Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Res. 500, which condemns the establishment of a natural gas cartel. On April 9 of 2007, several gas-exporting countries agreed to form a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC. The cartel would be initially composed of countries that have nearly 70 percent of the world's reserves. Those countries include Russia and Iran.

Though the U.S. currently is largely self-sufficient in natural gas, we are projected to greatly increase usage over time. That could result in a growing dependence on world supply.

At that point, minor disruptions can lead to rapid price increases that could have grave consequences for the United States' manufacturing base. This could be particularly disastrous for the chemical and plastics industry and advanced composite manufacturers because they use natural gas as their feedstock. Soaring prices today in this country have already challenged their competitiveness. Unfortunately, in 2004 alone, increases in natural gas prices forced the closure of scores of chemical companies and cost roughly 100,000 well-paying jobs.

If the United States loses our advantage in chemical manufacturing companies, that will be the demise of manufacturing as a whole. Because without chemicals, you cannot have a strong manufacturing base. With the chemical industry on a particular siege by the high cost of natural gas now, one can only imagine what would happen if an OPEC-type group got together and decided to gouge America and increase greatly the cost of natural gas.

Natural gas materials are used broadly for defense products. Disruptions in the supply are detrimental to America's defense industrial base and therefore our ability to defend ourselves. We must not stand by and let yet another global extortion group, such as OPEC, take over and command the world's supply of natural gas.

The purpose of this resolution is to send a strong message to the people involved in these international conspiracies to back off, that the United States will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the people who control the world's supply of natural gas do no harm to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are this point in the legislative process to send to the President's desk a bipartisan, bicameral reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, process. I first became interested in CFIUS reform when a Chinese state-owned enterprise was in competition with a private Italian and a Canadian firm to purchase a very sensitive machine tool division of Ingersoll Milling. The Chinese eventually decided not to attempt to buy the very sensitive machine tool division of Ingersoll but were able to purchase the non-sensitive production line division, which saved hundreds of jobs. It came up again when IBM decided to sell its personal computer division to Lenovo, partially owned by the Chinese government. It emerged again when the China National Offshore Oil Company, CNOOC, another Chinese state-owned enterprise, was ready to outbid a private firm to acquire Unocal.

Let me make clear that I am a strong supporter of foreign direct investment into the United States. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies employ 5.1 million Americans, of which 31 percent are in the manufacturing sector; have a payroll of $325 billion; and account for 19 percent of all U.S. exported goods. Foreign direct investment in the U.S. is important because in many cases it provides capital to purchase companies in the U.S. where there is no domestic financing or interest, thus saving thousands of U.S. jobs. Many foreign companies retained numerous firms and jobs in the northern Illinois district I am proud to represent including Ingersoll Machine Milling (Italy) and Ingersoll Cutting Tools (Israel) in Rockford; Nissan Forklift (Japan) in Marengo; Eisenmann Corporation (Germany) in Crystal Lake; and Cadbury-Schweppes (United Kingdom), which owns the Adams confectionary plant in Loves Park. In fact, Illinois is fifth in the United States in terms of the number of employees supported by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies per State.

The House is now prepared to send a comprehensive CFIUS reform bill to the President because of the legitimate concern over a year ago of Dubai Ports (DP) World's proposed acquisition of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) management operations of 27 terminals at 6 major U.S. ports east of the Mississippi River. Many Americans were legitimately concerned about the national security implications of this deal. However, it was often overlooked that DP World is a state-owned enterprise, owned by the royal family of Dubai. What does it mean for our national interest when foreign governments acquire private sector companies in America?

In the P&O case, the New York Times reported on February 24, 2006 that this sale came down to a ``battle between two foreign, state- backed companies''--DP World and PSA, which is part of the investment arm of the Singapore government. ``The acquisition price (for P&O) reflects the advantage that a number of the fastest growing companies enjoy--their government's deep pockets.'' Here is the key, Mr. Speaker--``DP World paid about 20 percent more (for P&O) than analysts thought the company was worth. Publicly traded companies that were potential bidders were scared off long before DP World's final offer.''

You would think this would be a factor in the CFIUS decisionmaking process, particularly after Congress in 1992 required a 45-day review process for acquisitions by state-owned enterprises in reaction to the proposed sale of LTV's missile division to Thomson-CSF, the American subsidiary of a French firm that was then 58 percent owned by the French Government. Yet, CFIUS initially declined to subject the DP World's proposed acquisition of P&O through the additional 45-day review process until pressured by Congress.

I am pleased that H.R. 556 incorporates my main suggestion to mandate all proposed acquisitions of U.S. assets by a foreign state-owned enterprise undergo the more rigorous additional 45-day review process. The free market cannot work if foreign governments subsidize the purchase of U.S. assets. H.R. 556 will make absolutely crystal clear that in every case where there is a proposed acquisition by a foreign state-owned enterprise, it will undergo heightened scrutiny to ensure that there is no hidden agenda by a foreign government that could undermine our national security. We owe it to our constituents to make sure that foreign governments do not undermine our open free market system as a tool to advance their national interests. I congratulate the Chairmen and Ranking Members in both Houses of Congress for working together to produce a bill that will merit the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor a group of students from Marsh Elementary School in Rockford, Illinois, for their selection as the winner of the 2007 Toshiba/National Science Teachers Association Explora Vision Awards.

Each year, students in grades K-12 around the Nation compete in the Explora Vision program, which is designed to encourage students to combine their imagination with their knowledge of science and technology to explore visions of the future. Teams of students select a technology, research how it works and why it was invented, and then project how that technology may change in the future. They must then identify what breakthroughs are required for their vision to become a reality and describe the positive and negative consequences of their technology on society.

I am honored to have these students in the district that I am privileged to represent. I support them wholeheartedly as they pursue different areas of technological research at such an early age. I hope that their experiences will kindle an interest in science and technology that could possibly lead to a career in these fields.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the amendment to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This policy ensures that U.S. bilateral family planning programs are not conduits for exporting abortions internationally.

Let me be clear from the beginning: the Mexico City Policy is NOT anti-family planning. In no way does this policy reduce the $425 million that the United States provides in family planning assistance. What this amendment does do is to put a wall between contraception and abortion, thereby preventing this Congress from making the American taxpayers an implicit partner in the aborting of unborn children. It sends the message that as Americans, we stand for the life and liberty of all individuals--those whose voices can be heard, and those whose voices cry from the womb.

This Democrat-led Congress has voted to protect roosters from cockfighting and horses from slaughter. Doesn't it would seem logical that this Congress would stand up and protect the fragile lives of the unborn?

But this Congress has shown that it is only selectively sympathetic to the furtherance of life. As when horses are killed, or roosters are hurt. But not when a tiny, human life is stamped out with the approval of our government.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the SBA Entrepreneurial Development Programs Act of 2007. I am a strong supporter of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). These centers continue to do a lot of good work to promote job creation and small business development throughout our nation. There are three SBDCs that serve constituents in the 16th District of Illinois and they do phenomenal work in oftentimes a difficult local economic climate with limited resources. But I fear that the various SBDC bills we debate this week may kill the program with kindness.

The bills all taken together proposes to create nine new grant initiatives within the SBDC program. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bills would add $122 million in additional spending in Fiscal Year 2008 alone and $365 million over the next five fiscal years. When you consider that the Democrat-controlled House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee recently provided a generous increase of $11 million for the regular SBDC program to reach $100 million for Fiscal Year 2008, these bills taken together proposes to more than double the size of the SBDC program. In an era of tight budgets, I don't think any program deserves a 122 percent increase.

I am sympathetic to many of these initiatives. I am particularly supportive of making sure that Small Business Administration (SBA) employees do not interfere in hiring decisions of local SBDCs. I also support provisions in Section 207 to require more information, primarily through Internet Web-based technologies, about regulatory compliance to small business owners.

But there are still significant outstanding budgetary issues. Throughout my tenure as the former Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I tried numerous times to see the National Regulatory Assistance and the Native American Entrepreneurial Assistance SBDC initiatives, among others, become law. Last year, we reached a common- sense consensus that in order to get these new initiatives into law, the high $135 million authorization level for the overall SBDC program should be proportionally reduced. However, that consensus is not in these bills that we are debating this week. I find it odd that the ``pay-go'' fiscal conservative rhetoric of the Democrats is not met by reality. There are no spending offsets in these bills.

Some of these initiatives also are duplicative of existing Federal programs. For example, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program administered by the Department of Commerce through local centers across the nation offers the very same services that are outlined in Section 203 of H.R. 2359. The National Veterans Business Development Corporation (or Vets Corp) offers the same services as those being proposed in H.R. 2366.

I also have concern that some of the provisions in H.R. 2359 go beyond the mission of SBDCs, which historically has been primarily targeted at helping new or struggling small businesses. For example, Section 206 requires that SBDC grant recipients ``shall also attempt to negotiate lower health insurance premiums for small business concerns that seek the assistance of the recipient.'' In my view, it is not the role of SBDCs to get involved in the pricing health insurance premiums. Section 204 of H.R. 2359 establishes a new program to help transition so-called ``mature'' small businesses even though there is no definition of what the authors of this legislation mean by ``transition'' or ``mature'' small business. Again, I don't think it is the role of SBDCs to be involved in initiatives that could result in the closure of small businesses.

I also fear that creating these nine new initiatives all at once will give false hope to SBDCs seeking to receive these grants. These initiatives will not start until a specific amount separate from the regular SBDC appropriation is allocated from the Appropriations Committee. In principle, this is a good policy to help insure that the money to run the regular SBDC program is not raided to fund these new initiatives. However, noting that the Democrat-controlled House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee just provided a long- overdue increase for the regular SBDC program, I seriously doubt that any of these specific SBDC initiatives will be funded at a significant level in the near future, further diminishing the expectations behind this legislation.

Finally, these nine new initiatives create many hoops for local SBDCs to jump through in order to qualify for these grants. These bills will create a paperwork and accounting nightmare for SBDCs to keep track of various grants, particularly if they apply and receive multiple awards under different initiatives, for the programs they administer. In retrospect, it is probably best that Congress provides an overall increase in the appropriation for the regular SBDC program and then require that all SBDCs provide some services (even if it is to network with another specialized SBDC or another Federal partner such as a local MEP center or the Vets Corp) in the nine issue areas outlined in H.R. 2359, H.R. 2366, and H.R. 2284 as opposed to the micro-management approach as contained in these bills.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I predicted that if Democrats took over control of Congress, spending on the Small Business Administration (SBA) would dramatically increase. Never in my wildest dreams did I think they would be so brazen. Elections do matter. Thus far this year, the CBO estimates that the Democrat-controlled House Small Business Committee has authorized $5.4 billion in new spending over the next 5 years--$1.379 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. With these bills on the suspension calendar this week, proposed spending on the SBA will grow once again. All totaled, the CBO estimates that spending on the SBA will increase by nearly $5.8 billion over 4 years and $1.525 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. To put this massive spending increase in perspective, the House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee recommends providing $582 million in total spending on the SBA in fiscal year 2008. I urge my colleagues to stand up for fiscal responsibility and to prevent mission-creep within the SBDC network by voting against these bills.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Is it proper to ask that the Members be ordered to stay in the Chamber and that the doors be sealed?

Recorded Vote

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Michael D. Pfingsten, the U.S. House of Representatives guest chaplain for today.

Mike is a Lutheran pastor of 19 years; and he and his family have joined us from Harvard, Illinois, where Rev. Pfingsten is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church.

Rev. Pfingsten earned his B.A. in History at Concordia College and Masters of Divinity in History at Concordia Theological Seminary.

On this day in 325 A.D., Christian bishops gathered to discuss the essentials of the Christian faith at the first Council of Nicaea. I am delighted that Rev. Pfingsten, a man who can truly appreciate the significance of this day, was able to lead us in prayer.

Mr. Speaker, the science and technology and math education fields, they are inseparable, tremendous assets to our economic strength and national security. These disciplines are critical to ensuring our global competitiveness, and the demand for knowledge- based jobs is growing.

From 1994 to 2003, the proportion of the work force working in STEM fields jumped from 17 percent to 23 percent. Furthermore, if trends in manufacturing continue, over 40 percent of factory jobs will require postsecondary education by 2012.

I spend at least half of my time in Congress working on manufacturing issues, one of the founders of the manufacturing caucus, and serve as co-chairman, along with Congressman Tim Ryan from the State of Ohio, and this is obviously a bipartisan effort in order to encourage more education of people who will be qualified to play a more meaningful role in the field of manufacturing.

The skyrocketing cost of college education have made access to this type of education more and more difficult for many of our brightest students. This bill seeks to correct the problem. It

creates a web portal of public and private science, technology, math education scholarships, loans, and grants that are available. And the database would be searchable by field of study, demographics, and level of study. By placing all of these scholarships in one easily accessible location, H.R. 1051 greatly increases the chances that our students will be able to pursue these valuable opportunities.

It is not without coincidence this bill comes up 3 to 4 weeks after the missed reauthorization wherein we set aside a certain amount of money to complete the huge web portal that would replace what agencies are doing in manufacturing and what programs are available. So this fits very tidily into that program, and I would encourage that the House adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 355 welcoming the Leaders from the Pacific Island nations to the Eighth Pacific Island Conference being held in Washington. I commend my distinguished friend and colleague, Chairman Faleomavaega, for introducing this resolution.

The United States and the Pacific Island nations share strong economic and cultural ties

that have endured the test of time. The triennial meeting of the Pacific Island Conference is an important event that allows the U.S. to reaffirm its friendship and ties with the 20 nations participating in the Conference. This year's meeting will take place in Washington, DC, for the first time.

Our friends in the Pacific Island nations have stood by us steadfastly during the darkest moments of this Nation's history. A great number of the sons and daughters from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. They stand side by side with volunteers from American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, Guam, Hawaii, and other states to protect our freedom.

America's ties with the countries in the South Pacific date back centuries from the early days when American whalers sought safety in Fiji and Tonga and continuing through to the Pacific campaign during World War II. To this day, Pacific Island nations represent some of America's strongest allies at the United Nations.

I applaud the Administration and the East West Center for elevating the importance of this year's Pacific Island Conference to the highest level by holding it in our nation's capitol. I look forward to meeting with the Leaders during their visit to Congress.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I will not use the 5 minutes, and submit my full remarks in the Record.

This amendment is very simple. It authorizes $2 million for NIST to develop a software package so that manufacturers have basic information about all the Federal programs available to assist them, particularly in the area of research and development. It will provide a link so that manufacturers would know the latest status of all Federal R&D projects relating to manufacturing.

I first realized the need for this software after speaking at a speaking engagement in Nashville, Tennessee. I was walking on the showroom floor and found a major manufacturer from Kansas City with a display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature spur gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a Lincoln penny. The EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of displaying their miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of the major manufacturer if they had heard of the micro machining work done at the EIGERlab. The Kansas City manufacturer had done its work by using an EDM. The EIGERlab had done its work using a milling process. Neither of these parties had known of each other. It dawned on me that I was the only person that knew these two places were making the exact same product, although by different methods, and both were being funded by the Defense Department.

The story illustrates the need for software that allows users to monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted relating to manufacturing and the status and purpose of the research. My vision for the system would be that the final product would be easily accessible on NIST's Web site. NIST would also be authorized by my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use of the service, if they so choose, to establish and maintain the Web site. If a fee is imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to reflect the actual cost.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am proud to represent a district that has a county with the second highest concentration of manufacturing as a percentage its share of the local economy in the entire Nation. Only one other county in America with a population of 250,000 or less has more manufacturing than the county that surrounds the second largest city in Illinois--Rockford. I have made it my life mission to get to know all about manufacturing. I have visited literally hundreds of factories and small shops all around the world to enhance my education about this vital sector of our economy.

I crafted this amendment because I have been frustrated during my time in Congress that no one has a complete picture of who is doing what in the Federal government concerning manufacturing. No one has a complete list of the federal programs available to help manufacturers, not even the Manufacturing Czar at Commerce. Right now, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is finalizing a report at my request to document all of the programs that deal with manufacturing. Thus far, they have informed me that there are over 280 programs spread throughout the Federal agencies that focus in some aspect on manufacturing.

This problem is compounded further by a lack of transparency among Federal agencies in terms of funding that is approved for certain projects. Plus, manufacturers who would like to avail themselves of various Federal programs do not know where to turn for answers. You would think that somewhere a matrix exists that details what firms are receiving Federal R&D money and how it is being used, but I can tell you that it does not. Let me share with you one clear example.

After a speaking engagement in Tennessee, I was walking the showroom floor and found a major manufacturer out of Kansas City, Missouri with a display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature spur gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a penny. The penny was enclosed in a plastic box with a magnified top so that you can see the gear. The EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of displaying their miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of this major manufacturer if they had heard of the EIGERlab and the work they are doing on micromachining. They had not. It dawned on me that I was the only person that knew these two places were making the exact same product and both were being funded by the Defense Department.

This story illustrates well the need for software that allows users to monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted related to manufacturing, and the status and purpose of the research. This software would allow users to input the material type or process being used and it would scan for all federal dollars being put towards the searched criteria. The purpose of this amendment is to cut down on the possible duplication of research going on even within the same agency.

My amendment would authorize a $2 million dollar set aside for software to develop this system so that manufacturers would have basic information about all the federal programs available to assist them and also to provide a link so that they would be able to know the latest status on all of the federal R&D projects related to manufacturing. NIST could either develop this software system themselves or contract it out to someone else. My vision for this system would be that the final product would be easily accessible on NIST's web site. NIST would also be authorized by my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use of this service if they so choose to help establish and maintain the web site just as the Department of Commerce does with other services such as in-depth market research for exporters. The fee could be a yearly subscription for frequent users or a per visit charge. If a fee is imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to reflect actual cost.

This is a very important amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. If this interactive software can be established, this will be a huge accomplishment, particularly for small manufacturers.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007. I strongly support the changes made in this legislation to the Certified Development Company Economic Development or 504 loan program. However, I have grave concerns regarding many of the changes made in this legislation to the other mainstay of the SBA's access to credit programs: the 7(a) guaranteed lending program.

Specifically, Section 101 sets the stage to eventually reinstate the federal loan subsidy for the 7(a) program later this year. This provision requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to recalculate the subsidy rate each fiscal quarter so that if an appropriation is provided for sometime during the fiscal year, fees can be reduced for small business borrowers and lenders. While I believe this provision violates the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 because it requires the re-opening of the assumptions that comprise the credit subsidy model just for the SBA's 7(a) program as contained in the President's annual budget request, I am more concerned about its potential detrimental effects upon our Nation's small businesses. While I am all for lowering fees, it has to be done in a fiscally-responsible manner, particularly during these tight budgetary times. In short, Section 101 is unnecessary and will set the 7(a) program back on an unstable course, thus reducing its availability and

attractiveness to potential small business borrowers and lenders. The primary association with the expertise on the 7(a) program the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL)--is neutral on H.R. 1332 and has declined to take a position on the legislation.

First, Section 101 is simply unnecessary. As the former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I never heard one complaint from any small business owner about the 7(a) fee structure. However, I heard dozens of complaints from small businesses when the 7(a) program was shut down or operated with severe constraints in 2002, 2003, and 2004 because the appropriations bill that contained the funding for the SBA did not pass in time. I frequently challenged the supporters of reinstating a loan subsidy for the 7(a) program to find me one small business that was not able to get a 7(a) loan because of the higher fees imposed after 2004. They were never able to produce me one example. Why is that? Because the so-called higher fees that went into effect in 2004 were at the same level as they were prior to 2002. What happened when the 7(a) fees went back to the 2002 level? Despite many dire predictions at the time, the 7(a) program grew and thrived because lenders and borrowers knew that it would be around for the long-haul. The 7(a) program no longer had to rely on the timeliness of passing an annual appropriation bill. The 7(a) program now operates on automatic pilot similar to how the other main access to credit programs at the SBA--the 504 and the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) programs--that also receive no annual subsidy and operates totally on user fees. October 1st--the beginning of the new federal fiscal year-- is no longer is a day of anxiety and worry for small business borrowers and lenders.

Second, Section 101 will set the 7(a) program back on a path of instability. Unfortunately, this is a very technical and arcane debate where numbers and statistics are thrown around very casually. Some argue that H.R. 1332 will reduce fees up to $50,000 to small business borrowers. But then in the next breath, they argue that this bill will not modify the subsidy rate. Both cannot be true. It's important to remember that the main goal of the Democratic proponents of this legislation is to reinstate the loan subsidy for the 7(a) program. That's why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Section 101 will increase spending by $305 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and $2.265 billion over the next five years. Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the President requested only $464 million in spending on the entire SBA in FY '08. If fully implemented, this bill would almost double the spending on the SBA in one year!

The Democratic supporters of this legislation also wish to duplicate the 7(a) fee structure as it was in place between 2002 and 2004 in which there was a federal loan subsidy of approximately $100 million each year for a 7(a) program level of under $9.5 billion. However, there were only three fees temporarily reduced during this time period as part of an economic stimulus package in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Just like other economic stimulus measures, such as the 50 percent bonus tax depreciation, these 7(a) fee reductions were intended to only remain in place a short while until the economy got back on track. They were never intended to become part of permanent law.

The upfront 7(a) borrower fee was temporarily reduced from 2 percent to 1 percent for small businesses seeking smaller 7(a) loans of under $150,000. For 7(a) loans between $150,000 and $700,000, the upfront fee was temporarily reduced from 3 percent to 2.5 percent. The 3.5 percent upfront fee on 7(a) loans from $700,000 to $1 million, which was the maximum loan guarantee limit at the time, was not reduced at all during the 2002 to 2004 time period. However, the annual on-going fee changed to lenders on the remaining outstanding balance on a 7(a) loan was also temporarily cut in half from 0.50 percent to 0.25 percent. Thus, at most, a fee structure that temporarily existed between 2002 and 2004 produced a maximum savings of $3,500 to a small business seeking to borrow $700,000. For a small business borrower seeking a loan of $150,000, the maximum savings was $1,500. Both figures are a far cry from $50,000.

It is also important to remember that the upfront fee is rolled into the overall loan and amortized over the life-time of the loan. In other words, a borrower is not forced to come up with the entire upfront fee at closing. For the average small business 7(a) borrower, the fee change in 2004 only amounted to an increased payment of $10 per month. Thus, in return for an extra $10 per month, small business borrowers and lenders no longer have to worry about the 7(a) program ending or operating with various restrictions. However, if the 7(a) program is put back in the appropriations process, then there will be uncertainty if the program will be around for the long-term. Section 101 also allows 7(a) fees to fluctuate every few months depending upon whether or not Congress adds or subtracts money for a loan subsidy; thus harming long-term planning. This policy change also sets the precedent to reinstate the loan subsidies for the 504 and SBIC programs, which is the long-term goal of the Democratic proponents of this legislation.

I'm also concerned that at a time when we should be streamlining government, H.R. 1332 creates three new lending programs at the SBA and makes one pilot program permanent. While I am sympathetic to the need to increase lending to rural areas, help health care professionals to open up shop in medically underserved areas, and assist veterans and reservists, the initiatives contained in Sections 102 through 105 of H.R. 1332 fundamentally undermine the ``zero'' loan subsidy policy in the 7(a) program. To fully implement these provisions, Congress will be forced to choose between higher fees for all other small business borrowers or an even higher appropriation to subsidize these new programs. Knowing the perspective of the Democratic proponents of this legislation who fundamentally disagree with ``zero subsidy,'' these initiatives will put further pressure on Congress to reinstate an appropriation for the 7(a) loan subsidy. CBO estimated that these three specific proposals will cost the taxpayer $11 million in 2008 and $77 million over the next five years. These provisions also set the precedent for other well-deserving groups to request Congress at a later date to eliminate 7(a) fees for them and provide their group with a much higher 90 percent guarantee rate on 7(a) loans, further exposing precious taxpayer money to higher risk of default and loss. It will be very hard for a future Congress to say no to these groups once these precedents have been set in this bill. I enclose for the Record a copy of the Administration's position on H.R. 1332, which reflects many of my same concerns listed above.

I am proud over what Republicans on the Small Business Committee were able to accomplish over the last 12 years to promote fiscal responsibility at the SBA while at the same time helping a record number of small businesses. When Republicans were given stewardship of Congress in 1995, Congress spent $213 million of the taxpayer's hard- earned money on the SBA to support a 7(a) and 504 loan program volume of $8.3 billion to reach 55,800 small business borrowers. In 2006, the SBA doubled that level of assistance to reach over 100,000 small business borrowers with a 7(a) and 504 loan program usage level of $19.1 billion--all at no direct cost to the taxpayer. We should not return to the pre-1995 days just to satisfy a philosophical desire to restore loan subsidy, particularly for a program that doesn't need it. The old adage applies here--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Again, NAGGL has not taken a position on this bill. In short, Mr. Chairman, the 7(a) program ain't broke and the ``cure'' in Title I of H.R. 1332 is worse than the ``disease.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of Capitol Hill to oppose this well-meaning but misguided legislation.

April 24, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 1332--small business lending improvements act of 2007

The Administration has achieved significant results in

expanding the availability of credit to small businesses.

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, the Small Business

Administration (SBA) has more than doubled the total number

of guaranteed loans to small businesses under the Section

7(a) and Section 504 loan programs. SBA has achieved this

growth while reducing program costs and taxpayer-provided

subsidies. H.R. 1332 could potentially reverse this success

by reintroducing or increasing taxpayer-funded subsidies for

small business loan programs. The Administration therefore

cannot support House passage of H.R. 1332 unless it is

amended to delete provisions that would increase these

subsidies and the need for appropriations and/or increased

fees on other loan applicants.

The Administration also opposes provisions in the bill that

would: (1) duplicate rural lending activities currently

performed by the Department of Agriculture; (2) have SBA

refinance private debt, as Federally-backed credit should not

supplant private loans; and (3) raise constitutional

questions by establishing race or gender-based preferences

without presenting a strong basis in evidence that these

preferences meet constitutional, standards. The

Administration urges Congress to strike these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556. This bill strikes the correct balance between the need to increase foreign direct investment and national security.

Let me first make clear that I am a strong supporter of foreign direct investment, which represents the insourcing of capital and local jobs to America. The congressional district that I am pleased to represent has had several manufacturing facilities that have benefited, and some have been saved as a direct result of foreign direct investment. This includes investment from businesses located in Great Britain, Sweden, Canada, Israel, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil and Italy. Even a Chinese enterprise bought a nonsecurity-sensitive manufacturing facility in my congressional district at a time when no other financing was available.

These investments have been critical for saving and creating jobs in the 16th District of Illinois. While I very much am interested in maintaining full foreign direct investments, I recognize it is important for our national security to regulate the types of businesses that receive such investment.

The bill before us ensures us that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, will conduct an extended review when a foreign government tries to purchase a company within the United States. The bill also mandates greater transparency by ensuring that Congress is informed of a CFIUS investigation in a timely manner.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of final passage.

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and Iraq.

Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other Members of Congress.

The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq.

The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, ``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.''

Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this resolution.

We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I find it ironic. What we are trying to do over here is to save the taxpayers what could be up to $15 million, and we are accused of wasting the time and taxes of the American people by engaging in a debate to save $15 million.

The purpose of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the people on this side, is to save money. This whole debate is about saving money. This could be easily resolved if the Speaker of the House would say: I am willing to take the smaller aircraft to land halfway in Kansas or Illinois or anywhere else, fuel up again, and head on to San Francisco. That would probably save the taxpayers $10 million. It would be a much smaller aircraft, and it would inconvenience her by about an hour to 1\1/2\ hours. This is what this is all about.

But what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that those of us who are engaging in debate, this is the type of debate that the American people want because it is the type of debate that saves them money. It is all about saving the taxpayers' money. If this is not the debate that should take place, I really don't know what should take place.

I will yield, absolutely. But first I want to ask you a question because you didn't yield to me.

You accused the Republicans of being a do-nothing Congress. The last 3 days Members of Congress have been here with all the lights burning. That costs more money. We got out yesterday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon for six suspension votes, which if the Republicans were in control, we could have done in 3 hours. It took you 3 days.

And you know what, Mr. Chairman? I have heard complaints coming even from the Democratic side that they cannot understand what this calendar is all about because they can't see their children, they can't get back home to be with their constituents, and they wonder why they are here in the city of Washington debating for the last 3 days what could have taken place in 2 hours.

Of course I will yield.

I understand.

Reclaiming my time, the American people have a right to know what is in the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, getting out at 2 o'clock in the afternoon--when the Republicans were in control, we were here at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, midnight, 2 or 3 days a week, working away on all the issues. I just find it absolutely ironic that the new Congress, intent upon coming to Washington, trying to change all the rules, to change everything, says, come back and work 3 days on six bills that could take 1 hour.

Madam Speaker, the congressional district I represent is home to two of the finest home style, thick-sliced potato chips manufacturers in the country, Mrs. Fisher's and Ole Salty's. I am pleased today to honor Mrs. Fisher's on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Mrs. Fisher's was founded in Rockford, Illinois in 1932 by Mrs. Ethel Fisher. Eugene and Ethel Fisher began cooking potato chips in their basement on a two burner wash stove in order to make extra income during the Depression. From this humble beginning, Mrs. Fisher's now ships its product throughout the entire United States and is one of oldest chip manufacturers in the Midwest.

Mrs. Fisher's is currently owned and operated by the DiVenti family, who were employees of Mrs. Fisher's at the time they purchased the company. Under the ownership of the DiVenti family, Mrs. Fisher's now employs 13 full time workers and has three shipping routes that make daily deliveries to Dixon, Rochelle, Freeport, Crystal Lake, and Janesville, Wisconsin.

Generations of individuals in northern Illinois have grown up with Mrs. Fisher's, and I commend the DiVenti family for carrying on the great Fisher's tradition.