. It was dictatorship vs. democracy.''

Jeff Hendry, chairman of the forum series committee, said

Bhutto's visit was ``huge, especially now with all the news

in that part of the world.''

In her speech: ``she will deal with the international

political climate and deal more with what the U.S. can do and

should be doing to bring democracy to Pakistan as well as the

strategic importance of the region,'' he said.

What she said

The Register Star asked Benazir Bhutto:

Is Osama bin Laden dead? ``It's 50-50, and it's anybody's

guess. I thought for a while if he was dead, there had to be

certain funeral ceremonies done for the soul, but maybe he

was killed and nobody knew. He could be playing dead and he

could pop in the next five years. But if he's hiding, it

would probably be in the mountains of Afghanistan.''

How the people of Pakistan view the United States:

``Pakistan has mixed feelings toward the U.S. It's like a

love-hate relationship. They see it as a land of opportunity

and power and to them, they feel they are powerless. They

like the power the U.S. has, but they hate their own

powerlessness.''

Have the Pakistani people been treated differently in the

United States since the terrorist attacks? ``I have respect

largely in the area of academia. I have talked to students

who have said Americans came to them and asked `Are you OK?'

Other stories I hear from big cities are of hate crimes and

of some men who have shaved their beards off in fear of being

targeted. But President Bush is right when he says Pakistan

is safe here. I hear others say, `We are Americans, and

please accept us as the way we are.' ''