Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a bill that compels taxpayers to support the destruction of early human life.

This legislation, which calls for taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, is unnecessary.

First, it is already legal to conduct research on human embryos with private or State funds. It is also legal to conduct research on embryonic stem cell lines that come from human embryos already destroyed prior to August 9 of 2001. Thus, the debate today is not aimed at stopping embryonic stem cell research; it is aimed at prohibiting the Federal funding of it because it is so controversial.

Second, plenty of more successful alternatives of non-embryonic stem cell research already exist and are treating

patients every day. Despite a quarter-century's research in mouse embryonic stem cells and 7 years in human variety, embryonic stem cells have yet to yield any successful clinical trials in humans. Adult stem cells, however, have treated patients suffering from 72 different diseases in published clinical applications. Researchers have also achieved similar results with stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, treating more than 70 different types of diseases.

And just last week, Wake Forest and Harvard University announced breakthrough technology in amniotic fluids.

In May of 2006, a poll conducted by the International Communications Research showed 48 percent of Americans oppose Federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and only 39 percent support such funding.

I believe the most effective way to counter disease in the long run is to support research that will prevent the occurrence of the disease. That is why I strongly supported efforts in 1998 to double the funding for the National Institutes of Health, which we accomplished over a 5- year period of time. We should continue to prioritize that research and continue to work on the stem cell research that does not involve the taking of the human life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Rockford, IL. The Burpee museum is a remarkable cultural institution that has received two prestigious American Association of Museum-AAM-Awards. Both of these awards are for the Jane: Diary of a Dinosaur exhibit at the museum, which opened to outstanding reviews in June 2005.

The museum submitted entries in two categories: Overall Exhibit Excellence and the MUSE Award for the use of media and technology in the Jane exhibit. Burpee received the Exhibit Excellence Award, which is considered the museum profession's highest honor. It also received an Honorable Mention MUSE award for Jane's interactive Meet the Researcher video.

Lew Crampton, Burpee president and CEO, accepted the awards at the AAM's 100th International Conference in Boston in the company of 7,000 other museum profession delegates from around the world. Judges who presented the awards to Mr. Crampton praised Burpee, stating the ``whole project was so solid . . . and you just did everything right . . . your work could and should serve as a model to other institutions (including much larger ones) as a way to create an excellent exhibit.''

Jane's exhibit is a reflection of the dedication and professional excellence that is demonstrated by the personnel at Burpee. Burpee's personnel overcame three daunting tasks in order to successfully create the exhibit. First, after transporting Jane from Montana to the museum lab, Jane's 66 million-year-old bones were carefully removed from the rocks in which they were embedded. Second, identifying Jane's place in the dinosaur family tree presented a unique challenge because many scientists consulted in the process disagreed on this matter. Finally, in the midst of the first two tasks, Burpee's personnel had to consider how to create an exhibit that would be able to bridge the gap between science education and family enjoyment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my recognition and support of the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Rockford, IL. Since its founding in May of 1942 as a part of the Works Progress Administration, the mission of Burpee has been to inspire all people to engage in a lifetime of learning about the natural world, and they have been very successful in doing so. To this day, Burpee reaches out to the public through its creative event programming and excellent education offerings for educators, families, and other members of the local community. Burpee is a prime example for other cultural institutions across the country, and I am honored to recognize the museum and its personnel here today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support for the Northern Border Travel Facilitation Act. As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I held a November 17, 2005, hearing on the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). WHTI may mandate the use of a passport for all travel between the United States and Canada as early as January 1, 2008. In 2003 alone, there were 34.5 million visits by Canadians to the U.S., which had a $10.9 billion impact on our economy. Thus, if handled incorrectly, the WHTI travel document requirements could have serious detrimental effect on the United States economy.

Because of the cost and lack of speed in using a passport for frequent travelers across the U.S.-Canadian Border, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has approved other forms of travel documents for U.S. citizens to comply with WHTI that are not available to Canadian citizens. This means that Canadian citizens have no current options other than to use a passport at border crossings to comply with WHTI requirements.

I believe that, in certain circumstances, Canadian provincial driver's licenses and U.S. state driver's licenses should be accepted as border crossing documents. I also believe that when children accompany a legal guardian across the United States-Canadian border, they should not have to provide separate travel documents from their guardian. After all, a parent should not have to suffer economic loss to verify that their three year old is not a terrorist. The Northern Border Travel Facilitation Act will accomplish both of these objectives.

Madam Speaker, it was a scene reminiscent of the courtroom scene when Scout was asked by the pastor to stand up when her father was leaving the courtroom in To Kill a Mockingbird. When Atticus Finch got up to leave, the pastor turned to Scout and said, ``Scout, your father is leaving the courtroom. Please stand.'' And everybody stood.

I was a freshman in 1993. Henry Hyde, for some reason procedurally had been unable to offer his Hyde amendment. William Natcher from Kentucky, who was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when there was tremendous opposition to Mr. Hyde getting the Hyde amendment through, and he needed unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Natcher stood up and said, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois wishes to offer a unanimous consent motion with which I agree heartily. At that point Mr. Natcher was looking at everybody on the floor, and Henry Hyde got up, and was allowed to offer that amendment, without objection.

It was indeed the scene from To Kill a Mockingbird, because were it not for the significance and importance and now the posterity that he will leave with this magnificent gentleman from Illinois, that unanimous consent never would have been honored by this body.

We don't have a lot of Henry Hydes around anymore. This place is less for that. But one thing we will always have as he leaves this body, being the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, is that spirit, that wit, that always gave rise to the fact that when in the midst of Members of Congress, somebody yelled out the name ``Congressman,'' we all would turn and look at Henry Hyde.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for finalizing action on this important bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States. I also want to commend the other body for working with us to get this bill over the finish line.

This bill should actually be renamed the Small Business Exporters Act of 2006. I am pleased that S. 3938 retains many of the key small business enhancements that I have advocated for many years. S. 3938 restores a viable Small Business Division and creates a Small Business Committee within Ex-Im to better serve the needs of small exporters. This legislation bill also enhances the Bank's delegated loan authority with respect to medium-term transactions by private lenders for small businesses. This is one key tool to help Ex-Im reach and exceed its 20 percent statutory mandate for small businesses.

S. 3938 retains the House provision designating adequate staff in each of the Bank's operating divisions to specialize in the needs of small business exporters. Furthermore, these small business specialists will have the authority under appropriate guidelines to approve loan, guarantee and insurance applications for small business exporters. While the final language contains a non-binding ``sense of Congress'' recommendation that these small business specialists have this authority up to $10 million, I strongly urge the Bank to make this a reality. Adequately implemented, this provision will help small business exporters overcome the obstacles of the historically slow internal approval process within the Ex-Im Bank.

These small business specialists will also serve as members of the Small Business Committee at the Bank. These small business specialists will be on the front line of assisting small business and will have first-hand knowledge of Ex-Im products that work and what needs to be changed.

Finally, I am pleased that the leaders of the House Financial Services Committee retained the Senate provision that allows the Senior Vice President for Small Business at the Bank

to intervene in applications from small businesses that appear on their way towards denial. This gives small business exporters one last crack at the bat to see what can be done to get an application approved.

I was pleased to work with many of the industry groups who support Ex-Im Bank, particularly the Small Business Exporters Association, in the development of the small business provisions in S. 3938. They are supportive of these provisions.

Madam Speaker, passage of S. 3938 will send a powerful positive signal to small business exporters around the nation that there will be internal advocates for them within the Bank from the time they enter the door until the time they exit with a decision. With these new legislative enhancements to Ex-Im's charter, small business exporters will have strong shoulders to stand on to win trade deals overseas. I urge the adoption of S. 3938.

Mr. Speaker, Lynette Bisconti is a courageous young woman who rejoiced when she discovered she was pregnant, only to soon learn she had breast cancer. Six physicians told her to terminate the pregnancy. Thankfully, she ignored the advice of these physicians and delivered a healthy baby boy. Her inspiring story is set forth in the attached excerpt from a recent national magazine article.

[From the Family Circle Magazine Oct. 2006]

``We Fought Back''

(By Sandra Gordon)

Lynette was overjoyed late in 1997 when she learned she was

pregnant. But a month later that happiness turned to

heartache. After having surgery to remove what was presumed

to be a benign cyst on her left breast, she was told she had

cancer. ``The doctors said that the hormones my body was

producing would likely fuel the cancer, and that I had to

terminate the pregnancy immediately to save my own life,''

she says. Lynette spent the next few days wrestling with the

dilemma of what to do and at the same time began to

experience bleeding that made her think she might be

miscarrying.

When she went in for an ultrasound, the obstetrician told

her, ``This little guy is hanging on.'' Lynette's mind was

made up in that moment. ``My heart leapt,'' says Lynette. ``I

knew that no matter what, no matter how bad it got, my baby

and I would get through this together.''

Biggest hurdle: Finding physicians who respected her

decision. Three weeks after her diagnosis Lynette had a

mastectomy. ``The lab report was bad. I had an aggressive

cancer that had spread to several lymph nodes. I was told

that if I went ahead with chemotherapy, which was the next

step, my baby might die or be brain damaged.'' Six other

physicians she consulted said the same thing: She had to

terminate her pregnancy and get into chemotherapy

immediately. ``I left every visit crying,'' she says.

After a truly agonizing first trimester, Lynette got a

referral from a family friend that

led her to the Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), in

Zion, Illinois, which was 75 miles from her home in Menomonee

Falls, Wisconsin. ``At the CTCA I met doctors and medical

personnel who treated me with respect and compassion.''

Advice to others: If you're not getting the answers you

want, keep searching. While going to see more than six

doctors may seem crazy, it might be necessary, says Lynette.

She was not satisfied until she found a place that would

treat her the way she wanted to be treated. She decided to go

with fractionated-dose chemotherapy (smaller doses of chemo

over a greater length of time), which was considered gentler

for both her and her unborn baby. ``They also allowed me to

refuse antinausea medication and steroids, to avoid exposing

my baby to those drugs,'' she says.

Life goes on: Lynette gave birth to a healthy baby boy on

August 31, 1998. ``When I held Frankie for the first time, I

just thought, We did it!'' Frankie continues to thrive and

Lynette has been in remission for eight years now.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6159) to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill simply extends all of the programs, including pilot programs, the authorities or provisions of the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act, until February 2 of 2007.

Currently, the programs and authorities of the SBA expire in September on Saturday, September 30. Passage of this bill will continue to give the committee the time necessary to work on a more comprehensive SBA reauthorization during the rest of this session.

Many of the programs of the SBA do not operate under a direct appropriation. This includes the 7(a) general business loan guarantee program; the Certified Development Company program; and the Small Business Investment Company program. Passage of this bill will make it absolutely certain that there is no legal ambiguity as to whether or not the Federal Government can continue to guarantee these critical loans and debenture programs during the period of time covered by a continuing resolution.

In addition, this bill would extend the authority of the SBA to operate several smaller programs including grants to Small Business Development Centers to participate in the Drug-Free Workplace program; sustainability funding for Women Business Centers; a pre-disaster mitigation pilot program; the New Markets Venture Capital program; and BusinessLinc. It would also extend SBA's cosponsorship and gift authority, which enables the SBA to accept private donations to help put on events or print publications, thus saving the taxpayers precious dollars.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite simple. It contains the exact same language, with only the dates changed, that was signed into law four times in the 108th Congress when this House confronted the same problem 2 years ago in attempting to pass a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill into law. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse today for nearly the same reasons.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6159 so that our Nation's small businesses will see no interruption of service from the SBA over the next 4 months while Congress completes its work for the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further people that are going to be speaking, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Federal Prison Industries takes jobs away from law-abiding citizens of this nation. Many people are concerned about their future job security or where their next job will come from. If it is within one of the more than 250 industries FPI already is in, watch out!

We all understand the need to control a potentially violent prison population. This bill points to a better way to train prisoners for real jobs in the outside world than to have them unfairly compete against small businesses for the precious few contracts with the Federal Government. It will also allow FPI to manufacture products that are no longer made in America and to also perform work in support of non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity.

The jobs of law-abiding citizens--the forgotten Americans--who get up every day, dress their kids for school, and set off for a long hard day of work should not be sacrificed for convicted felons. The unintended and indirect message from FPI to the forgotten American is that if you want a job, commit a crime. That's not the American way! Some of my small business constituents from northern Illinois have had difficulty in selling to the Federal Government because of the unfair competition from FPI.

I support H.R. 2965 because it will simply require that FPI compete like every other business for contracts with the Federal Government. FPI already has many advantages off the bat, such as a captive below minimum wage work force and no health care, worker's compensation or other benefits to pay for. Even with these advantages, small businesses still believe they can beat FPI because various government agencies have long complained about the quality and timeliness of delivery of products from FPI.

Mr. Chairman, let's allow small businesses to compete against FPI. We should convey the message to the forgotten American that if you play by the rules, you have a fair shot at all the opportunities this society has to offer. Convicted felons should not receive better treatment than law-abiding citizens. I urge a ``yes'' vote on FPI and a ``no'' vote on any amendment that weakens this well-thought out bill.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to join in praising Chairmen Oxley and Pryce for the tremendous work that they have done on reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever we need the Ex-Im Bank. With the collapse of the Doha round of the WTO,

other nations will continue to vigorously use their government- sponsored export credit agencies to promote their exports. The unfortunate reality is that American companies often win export sales on quality and price only to later lose because their competitors were able to obtain faster, less expensive export credit funded by other countries. Supporting this bill will ensure that an attractive foreign financing package will not be the deciding factor in winning an export opportunity. Defeating the bill will amount to unilateral disarmament in global trade.

While Ex-Im Bank supports large business deals, this bill should actually be renamed the Small Business Exporters Acts of 2006. H.R. 5068 restores a viable small business division and creates a Small Business Committee within Ex-Im Bank to better serve the needs of America's small exporters. The legislation also enhances the bank's delegated loan authority with respect to medium-term transactions by private lenders for small businesses.

This is one key tool to help Ex-Im reach and exceed its 20 percent statutory mandate for small businesses.

The manager's amendment contains further improvements to the bill to make small business truly the focus of the bank. This reform designates adequate staff at each of the bank's operating divisions to specialize in the needs of small business exporters. This staff will also be jointly supervised by the Small Business Division. Furthermore, these small business specialists will have the authority under appropriate guidelines to approve loan guarantee and insurance applications of up to $10 million. This provision will help small business exporters overcome the obstacles of the slow internal approval process within Ex- Im Bank.

Finally, the manager's amendment automatically appoints these small business specialists to serve as members of the Small Business Committee at the bank. These small business specialists will be on the front line of assisting small business and will have firsthand knowledge of Ex-Im products at work and what needs to be changed.

I was pleased to work with many of the industry groups which support Ex-Im Bank, particularly the Small Business Exporters Association, in the development of the small business provisions in H.R. 5068.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill will send a powerful positive signal to small business exporters around the Nation that there will be internal advocates for them within the bank from the time they enter the door until the time they exit with a decision. With these new legislative enhancements to Ex-Im's charter, small business exporters will have strong shoulders to stand on to win trade deals overseas.

I urge the adoption of H.R. 5068.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday was the last day in office for Hector Barreto, the second-longest serving SBA Administrator in its 53- year history. Last week, there was a reception in honor of former Administrator Barreto with a broad spectrum of the small business community in Washington in attendance. This reflected well upon Mr. Barreto and his leadership style to bring people together of diverse interests and backgrounds.

I don't know how Mr. Barreto put up with being in Washington for these past 5 years. I'm proud to be associated with Mr. Barreto and where he has taken the SBA to serve more small businesses than ever before in the history of the agency. I'm also proud to say that Mr. Barreto and I have similar backgrounds, growing up in the family restaurant business in the Midwest.

It's amazing to see what has happened during the tenure of Mr. Barreto as Administrator of the SBA. Mr. Barreto was confirmed by the Senate and then sworn into office on July 25, 2001. Several weeks later, our Nation was hit by the awful terrorist attacks on September 11. More Americans were killed in 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. Mr. Barreto was just getting used to his new job responsibilities and this terrible tragedy struck America. Administrator Barreto rose up to the challenge by extending Economic Injury Disaster loans to small businesses all across America regardless of their proximity to the locations of the actual terrorist attacks. The terrorists sought to devastate our economy by tearing down the World Trade Center and disrupting air travel but they did not count on the resiliency of the small business sector and the American people. More than 10,000 small businesses across the Nation employing 166,000 workers were helped with over $1 billion in 9/11 SBA disaster loans.

If that wasn't enough, Mr. Barreto achieved great results in other programs of the SBA. Between 2000 and 2005, the SBA more than doubled the number of loans made through its main business loan guarantee programs. The dollar volume also dramatically increased--in 7(a) by nearly 40 percent and in the 504 program by threefold. And after a series of programmatic shut-downs and curtailments, I joined with Mr. Barreto in making the historic decision in late 2004 to finally get the 7(a) program off the rollercoaster of the appropriations process and have it funded entirely through user fees just like the 504 and the SBIC program. Now, the 7(a) program is going like gangbusters, serving record numbers ,of small businesses throughout all demographic groups, as compared to when it was receiving a loan subsidy.

There has also been a steady increase in the number of individuals receiving technical assistance, education, and counseling through the SBA and its resource partners. Also, as a result of active engagement between the SBA and Federal agencies, Federal procurement dollars going to small businesses are at an all-time high. All this was accomplished while transforming the SBA into an agency to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Change is hard but Mr. Barreto made the courageous decision to have the SBA operate more like the private sector than a bureaucracy. Doing more with less should be praised. not condemned, particularly in this tough budget environment.

Then, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita. and Wilma violently struck the gulf coast last year. It was as if a swath of complete devastation 100 miles wide ripped through our country from Boston to Chicago. Again. Administrator Barreto and his team in the Office of Disaster Assistance came through despite enormous obstacles placed in their path, including not being able to really get to the areas of deepest destruction until well after a month after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans. The SBA and Administrator Barreto in particular took many below-the-belt political potshots

along the way. I know when a person's integrity has been unfairly questioned, and I had to stand up to defend a decent and honorable man. I was proud to stand with Mr. Barreto last December in the press conference to put some context and additional facts into a very complicated situation.

Just as a side note, it is very interesting to me that the media is not reporting that the SBA thus far has approved a record amount of over $10 billion in disaster loans to more than 152,000 Gulf States residents, representing an accomplishment 2\1/2\ times greater than the Nation's previous largest disaster--and all done at a faster pace. That is something to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this brief opportunity to once again thank Mr. Barreto for his leadership; for his friendship; and for his service to our country. Our Nation's small business community is better for Mr. Barreto's tenure as the second longest serving SBA Administrator in history. The new SBA Administrator, Steve Preston, has some fairly big shoes to fill.

Freda and I wish Hector Barreto and his family all the best in his new endeavor as the new national chairman of the Latino Coalition. I am confident that Mr. Barreto will never forget his small business roots.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two Northern Illinois University, NIU, law students, Mary Riley and Cathryn Streeter, who placed second in the Nation at the 2005 Law Student Tax Challenge. This event was sponsored by the Young Lawyers Forum of the American Bar Association's Section of Taxation. Coached by Northern Illinois Law Professor Dan Schneider, the third-year law students researched a real-life, tax-planning problem and submitted their analysis and solution for judging. After being selected as semi- finalists from a pool of 36 entries, Ms. Riley and Ms. Streeter traveled to San Diego to present both oral and written arguments in front of a panel of distinguished tax lawyers, which included the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service.

Established in 1895 by an act of the Illinois General Assembly, Northern Illinois State Normal School opened its doors to students in September 1899. In July 1957, after 58 years of physical growth and expansion in academic programs, Northern Illinois State College became Northern Illinois University by action of the 70th General Assembly. In August of 1979 the university was authorized to acquire the College of Law, which had originally been founded in 1975 by Lewis University.

Today Northern Illinois University offers pro!ams to more than 23,000 students in the basic disciplines, the arts, and the professions through courses conducted on the main campus in DeKalb and at regional sites throughout Northern Illinois. The university's academic work is organized under the College of Business, Education, Engineering and Engineering Technology, Health and Human Sciences, Law, Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Visual and Performing Arts, in addition to the Graduate School.

As the only public law school in the greater Chicago area, NIU Law has previously ranked first in the Nation for government placement,

according to U.S. News and World Report. Nearly one-third of its graduates choose a career in public interest, including more than 50 alumni in the judiciary--a truly remarkable accomplishment for a law school with less than 3,000 graduates. In honor of its commitment to public service, NIU law received the 2001 Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service Award.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate NIU for its outstanding performance at the Law Student Tax Challenge. NIU should be extremely proud of this tremendous accomplishment, and I am honored to recognize its students and faculty here today.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustrations with the Mexican border that drove my good friend, Representative Ted Poe, to offer this amendment. But this amendment is a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) applies to all air, sea, and land entries into the United States by January 1, 2008. There is a vast difference between the Mexican and Canadian land borders. As Chairman of the Canadian-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I know that requiring everyone crossing the U.S.-Canadian border to have a passport is unrealistic, would devastate our economy, and would divert precious limited resources away from prosecuting true threats to our national security. Just yesterday, I met with a group of Canadian Members of Parliament from Alberta visiting Washington, DC who once again raised this issue as the top irritant in our bilateral relations.

Only 40 percent of Canadians and 20 percent of Americans have passports. I am not a fan of WHTI. But at least it attempts to solve the conundrum of improving border crossing documents without requiring everyone to spend $97 to purchase a passport that takes six to eight weeks to get delivered. Already, the rumors that a passport is required for Canadians to drive into the United States have cost our economy over half a billion dollars. It also obviously affects the Canadian economy. One planned multi-million dollar resort complex in British Columbia was scrubbed based on the threat of a passport requirement.

Yes, it's true that the Canadians are more liberal with their immigration and asylum policies than we are. But I am satisfied that the Canadians are addressing border security in a responsible fashion. With the new Conservative government in power in Canada, I am more confident that they will continue to fix the problems in this area left undone by the previous Liberal government.

Finally, it's important to remember that no 9/11 terrorist came from Canada. In the only documented case from Canada--the Millennium bomber--the terrorist was caught by our border officials not because of documentation problems but because of human intuition. Some assert that Canada has at least 50 terror groups present and strongly infer Canada's alleged incompetence for not rounding up these individuals. Yet, they fail to recognize that if these individuals do nothing illegal, you can't arrest or deport people indiscriminately. U.S. authorities believe that there are somewhere between 50 and 100 Hamas and Hezbollah operatives in America and that al-Qaida sleeper cells are believed to be operating in 40 states, awaiting orders and funding for new attacks on U.S. soil. Yet, we haven't arrested these people. Why should Canada be held to a different standard?

When there is evidence of terrorist activity, the Canadians act. Earlier this month, the Royal Mounted Police captured the latest terrorist cell inside Canada, thanks in part to good cooperation with U.S. law enforcement officials, and have acted forcefully and effectively in intercepting these and other terrorists before they can enter into the United States. This is where our efforts should be directed, not in forcing U.S. schoolchildren to obtain a passport simply to play in a Pee-Wee hockey tournament in Thunder Bay. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Poe amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the 7(a) program at the Small Business Administration has operated on full cylinders, breaking record after record of program usage throughout all demographic and regional groups.

Look at this chart and look at the number of 7(a) loan approvals. It is going off the charts ever since the subsidy got removed. In fact, there have been more 7(a) loans made thus far in the 9 months of fiscal year 2006 than in all of fiscal year 2001. By removing the 7(a) loan subsidy from the uncertainties of the annual appropriations process, this has produced a stable and predictable program.

When the 7(a) program has subsidies, then it is subjected to yearly shutdowns when there is not enough money, as what happened in December of 2003. When the subsidies get removed and taxpayers save $40 to $100 million a year, no shutdown will ever occur because the program will never run out of money. So why would you want to subject a good program to a shutdown by running out of money? It simply does not make sense.

The noble intent of the Velazquez amendment is to reestablish a lower 7(a) fee structure exactly as it existed in 2003 and 2004. However, with a higher 7(a) program level, an appropriation of $168 million would be required, according to the SBA. The $40 million in the Velazquez amendment would not result in the cutting of any fees to small businesses. The Velazquez amendment directs the funds to pay for the salaries and expenses of the employees at the SBA who work in the business loan division, not to the 7(a) business loan subsidy account.

This amendment would not help any small business owner or lender. It does not make sense to take a program and ask the taxpayers to dig into their pockets for $40 million to $100 million a year on a bill that does not do anything. It saves no money whatsoever, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.

Three years ago, I was in favor of this subsidy; and then I found out one thing: To get rid of the subsidy, to save the taxpayers $40 to $100 million a year, to have stability in the program costs 10 bucks a month per loan for the loans of under $150,000. You tell me, what small businessman cannot afford an extra $10 a month just to have stability in the program and to know that the program will never run out of money?

And why are we doing this? You got me. It does not make sense. The small business owner has no legal or constitutional right to a subsidized loan by the rest of the taxpayers in this country. What kind of an entrepreneurial thing is that?

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I could address the statement made by my colleague from New York where she said up-front fees can exceed $50,000, the issue is how much of an increase would there be if we get the subsidy eliminated? Well, on a $1.5 million loan, the biggest increase would be $3,500, and over a period of 10 to 20 years, that sum is almost negligible.

On loans over $700,000, the fees have never changed, and what is going on with the total amount of the dollar loan is the SBA is concentrating on small businesses. It is the small businesses themselves that are asking for the dollar amount. They are the ones that are driving this. So I think it is extremely important that the Small Business Administration concentrate on giving these loans to the real small businesses. In fact, those that are at $1.5 million, I am sure they can afford an extra $3,500 over the course of the next 10 to 15 years.

Now, small firms received $160 million less and 1,000 fewer loans through the 7(a) program from the first half of fiscal year 2006 as compared to the same time the previous year. But this mixes apples and oranges. Lending under $150,000, regardless of the exact size of the small business, is down slightly from FY 2005 levels, but it is slightly higher than the FY 2004 levels when there was no loan subsidy and lower fees.

In comparing year-to-date figures, there were more than 12,300 smaller loans made worth $212 million in fiscal year 2006 versus fiscal year 2004 in the under-$150,000 category. So we got rid of the loan subsidy and the volume goes up.

This is a ``no'' vote. It is an easy ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to come down to the floor this morning to show my strong support for my friend and our Speaker, Denny Hastert. This is a man of intense integrity, a man of great character, a man who has worked tirelessly to bring honor and as much unity as possible to this institution.

When our former Speaker and successors resigned, we went to Denny to be our Speaker because he was the right man for the job. He has never let us down. He set the standard for integrity. I would encourage ABC, who thinks it knows truth in its own definition and probably does, I would encourage them to tell the truth and to apologize to the American people for their assault upon the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to H. Con. Res. 390, a resolution I introduced on April 26, 2006.

We are currently living in an environment where prevention of terrorism is at the forefront of the American mind. It is important to remember that although the U.S. dollar is not typically viewed as a vessel of major catastrophic events, mass counterfeiting of the dollar will undermine the U.S. economy and ultimately destroy the security of our Nation. We have come a long way in protecting our highly visible assets since September 11, 2001. Now we must also extend that to our currency.

H. Con. Res. 390 calls upon the U.S. government to ensure the protection of the U.S. dollar and defend its integrity throughout the world. Our Nation must deter counterfeiting of our currency in order to preserve the strength of the U.S. dollar and protect America from a economic disaster.

Recent global politics illustrate the necessity of H. Con. Res. 390. A few months ago, the United States accused the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) of counterfeiting the U.S. dollar. In retaliation, North Korea claimed that the CIA had counterfeited the U.S. dollar and planted the counterfeit bills in North Korea. Despite North Korea's claim of innocence, it is estimated that at least $45 million counterfeit U.S. dollar are in circulation and have originated from North Korea.

A timely CRS report released March 22, 2006, correctly states that any act of counterfeiting the U.S. dollar is a direct attack on the United States. We must not allow our adversaries the option of using counterfeit U.S. dollars to cause harm against our Nation or economy. That is why H. Con. Res. 390 is so necessary.

This is not just a threat against the United States. The U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency. Undermining the value of the dollar will negatively affect our allies and the nations that are dependent on our currency. Counterfeiting of the U.S. dollar weakens our own ability to protect the U.S. and also pads the arsenals of those who wish to engineer our destruction.

It is time to step up and put a stop to the obvious counterfeiting of the U.S. dollar by foreign nations. I am proud to introduce H. Con. Res. 390 in the House, and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this measure. We must protect our most important national asset--the U.S. dollar.